Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
What defense would you have wanted him to make exactly to the claims that the USA bullies the rest of the world?

"No, we don't," would be a start.

So you want him to lie then? Why?

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, Hagel's a Republican in much the same way that Arlen Specter was a Republican.

Sorry, is there some mythical standard of Republicanness that you have to pass to be a "true" Republican?

No.

There is, however, a certain level of adherence to mainstream Republican positions that's expected of you if you want to be liked politically by mainstream Republicans.

ITT, Seaward accidentally admits to being a Republican, thus lending more credence to my theory there are no real Libertarians - there are simply Republicans so embarrassed by how badly George W. Bush crapped up the brand, they're willing to pick something close enough until the stink wears off.

This thread would be a lot more interesting if the title were more literal. Suddenly CSPAN would be worth watching.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It may play well with the US crowd but unfortunately that won't fly with the rest of the world. Unfortunately that is who you need to be worried about at this point in time on this particular set of issues.

No, we really don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
ITT, Seaward accidentally admits to being a Republican,

I did? Where?

I know you've got a pretty casual relationship with truth even at the best of times, but this one's a stretch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
How do you feel about the UN, NATO, and international treaties in general?

NATO's fine, though it has a lot of fat that could be trimmed.

The UN's hilariously useless, always has been.

 AustonT wrote:
It's almost as if I understand the system of spending in our country and wrote about it without taking the extra time to write the legislation solely for the purpose of postin on Dakka.

Given you tried to spin 'mandatory' and 'discretionary' off into some vague point about national priorities, it's fairly clear you don't really understand how it works.

The part about having military expenditure based on some fixed percentage instead being as needed just made it worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
ITT, Seaward accidentally admits to being a Republican, thus lending more credence to my theory there are no real Libertarians - there are simply Republicans so embarrassed by how badly George W. Bush crapped up the brand, they're willing to pick something close enough until the stink wears off.

Yep. They either started calling themselves libertarians or Tea Party folk, and then set about making lots of noise about how they're libertarians/Tea Party folk while continuing to vote Republican.

 sebster wrote:
Yep. They either started calling themselves libertarians or Tea Party folk, and then set about making lots of noise about how they're libertarians/Tea Party folk while continuing to vote Republican.

Looking over my own voting record, I don't vote Republican any more frequently than I vote Democrat.

But it's cute that you guys are bonding over inaccurate information. About time.

 Seaward wrote:
Looking over my own voting record, I don't vote Republican any more frequently than I vote Democrat.

Yeah, that's what you guys say every time

And I mean, hey, you could be that one exception that really doesn't just default to the Republicans come election time. I don't really care.

It's amusing to me, having seen a fairly aggressive and dismissive attitude towards other countries from many conservative US posters here, to see outrage over someone admitting that the US might be seen as a bully by other nations. Half of the conservative posters here don't bother to disguise that feeling, why should he? Bit of a double standard, I think.

They're probably confused. When we and everyone else in the western world intervene in Libya, it's all well and good. But then we don't intervene in Syria because... Just cause. But then we invade Iraq, and we've gone to far. No one intervenes in Rwanda because it wasn't our business and we've failed to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but we totally went to Bosnia and it was okay then.

The world has a rather marvelous way of screwing with our expectations of acceptable and unacceptable foreign relations.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's amusing to me, having seen a fairly aggressive and dismissive attitude towards other countries from many conservative US posters here, to see outrage over someone admitting that the US might be seen as a bully by other nations. Half of the conservative posters here don't bother to disguise that feeling, why should he? Bit of a double standard, I think.

I'm not sure that indifference is the same thing as bullying, is it?

 Da Boss wrote:
It's amusing to me, having seen a fairly aggressive and dismissive attitude towards other countries from many conservative US posters here, to see outrage over someone admitting that the US might be seen as a bully by other nations. Half of the conservative posters here don't bother to disguise that feeling, why should he? Bit of a double standard, I think.

What's really weird is that despite the behaviour of those posters and a fair few Americans besides, the US continues to be seen positively around the world. The Economist publishes a report on it every year, and outside of a few predictable countries (ME ones basically) the US is very popular, and much more popular than others.

And despite all that, there are people determined to believe their country is hated, and to resent people for doing so. Very strange.

 sebster wrote:
What's really weird is that despite the behaviour of those posters and a fair few Americans besides, the US continues to be seen positively around the world.

Of course we do.

Again, it's indifference to the opinion of the rest of the world, not the persecution complex you'd like it to be.

 LordofHats wrote:
They're probably confused. When we and everyone else in the western world intervene in Libya, it's all well and good. But then we don't intervene in Syria because... Just cause. But then we invade Iraq, and we've gone to far. No one intervenes in Rwanda because it wasn't our business and we've failed to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but we totally went to Bosnia and it was okay then.

The world has a rather marvelous way of screwing with our expectations of acceptable and unacceptable foreign relations.

Exactly... that's why some of us have the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality...

 Seaward wrote:
Of course we do.

Again, it's indifference to the opinion of the rest of the world, not the persecution complex you'd like it to be.

Your response to my post didn't make any fething sense at all.

 sebster wrote:
Your response to my post didn't make any fething sense at all.

You should try actually reading it next time.

We continue to be seen positively by the rest of the world because we do not in fact bully it, but we also don't pay all that much attention to what you have to say.

I'll start using smaller words for you where possible.

Personal insults or attacks are not an acceptable way to communicate on Dakka. Please observe the rules. It is a condition of membership.

 Seaward wrote:
You should try actually reading it next time.

We continue to be seen positively by the rest of the world because we do not in fact bully it, but we also don't pay all that much attention to what you have to say.

Yeah, like I said, that made no sense as a reply to my post. I think you picked out that one sentence of mine, made up a whole story in your head and now you're busy arguing against it.

 Seaward wrote:

We continue to be seen positively by the rest of the world because we do not in fact bully it, but we also don't pay all that much attention to what you have to say.

Global opinion of the US and Americans has risen since we began acknowledging global opinion. Or, rather, since we stopped ignoring it.

 dogma wrote:
Global opinion of the US and Americans has risen since we began acknowledging global opinion. Or, rather, since we stopped ignoring it.

The numbers have certainly improved from their post Iraq positions, but they were never that low, even then. Certainly they were a lot more positive than negative in most countries.

Thing is, 'bullying' isn't the only factor. Unless the 'bullying' is really obvious its hardly a factor at all (I can't see too many people around the world saying they dislike the US as they used their economic importance to drive a tough trade agreement). People generally like the US because they see a rich, prosperous country where the living is pretty good and they think 'I want a piece of that'.

Which is why Seaward's little ditty about not bullying and not paying attention to people has been so puzzling.

When the US pursues it's agendas through force without the support of the global community, this is seen as bullying. In the same way as in any classroom, if a big kid uses his physical size to get what he wants out of smaller and weaker kids it is seen as bullyíng.

Notice. Hagel and myself are only saying "Percieved as bullying."

Why is this important? Because these perceptions are part of what creates extremist anti american views. Understanding and taking into account those views is sensible, at the least so you can prepare a defense against any backlash. Better altogether to pursue your aims with the minimum of force and the maximum of diplomacy to minimise any forceful reaction and therefore potential need for defense.

Goddit?

I think we should stop our senseless bullying of the world.

We can start by cutting off foreign aid. It's just bribes after all isn't it? Defund the UN too, wouldn't want any one to think we're buying undue influence, and if the UN doesn't already we should really start making them pay rent and property taxes on that building, have to treat everyone fair you know!

I could argue dishonestly too, KM, but what's the point in talking past each other?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

We can start by cutting off foreign aid. It's just bribes after all isn't it?

Yep, pretty much.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Defund the UN too, wouldn't want any one to think we're buying undue influence, and if the UN doesn't already we should really start making them pay rent and property taxes on that building, have to treat everyone fair you know!

First, we're on the Security Council. Not only do we not need to buy influence, the game is stacked in our favor.

Second, why would we tax a body that we partially fund?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think we should stop our senseless bullying of the world.

This is what I'm talking about... people make noise about bullying and this whole conversation just gets silly.

The US is a very popular country around the world. This is because you have a living standard and lifestyle that most people would like to have. Whether or not you 'bully' is quite meaningless, because most people just don't give two gaks about geopolitics (outside of the rare times that such events get international attention, like in the lead up to Iraq).

We can start by cutting off foreign aid. It's just bribes after all isn't it? Defund the UN too, wouldn't want any one to think we're buying undue influence, and if the UN doesn't already we should really start making them pay rent and property taxes on that building, have to treat everyone fair you know!

You don't do foreign aid for their sake, you do it for your sake. Outside of emergency aid (which is a very small part of the overall very small foreign aid budget) the money you spend is designed to make those countries take on values and behaviours you want in them. You fund police services in Mexico so they're more able to stop local drug supplies. You build bridges and roads in Africa because they led to economic development, which makes them more stable and better trade partners.

The US is the only UN member in history to pay less than the fixed percentage of GDP that is standard, for a reason other than very low income per capita. You want special fancy pants exception just for being you? You already got it.

And having the UN building in New York is a money saver for you guys. You ever see the high rise directly opposite the UN headquarters? The one that dwarfs the dated, tiny little UN building? That thing houses the State Department's UN team, the bureaucrats that are there to ensure the US's diplomatic missions are given every possible instance of support. There's a hell of a lot more of them than there are people working in the UN. Having them in your country saves a fortune in flights, housing and salary, compared to having to station them in Geneva. As a result you have overwhelmingly more resources on hand than any other country could handle. Ever wonder why the US outmaneouvered the Soviets in the UN so often - you guys were playing on home soil.