American Imperialism

[mrbowie]

The United States should elect representatives only if they promise to get our troops the hell out of the Middle East, because we have no legitimate reason to be there and our presence there serves only to create an entire new generation of enemies for the future.

We are not serving any national good by being in the Middle East, other than to possibly help Israel. But I doubt that, because if the U. S. had no Middle Eastern presence, the Israeli government and military would not act so foolishly as they have in recent weeks.

We don't need oil from the Middle East. There is plenty of oil elsewhere that is available for purchase.

We are in the Middle East for one reason and one reason only: to protect private American business interests in the region.

If these companies require protection, let them hire their own army of private soldiers.

Bring our troops home.

[jazzcyclist]

While I agree with everything you've said, I must point out to you that there are posters here who believe that American foreign policy is infallible, and therefore furriners have no legitimate reason to resent us. These folks would have you believe that Osama bin Laden was sitting in a cave one day when someone handed him a copy of the Bill of Rights which caused him to flip out.

The idea that the US is responsible for terrorism because of foreign policy is right out of the fanatical jihadists talking points.
We are the most generous nation in the history of the world. . . . .

The US is not and has never been an imperialist nation. As to intervention, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
True, we have troops all over the world but we are there for valid reasons

viewtopic.php?p=608376#p608376

Terrorism . . . . . its the price we all must pay for Religious fanatics who worship death

viewtopic.php?p=608359#p608359

[kuha]

The United States should elect representatives only if they promise to get our troops the hell out of the Middle East, because we have no legitimate reason to be there and our presence there serves only to create an entire new generation of enemies for the future.

We are not serving any national good by being in the Middle East, other than to possibly help Israel. But I doubt that, because if the U. S. had no Middle Eastern presence, the Israeli government and military would not act so foolishly as they have in recent weeks.

We don't need oil from the Middle East. There is plenty of oil elsewhere that is available for purchase.

We are in the Middle East for one reason and one reason only: to protect private American business interests in the region.

If these companies require protection, let them hire their own army of private soldiers.

Bring our troops home.

Hard to disagree with any of this. I strongly fear that our "mission" over there is doomed to either failure or something frustratingly uncertain--and at terrible cost. Oil is a fungible commodity, and will be available globally, pretty much regardless of where it comes from. And, frankly, the higher the price goes, the more we'll get serious about conservation and alternative energy sources. The danger of terrorists setting up camp in Afghanistan is real, but the truth is they already can set up shop in many other countries, anyway. We can't stop terrorism completely, no matter what we do, and the best means is serious international police work, not a full-blown military occupation of foreign countries.

[Marlow]

The USA is always in an unwinnable situation. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

As the World's Policeman, if we sit idly by when injustice reigns, WE are the ones criticized, because we have so many resources to redress grievances. If we DO get involved, we are criticized for not minding our own business.

American Imperialism certainly exists, but like the Philosopher-King concept, it is a flawed concept, but superior to any other alternative.

I don't like our troops in Afghanistan, but the alternative is even worse right now. WE need to extract ourselves as prudently as possible, not as quickly as possible.

[jazzcyclist]

The USA is always in an unwinnable situation. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

As the World's Policeman, if we sit idly by when injustice reigns, WE are the ones criticized, because we have so many resources to redress grievances. If we DO get involved, we are criticized for not minding our own business.

American Imperialism certainly exists, but like the Philosopher-King concept, it is a flawed concept, but superior to any other alternative.

I don't like our troops in Afghanistan, but the alternative is even worse right now. WE need to extract ourselves as prudently as possible, not as quickly as possible.

We may be damned if we do, but I don't know why you think we would be damned if we don't. I can't think of any instance where we've been criticized or resented when we've intervened after folks have sent for us. Have you ever seen the scenes of jubilation that took place in the streets of Paris in August 1944 or Kuwait City in March 1991? Furthermore, I don't think folks would be unhappy if we quit overthrowing their governments, closed down our foreign military bases, quit propping up totalitarian Mideast dictators, quit killing their friends and family members with predator drones and other so-called "smart weapons and abandonded our policy of nuclear apartheid. And the only folks who would resent an even-handed Israeli-Arab foreign policy would be American neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians and Israeli Likudniks.

[Marlow]

For every yin, there is a yang. For everyone we please, there are just as many that resent us. Taking NO position has rarely been an option.

[jazzcyclist]

For every yin, there is a yang. For everyone we please, there are just as many that resent us. Taking NO position has rarely been an option.

Please name one historical incident in which we weren't summoned to a foreign land by the U.N. or an ally, we intervened anyway, but we would have been worse of if we hadn't intervened. If these situations are as numerous as you claim, there should be many, but all I'm asking you to do is name one.

[Marlow]

Please name one historical incident in which we weren't summoned to a foreign land by the U.N. or an ally, we intervened anyway, but we would have been worse of if we hadn't intervened.

Say what? Are you asking me to name a situation where our national interests were NOT involved? EVERYTHING in the world has something related to our national self-interest!

[jazzcyclist]

Please name one historical incident in which we weren't summoned to a foreign land by the U.N. or an ally, we intervened anyway, but we would have been worse of if we hadn't intervened.

Say what? Are you asking me to name a situation where our national interests were NOT involved? EVERYTHING in the world has something related to our national self-interest!

I tried to be very precise in the way I phrased my question, and I assume that you deliberately rephrased it for a reason, but go ahead and answer your own question anyway. Name just one.

[jhc68]

Impossible to understand how we Americans learned nothing at all from the Vietnam "nation building" fiasco or from the oil shortages of the 70's or from the financial debacles of the savings and loan collapse. Short memories = short futures.

[Marlow]

Please name one historical incident in which we weren't summoned to a foreign land by the U.N. or an ally, we intervened anyway, but we would have been worse of if we hadn't intervened.

Say what? Are you asking me to name a situation where our national interests were NOT involved? EVERYTHING in the world has something related to our national self-interest!

I tried to be very precise in the way I phrased my question, and I assume that you deliberately rephrased it for a reason, but go ahead and answer your own question anyway. Name just one.

??!! Our wires must be severely crossed. I can't understand what you're asking and you can't understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat mine. We only get involved in international affairs when it's in our own national self-interest, be it political or financial (both being intertwined, of course), but virtually everything pertains to our national self-interest.

[jazzcyclist]

??!! Our wires must be severely crossed. I can't understand what you're asking and you can't understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat mine. We only get involved in international affairs when it's in our own national self-interest, be it political or financial (both being intertwined, of course), but virtually everything pertains to our national self-interest.

All I'm asking you to do is name a single act of unrequested American intervention in which the U.S. would have been worse off if it hadn't intervened. For example, if we hadn't gone into Vietnam, it would still be communist, the Soviet Union would have still fallen, but 58,00 Americans and three million Vietnamese would still be alive today. In that instance, the do was worse than the don't. Name an instance in which the alternative would have been worse. By the way, what difference does it make to our prosperity if folks outside of the U.S. never voted in free and fair elections again?

[Marlow]

Name an instance in which the alternative would have been worse.

By the way, what difference does it make to our prosperity if folks outside of the U.S. never voted in free and fair elections again?

You mean like Korea, which WOULD be communist now? You mean like Somalia, where the pirates would still be roaming? You mean like Kuwait, where Saddam would have been in charge?

As far as your second point . . . are you saying our prosperity is more important than a free and democratic world? Eventually, yes, our way of life would be severely compromised by world-wide dictatorships.

[IanS_Liv]

EVERYTHING in the world has something related to our national self-interest!

No it doesn't. It's that kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world think of the US as imperialist (or at least neo-imperialist).

[jazzcyclist]

Name an instance in which the alternative would have been worse.

By the way, what difference does it make to our prosperity if folks outside of the U.S. never voted in free and fair elections again?

You mean like Korea, which WOULD be communist now? You mean like Somalia, where the pirates would still be roaming? You mean like Kuwait, where Saddam would have been in charge?

As far as your second point . . . are you saying our prosperity is more important than a free and democratic world? Eventually, yes, our way of life would be severely compromised by world-wide dictatorships.

Can you read?

Please name one historical incident in which we weren't summoned to a foreign land by the U.N. or an ally, we intervened anyway

First, since we were summoned by the UN and/or an ally in all of those situations, they don't count. Second, what difference does it make to us which Arabs we buy our oil from and what difference does it make to us whether South Koreans can vote or not? Furthermore, I believe the communists domino theory is a crock. This western mindset that we have to impose our political system on other folks by force, out of the goodness of our hearts, in order to protect our own freedom and prosperity is the root of all our problems.

The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. 'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.

honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none

[Marlow]

Can you read?

And THIS is why this forum can only be open one weekend a year. Your inability to conduct civil discourse is noted.

[jazzcyclist]

Can you read?

And THIS is why this forum can only be open one weekend a year. Your inability to conduct civil discourse is noted.

I apologize. I shouldn't have posted that smart alecky comment, but didn't you deliberately evade my question?

[Marlow]

Can you read?

And THIS is why this forum can only be open one weekend a year. Your inability to conduct civil discourse is noted.

I apologize. I shouldn't have posted that smart alecky comment, but didn't you deliberately evade my question?

I still don't understand what you're asking. Put it in the terms I used with which you disagree.

[jazzcyclist]

I still don't understand what you're asking. Put it in the terms I used with which you disagree.

I think I understand your position now. It basically can be summed up this: "Despite the fact that terrorism is the price of interventionism, it's a price we must be willing to pay since interventionism is the price of freedom and prosperity". Have I stated your position correctly?

[Marlow]

I think I understand your position now. It basically can be summed up this: "Despite the fact that terrorism is the price of interventionism, it's a price we must be willing to pay since interventionism is the price of freedom and prosperity". Have I stated your position correctly?

Wow - not even close. Interventionism (which is a game the USA often plays) can both fight and instigate terrorism. When suicide bombers blow themselves and innocent others up, they are frequently saying, "the presence of infidels on my sacred soil is unacceptable, so this is my only recourse." So yes, our presence there kills both us and them. But . . . if we weren't there, there'd still be people fighting and killing others there. If the Al-Qaidas of the world were left alone to flourish unabated, our national security would be threatened much more than it is right now (cf. 9/11). So, much as our presence over there is anathema, I get why we can't just beat feet home right now. If we could extract ourselves with a pro-democracy (as opposed to Taliban theocracy) 'stable' (as impossible as that seems) government, then that should be our immediate goal (and I think it is).

Prosperity has little to do with my world-view, but I understand it is a hugely powerful force in international affairs, but freedom is indeed paramount to everyone, so yes, interventionism is a tool towards freedom - both ours and the people we think we're aiding. It is also an imperialistic tool with which we make sure there are more counties allied to us than agin us.

Since you were putting words in my mouth, am I hearing you say we should pursue an isolationist foreign policy? That we should never step in (even unasked) when grossly unjust (e.g., Somalian pirates) things are happening around the work? That never works out well.

[Flumpy]

As the World's Policeman, if we sit idly by when injustice reigns, WE are the ones criticized, because we have so many resources to redress grievances. If we DO get involved, we are criticized for not minding our own business.

The problem id of course why you get involved. If people thought it was for purely humanitarian reasons then there would be far less objection but unfortunately it almost always seems to be for reasons of self interest.

Iraq but not Zimbabwe? Afganistan but not Burma?

I'm not saying that the decisions to intervene are incorrect but I do question the motives.

Having said that, as you (We) have intervened I think it's only correct to stay until the job is done to the best of our ability. To leave either place now would be unforgivable even if I don't think we should have gone in the first place.

Just to clarify I support the original action in Afganistan whilst considering the Irag war a complete travesty.

[jazzcyclist]

Marlow, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was just trying to summarize your position into the cliff notes version. I reject your if-Al Qaeda-were-left-alone theory since we had been stirring the hornet's nest long before 9/11, and as long as they don't kill us, we shouldn't intervene unless they send for us. Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11. I don't see why we should be worried if folks want a theocracy as opposed to a democracy. Stability should be our primary concern, and as long as a government is stable, we shouldn't intervene to impose democracy on them.

However, I do believe in self-defense, and under international law, nations don't need a permission slip from the U.N to respond to an act of aggression, which is why we didn't need U.N. authorization to go into Afghanistan. The Somali pirate situation falls under that category. All people should be held accountable for what their government does outside its borders and what it allows to go on inside its borders, and that goes for the U.S., Afghanistan, Somalia and everyone else. I also don't think that there's ever any justification for getting involved in the affairs of other nations militarily unless they send for you or there is an active genocide taking place. And even why they send for us, I would only respond on a case-by-case basis. For the record, when France sent for us in 1940, I think we should have told them that we'd be there as soon as we could instead of saying, "Those Nazis haven't caused us no harm."

[jazzcyclist]

The problem id of course why you get involved. If people thought it was for purely humanitarian reasons then there would be far less objection but unfortunately it almost always seems to be for reasons of self interest.

Iraq but not Zimbabwe? Afganistan but not Burma?

I'm not saying that the decisions to intervene are incorrect but I do question the motives.

Amen! I must also add that one thing that undermined our credibility probably more than anything we've done in recent memory is the way we reacted to the election of Hamas, an election that is generally considered to be the most free, fair and transparent election in the history of the Arab world. For sixteen months leading up to the election, Hamas laid down their arms like we asked them to, but it seems that we were only concerned about them laying down their arms, but didn't want them to actually win.

For a textbook example of why we are hated, consider Gaza and the West Bank. There, a brutal Israeli/U.S.-led cutoff in aid has been imposed on the Palestinians for voting the wrong way in a free election.

Immediately after Hamas’s victory, Israel halted the $55 million a month the Palestinian Authority received as its share of tax and customs revenue. Israel demanded Europe and the U.S. also end all aid to the PA until Hamas renounces terror, recognizes Israel, and disarms.

President Bush, though he was conducting a worldwide crusade for democracy and had urged that the Palestinian elections be held and Hamas participate, obediently complied. For months now, U.S. and European aid to the PA, half its budget, has been halted.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jun/05/00006/

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... aza200804/

You see, not only do we demand that you be democratic, we also demand that you vote for Quislings and American lap dogs.

[Gebrucilassie]

[quote="jazzcyclist"] "Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11".


Please tell me I have misplaced my reading glasses!!! You think Thousands of innocent people just going about their business somehow goaded Al Queda to use planes as bombs??? That the "WE" you refer to are citizens like myself. Before 911 I had never heard of Al-Queda.

If you are somehow saying the powers in government brought this on us I still can't agree with you. These are people who have apparently latched on to their own interpretation of Islam and have decided that we are the enemy. NOTHING we do weather we "leave them alone" or fight them is going to change that.

[jazzcyclist]

"Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11".

Please tell me I have misplaced my reading glasses!!! You think Thousands of innocent people just going about their business somehow goaded Al Queda to use planes as bombs??? That the "WE" you refer to are citizens like myself. Before 911 I had never heard of Al-Queda.

If you are somehow saying the powers in government brought this on us I still can't agree with you. These are people who have apparently latched on to their own interpretation of Islam and have decided that we are the enemy. NOTHING we do weather we "leave them alone" or fight them is going to change that.

You read right, we had it coming and I include myself, as long as I continue to live here in the U.S. with all the benefits of citizenship. People have a responsibility to control their governments and we haven't controlled ours very well in recent years. I also believe the folks in Dresden and Hiroshima had it coming in 1945, Iraqis had it coming in 1991, Afghans had it coming after 9/11, etc.

[Marlow]

"Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11".

Please tell me I have misplaced my reading glasses!!! You think Thousands of innocent people just going about their business somehow goaded Al Queda to use planes as bombs???

You read right, we had it coming

I'm afraid that is an irreversible disconnect. NO ONE had that coming. No one.

[jazzcyclist]

I'm afraid that is an irreversible disconnect. NO ONE had that coming. No one.

International terrorism, the kind we experienced on 9/11, is just another form of collective punishment. This is the problem with the American imperial mindset. Imperialists have no problem imposing collective punishment on other folks when their governments do something we don't like, such as sanctions on Cuba and Iran, non-selective war in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorism in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they take exception when their own chickens come home to roost. Blowback can manifest itself in many ways and it won't always manifest itself in ways that are palatable to you. In some ways I envy Europeans who have had much more experience than us when it comes to dealing with terrorism, and therefore have a much more mature attitude about it. When bombs went off in London on 7/11/03, 85% of the British people believed that they had brought it on themselves by going into Iraq. When bombs went off in Madrid on 3/11/04, the Spanish people immediately fixed the problem at the polls three days later. When bombs go off here, our politicians tell us they hate us for our freedom and many folks buy it hook, line and sinker.

[SQUACKEE]

We will leave Afghanistan and Iraq some day and they will, like Vietnam, become whatever its their destiny is to become. Or we will create two more Korea situations? Hard to believe.

[Flumpy]

I'm afraid that is an irreversible disconnect. NO ONE had that coming. No one.

When bombs went off in London on 7/11/03, 85% of the British people believed that they had brought it on themselves by going into Iraq.

Whilst I agree with your general point this bit is nonsense.

Whilst the vast majority of British people disagree with the Irag war precisely no one I know thinks we 'had it coming'. Especially as the bombers were UK citizens.

If the attacks had been targeted at the Govt this may have been the case but targetting randon trains and buses there was no sympathy or understanding for those responsible.

What the British public were able to do though was not have a collective nervous breakdown, throw a pity paarty and invite the world. We just went baack to work the next day.

[jazzcyclist]

When bombs went off in London on 7/11/03, 85% of the British people believed that they had brought it on themselves by going into Iraq.

Whilst I agree with your general point this bit is nonsense.

Whilst the vast majority of British people disagree with the Irag war precisely no one I know thinks we 'had it coming'. Especially as the bombers were UK citizens.

If the attacks had been targeted at the Govt this may have been the case but targetting randon trains and buses there was no sympathy or understanding for those responsible.

What the British public were able to do though was not have a collective nervous breakdown, throw a pity paarty and invite the world. We just went baack to work the next day.

Perhaps my phrasing was a bit hyperbolic, but I do remember reading an article from a British source which cited a poll in which 85% of the folks in the British made a connection between the London bombings and their involvement in Iraq. And the fact that the bombers were U.K. citizens doesn't mean much, because like Major Nidal Hasan, they weren't unhappy with their lives in the U.K., they were unhappy with what their government was doing to their fellow Muslims abroad. A certain amount of treason is to be expected, whenever you fight wars in the motherland of your immigrant citizens. For example, during WWII, not only were there instances of treason among Italian-Americans and German-Americans in the U.S., there were also instances where Allied forces captured these immigrant Americans on the battlefield in Europe after they returned to their native countries to fight against us.

[Gebrucilassie]

"Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11".

Please tell me I have misplaced my reading glasses!!! You think Thousands of innocent people just going about their business somehow goaded Al Queda to use planes as bombs??? That the "WE" you refer to are citizens like myself. Before 911 I had never heard of Al-Queda.

If you are somehow saying the powers in government brought this on us I still can't agree with you. These are people who have apparently latched on to their own interpretation of Islam and have decided that we are the enemy. NOTHING we do weather we "leave them alone" or fight them is going to change that.

You read right, we had it coming and I include myself, as long as I continue to live here in the U.S. with all the benefits of citizenship. People have a responsibility to control their governments and we haven't controlled ours very well in recent years. I also believe the folks in Dresden and Hiroshima had it coming in 1945, Iraqis had it coming in 1991, Afghans had it coming after 9/11, etc.

I guess by your twisted logic, the Jews had it coming from Hitler. Control our Government? What a simplistic view you must hold of American government! The government has been doing things I don't agree with since I was young. I vote every election yet I can control them as much as I can control the passing years.

[Flumpy]

Perhaps my phrasing was a bit hyperbolic, but I do remember reading an article from a British source which cited a poll in which 85% of the folks in the British made a connection between the London bombings and their involvement in Iraq.

That;s entirely different and almost certainly correct.

[72]

Somebody out there do not compare the time and mood of Korea with the criminality of Iraq for starters, or Vietnam and a dozen other examples of American bullying and imperialism. You are rightly hated throughout the world, as Great Britain was in the 19th century for all the wicked things we did ( and a few good policies as well)
How Americans cannot understand that the destruction of the middle class and the infrastructure in Iraq was NOT justified, just because your great President Bush! wanted to get rid of a nasty dictator who like all Arabs loved boasting about what they've got.... He was a threat to USA and Britain , dont make me laugh.!!!!

When one thinks of all the crummy dictators around the world( many without oil of course) with whom the West and especially corporate America and us are prepared to do business, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Blair is known in Britain among most all classes as a useless impotent puppet who could do with a spell ''inside', a man who did not do what Harold Wilson did and said to President LBJ, ''No sir we aint going to get involved in Vietnam''

My attitude is that a country can choose what system of government it chooses and if it does not threaten another country then that country has no right to interfere. All that christian stuff from Blair made my skin crawl.!!

Who bankrolled Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war.? Who was generous to Osamah bin Laden; who bankrolled the Taliban monsters cos they thought it was all about Russia?? Who are going to waste time , money, and blood in Afhanistan which exists for fighting, corruption and heroin and caused we Brits so much grief in the 19th century./ Yes, you have it, Americans.

I could write a book on the foolishness, errors and obsessions of the military industrial complex in the States but I will satify myself with Churchills comment on American foreign policy ''the Americans get things right in the end after having tried every other wrong policy first''

Dont tell me about the Brits since we have never made up our minds where we belong, Europe or acros the Pond. ; I think the special relationship is a nonsense, largely.

Yes, I agree BP or British Petroleum, if you prefer, are a bunch of nasties who deserve being punished. But not quite like the Union Carbide people who only killed a a few thousand Indians . Their boss Andersen should have been shot but now enjoys a happy tretirement. Should not have started drilling there in the first place.


Happy 4th July gentlemen, look forward to a nice rant next year

[jazzcyclist]

I guess by your twisted logic, the Jews had it coming from Hitler. Control our Government? What a simplistic view you must hold of American government!

This is so silly that I won't dignify it with a comment. However, if you would like to engage in a serious discussion regarding my views on genocide, I'll gladly respond to any civil discourse that you choose to engage in.

[72]

[quote="72"]Somebody out there do not compare the time and mood of Korea with the criminality of Iraq for starters, or Vietnam and a dozen other examples of American bullying and imperialism. You are rightly hated throughout the world, as Great Britain was in the 19th century for all the wicked things we did ( and a few good policies as well)
How Americans cannot understand that the destruction of the middle class and the infrastructure in Iraq was NOT justified, just because your great President Bush! wanted to get rid of a nasty dictator who like all Arabs loved boasting about what they've got.... He was a threat to USA and Britain , dont make me laugh.!!!!

When one thinks of all the crummy dictators around the world( many without oil of course) with whom the West and especially corporate America and us are prepared to do business, I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

Blair is known in Britain among most all classes as a useless impotent puppet who could do with a spell ''inside', a man who did not do what Harold Wilson did and said to President LBJ, ''No sir we aint going to get involved in Vietnam''

My attitude is that a country can choose what system of government it chooses and if it does not threaten another country then that country has no right to interfere. All that Christian stuff from Blair made my skin crawl.!! Yes I know about Ireland, but many think that the mangave in to a bunch of IRA criminals , so beloved of some of our American friends.!!

Who bankrolled Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war.? Who was generous to Osamah bin Laden; who bankrolled the Taliban monsters cos they thought it was all about Russia?? Who are going to waste time , money, and blood in Afghanistan which exists for fighting, corruption and heroin and caused we Brits so much grief in the 19th century./ Yes, you have it, Americans.

I could write a book on the foolishness, errors and obsessions of the military industrial complex in the States but I will satify myself with Churchills comment on American foreign policy ''the Americans get things right in the end after having tried every other wrong policy first''

Dont tell me about the Brits since we have never made up our minds where we belong, Europe or acros the Pond. ; I think the special relationship is a nonsense, largely.

Yes, I agree BP or British Petroleum, if you prefer, are a bunch of nasties who deserve being punished. But not quite like the Union Carbide people who only killed a a few thousand Indians . Their boss Andersen should have been shot but now enjoys a happy tretirement. Should not have started drilling there in the first place.


Happy 4th July gentlemen, look forward to a nice rant next year.