Is the United States a Threat

[RGacky3]

To the rest of the world? Considering its History?

[spartan]

The USA was founded by Capitalists for Capitalists so i dont really see how they are a threat to Capitalists and Capitalism seeing how it is the Capitalists who tell the USA where to invade next to get lots of resources for greedy Americans.

All that shit you here about the founding fathers and there ideals is just that: SHIT!

[Everyday Anarchy]

I wouldn't say its so much of a threat as it used to be.
Capitalist nations aren't fighting each other to increase markets anymore, but rather we're witnessing a kind of alliance of capitalist nations (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, IMF, EU, etc).

[hajduk]

any state whitch capitalist use for own goals is a threat

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:59 pm
To the rest of the world? Considering its History?
the usa would probably argue that other countries are dependent on it, but i think it's certainly a threat to those capitalist countries that reject it's model. I think its a bigger threat to Iran than it is to the UK or Australia, for example.

[pusher robot]

Is the question "Is the United States a Threat" (addressed) to capitalists? Or "Is the United States a Threat to Capitalists?"

Either way, while I see threats coming from any sufficiently large and powerful state, (i.e., the state that has the power to give me what I want has also the power to take it away) the U.S. is probably the least intrusive available that isn't totally dysfunctional.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 02:38 pm
Is the question "Is the United States a Threat" (addressed) to capitalists? Or "Is the United States a Threat to Capitalists?"

Either way, while I see threats coming from any sufficiently large and powerful state, (i.e., the state that has the power to give me what I want has also the power to take it away) the U.S. is probably the least intrusive available that isn't totally dysfunctional.
The united states isnt the least dysfunctional, it simply has the most economic power which differs massively to being functional towards the interests of its people.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 02:38 pm
Is the question "Is the United States a Threat" (addressed) to capitalists? Or "Is the United States a Threat to Capitalists?"

Either way, while I see threats coming from any sufficiently large and powerful state, (i.e., the state that has the power to give me what I want has also the power to take it away) the U.S. is probably the least intrusive available that isn't totally dysfunctional.
Use context clues:

he gives two direct objects, "TO Capitalists" and "To the rest of the world?"

Withotu reading the post, it seems like he is askign if it is a threat to capitalists. But it is clear that he is instead asking capitalists, "Is the U.S. a threat to the rest of the world?"

To respond to your post: the U.S. is OBVIOUSLY a threat to the rest of the world. Just look at the intervention in south america and the middle east, even ignoring the cold war bullshit. The U.S. loves destabilizing regions and spreading weapons so that others will fight with each other. But if that's not a threat, then maybe you're right.

[pusher robot]

The united states isnt the least dysfunctional



Did I say that it was? Why do you argue points I never made?

[pusher robot]

The U.S. is not currently a threat to me, as I explained - or at least, the smallest threat.

It is quite clearly a threat to authoritarian, nationalist, backwards, violent, and primitivist regions, especially ones that try to hurt or threaten harm.

And that's fine with me, personally. I believe in moving humanity forward.

You guys are so inconsistent. On the one hand, the USSR was a great example of communism's ability to industrialize. On the other hand, it was a corrupt authoritarian state that should not be counted as an example of actual communism. On the third hand, even though it was a corrupt authoritarian state, the U.S. was on the wrong side of the cold war.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 05:49 pm

The united states isnt the least dysfunctional



Did I say that it was? Why do you argue points I never made?
you said it was 'least intrusive' and 'least dysfunctional' in tandem. By the rationale i provided, this statement is false.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 05:57 pm
It is quite clearly a threat to authoritarian, nationalist, backwards, violent, and primitivist regions, especially ones that try to hurt or threaten harm.
Apparently not, with its destruction of the humanist Allende regime and the installment of the Pinochet Junta.

[ontheliberalleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:09 pm
The USA was founded by Capitalists for Capitalists so i dont really see how they are a threat to Capitalists and Capitalism seeing how it is the Capitalists who tell the USA where to invade next to get lots of resources for greedy Americans.

All that shit you here about the founding fathers and there ideals is just that: SHIT!
Really? Thomas Jefferson's idyllic vision of a rural, small farm based form of agricultural, self sustaining utopia doesn't seem like an ideal? The Founding Fathers Checks and Balances set in order to make the Republic permanent? The Constitution of the United States, investing power in the people, subject to the Constitution? This doesn't seem like a vision for an ideal society to you?

Grow up, and read a book.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+October 26, 2007 08:10 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ October 26, 2007 08:10 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 10:09 pm
The USA was founded by Capitalists for Capitalists so i dont really see how they are a threat to Capitalists and Capitalism seeing how it is the Capitalists who tell the USA where to invade next to get lots of resources for greedy Americans.

All that shit you here about the founding fathers and there ideals is just that: SHIT!
Really? Thomas Jefferson's idyllic vision of a rural, small farm based form of agricultural, self sustaining utopia doesn't seem like an ideal? The Founding Fathers Checks and Balances set in order to make the Republic permanent? The Constitution of the United States, investing power in the people, subject to the Constitution? This doesn't seem like a vision for an ideal society to you?

Grow up, and read a book. [/b]
Not really. A ot f the drafters off the constitution had their own dreams of what they would like to happen. But the constituiton itself is a compromise document hammered out by several competing factions to fulfill certain necessities at the time.

First and foremost it wasn't about popular sovereignty or rights at all. The bulk of the constitution and the debate and politiking behind it was about how to strengthen the federal Government while not upsetting the state Governments in light of the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

The rest of it again of course was about compromise. There were some democratic factions at the constitutional convention and other more aristocratic ones. Hence the constitution was silent on franchise, leaving it up to the states. Of course in just about all the states only white males with property could vote, so it wasn't quite popular sovereignty yet. Also along thsoe lines there was the electoral College to choose the President and the state elites picking the Senators, both designed to tame any democratic features, and also I believe to keep the constitution as close to the British system of Government as they could reasonably manage. It is often forgotten these days, but those who drafted the US constitution were, despite their rather hostile attitude to Britain, using the constitutional pracitces there as their model.

I'll put a specifically Marxist spin on it here to finish off. The American revolution left the United States in a new position whereby the bourgoisie had definite dominance, rather than playing off against the feudal aristocracy as they previously had. Under such circumstances, they wanted to alter the British model slightly to adapt to this. Hence the King became the President chosen by a committee of dominant memebrs of their class. The House Of Lords became a senate chosen by the state elite. And the House Of Commons, which was by this stage becoming dominated by the bourgoisie in Britain too was left fairly untouched, the new House of Representatives was democratised slightly to weaken the aristocracy but with the property qualifications left safely intact just to be on the safe side.

[ontheliberalleft]

Even the French Revolution didn't see popular sovereignty until 1848. What I am saying (And I'm not advocating the US model here) is that despite what Spartan said, the US Founding Fathers did have ideals and indeed many had noble principles. The foundation of checks and balances for one. The formation of a system where disagreements were commonplace but the resolution of disagreements didn't end in bloodshed. In the context of the time, it was a massive leap for human kind and political theory as we know it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:30 pm
Even the French Revolution didn't see popular sovereignty until 1848. What I am saying (And I'm not advocating the US model here) is that despite what Spartan said, the US Founding Fathers did have ideals and indeed many had noble principles. The foundation of checks and balances for one. The formation of a system where disagreements were commonplace but the resolution of disagreements didn't end in bloodshed. In the context of the time, it was a massive leap for human kind and political theory as we know it.
I really am not sure about that. Checks and balances were not new for example. Theyw ere already identified as being present in Britain after all. Britain was already a constitutional monarchy with real pwoer in the hands of the Prime Minister b this point after all, with the King still acting as a check. Also if memory serves the Corsican Republic had such institutions as well.

Also more down to earth is the fact the the writers of the constitution were rather good at saying rather more than their prayers. A lot of them spoke about freedom and liberty while keeping slaves, or about popular sovereignty while behaving like gangsters in theirown states for example. THere's also the fact that the ordianry person in America did not benefit for the revolution or the constitution.

And I need to point this out as well, part of the reason the revolution happened in the first place was for fear that Britain wuld outlaw slavery (the English courts had already ruled it did not exist in English law and at the time it looked possible this could be extended to the colonies). I always feel that puts an unpleasant tone on the hstory of the period.

[ontheliberalleft]

The Americans managed to support notions such as Liberty on the one hand and also maintain the institution of slavery on the other. America has always been a paradox.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 26, 2007 07:23 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 26, 2007 07:23 pm)
pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 05:49 pm

The united states isnt the least dysfunctional



Did I say that it was? Why do you argue points I never made?
you said it was 'least intrusive' and 'least dysfunctional' in tandem. By the rationale i provided, this statement is false. [/b]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that English may not be your first language.

Because I actually said "the U.S. is probably the least intrusive available that isn't totally dysfunctional." Never did I use the words "least dysfunctional."

I am making two separate statements:
1. The U.S. state is in the class of "not totally dysfunctional."
2. Within that class only, the U.S. is the least intrusive.

In symbolic logical terms, imagine three classes: A, "totally dysfunctional"; B, "dysfunctional"; and C, "least dysfunctional."

If "U.S." = P, and assuming that the union of our sets are universal, then I am claiming that NO P ARE A. You are arguing that NO P ARE C. Well that's fine, but it doesn't contradict that NO P ARE A, because P could be B without being A or C. And in fact, it is. To contradict NO P ARE A you must argue that SOME P ARE A. In other words, you must argue that the U.S. is totally dysfunctional to contradict my claim.

I hope this helps your understanding of the English language. I know it's tough, but keep up the hard work.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 26, 2007 08:44 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 26, 2007 08:44 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:23 pm

pusher [email protected] 26, 2007 05:49 pm

The united states isnt the least dysfunctional



Did I say that it was? Why do you argue points I never made?
you said it was 'least intrusive' and 'least dysfunctional' in tandem. By the rationale i provided, this statement is false.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that English may not be your first language.

Because I actually said "the U.S. is probably the least intrusive available that isn't totally dysfunctional." Never did I use the words "least dysfunctional."

[/b]
theres no need for the condensending tone, jackass. When you said the US 'isnt totally dysfunctional' i guaged by your usual american-centric bravado you were having a go at countries you do find dysfunctional, somehow implying the US were the absolute contrary.

FYI, I have a 2nd level qualification in English literature (and it is my 1st language), so your 'English class' was totally unnecessary. If anything all you succeeding in doing was making an even bigger pedantic 'dork' out of yourself than you already look.

[RGacky3]

I'm sorry for the confusion, Its addressed to Capitalists, is the United States a threat to people in the world.

[spartan]

I'm sorry for the confusion, Its addressed to Capitalists, is the United States a threat to people in the world.
Well for us anti-Capitalists the USA is an obvious threat but as for your average Capitalist, who if lucky wont be effected by the USA's actions, this would probably help them invest into a new market with lots of resources which means more money in the hands of the few instead of the many :angry:

[ontheliberalleft]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 12:05 am



FYI, I have a 2nd level qualification in English literature (and it is my 1st language), so your 'English class' was totally unnecessary.

Oh the Irony! I seem to remember when I mentioned my own qualifications you lost the head!

[pusher robot]

When you said the US 'isnt totally dysfunctional' i guaged by your usual american-centric bravado you were having a go at countries you do find dysfunctional, somehow implying the US were the absolute contrary.

No, I was adding the qualifier of "isn't totally dysfunctional" so that someone would not immediately point out that the government in Elbonia (substitute anarchic third-world country of your choice) is less intrusive than the U.S. government. Which may be true, but of course it is a totally dysfunctional state and thus not a very desirable place to live.

But don't be angry; you have done a great service, illustrating exactly why stereotyping people is bad.

[RGacky3]

It is quite clearly a threat to authoritarian, nationalist, backwards, violent, and primitivist regions, especially ones that try to hurt or threaten harm.

And that's fine with me, personally. I believe in moving humanity forward.

Like I said, considering its history, considering the violent dictatorships it has supported, its actions against other countries, its suppporting supression of local people, its piliging and raping of resources, its using nuclear weapons, and so on and so forth. also backwards and primitivist regions, and pushing humanity forward are 2 completely subjective issues.