d4dev

That is true. However, alliances between countries are based on mutual benefit. I don't see any benefit for the emerging economies in forming a strong alliance wit the US. For eg, in 1998, when the then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov visited India, he suggested a Russia-China-India alliance. Although that suggestion was not implemented at that time, it sure is not dead. Further, it is very difficult for countries to which the US has been openly hostile in the past to ally with it. The US has been hostile to all the BRIC countries in the past. In contrast, the US was never openly hostile to Europe before WW II. Therefore, there is very little chance that the BRIC countries will forge alliances with the US. Instead, they are in a better position to forge an alliance whithin themselves. I don't view that as a failure for the US. Doesn't the US claim to stand for these very values? I only meant that as the world becomes multi-polar, the US will be forced to reconsider it's unilateral global policy decisions.

The US will certainly not be able to retain it's current supremacy (and belligerence) in world affairs much longer. The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are rapidly developing economies, and even now, they don't like the US much. In about 50 years from now, the world will be a much safer and democratic place than it is now.

Why should they be expelled from Tibet? And the question seems ambigious. Do you mean that: 1) China should retain control of Tibet, but should not settle Han Chinese people there or 2) That China should cease occupation of Tibet altogether?

What makes you feel that Hamas is a terrorist organization? Because the US and Israel say so?

True. It seems like the Spanish people were opposed, but OK with Aznar's policy until it did not directly affect them. (No wonder they were opposed to the war, they might have had apprehensions about the terrorists striking them.) But after the terrorists proved them right, there was no way they could still keep Aznar in power.

KK, it is absolutely wrong to assume that just because people from the third world immigrate to the west, they agree with the US' policies or that they even care two hoots about the US. They come to the west only so that they can have a better standard of living and make big bucks. If you don't believe me, ask any immigrant you know why he comes to Canada or the US.

Agreed. But what if I don't disagree violently with anyone? That's idealistic, but not possible. I have much better things to do than go around campaigning for someone who I know is not going to win.

Actually voting/not voting. Even if I don't vote, I'm expressing a clear choice, since I may not support the views of any of the candidates standing for elections.

And what makes you think that the US could have won the war without the USSR or UK? I know that Americans have an enormously inflated ego, but let's be honest about this. Yeah, you know, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Ho Ci Minh, they're really all America's fault. They were all just nice guys who'd love to trade with Canada and respect human rights, until the evil USA turned them all against us.

Do you think that the Allies included the US alone? Read a bit about WW2 before making such statements.

That's totally absurd logic. That's like saying that prior to the French/American revolution, there were no democratic countries, and now, since most of the world is democratic, the French/Americans must have helped them. Their agenda was then probably to bury communism.

Yes, I do mean that the US provoked the World Trade Center bombings. US foreign policy, over the past century has been extremely self-centered, unjust and geared to meddle in affairs which do not concern them in the least. I have, some time back, posted a history of the US' interventions and military conflicts in the past century. It has been the most aggresively hegemonic superpower that the world has ever seen after Great Britian. As they say, you reap as you sow.

Good article. But your original statement was: which makes it seem that all Iraqis are victims of Al-qaeda (the organization that your article mentions is responsible for those attacks.) and Iraqis don't have any hand in the resistance whatever. Now, does that mean that all the attacks that have been carried out against the US forces in the past year have been the work of Al-Qaeda? Seems very unlikely. It is more likely that the majority of the attacks have been carried out by dissatisfied Iraqis, and some minor ones by the Al-Qaeda. That's just your opinion. You never proved me wrong. I don't know which mosques they bombed or why. However, crimes as those are not always committed against the people who actually did bad things to you. They are symbols of the enemy, and that is why they become targets. To give you an example, after 9/11, numerous hate crimes were committed against Muslims in the US. Were those Muslims responsible for 9/11? No. But they were symbols of Arab terrorism (and this is by no means a way to justify their crimes.)

KK, let us clarify a few things here. Which foreign insurgents are you talking about? Vigilante groups, eh? Well, let me tell you something. First of all, please give links to those statements that you just throw away without any backing. Second, if you have the links, read it carefully and seee if it mentions anywhere that the Americans are arming the Iraqis to fight the terrorists. Third, the article may not mention it, but the vigilante groups that you are talking about may just be some common Iraqis that are being paid by the Americans to keep order. Terrorists bomb anyone who they see as a traitor/or any other US' puppeys for that matter. So it's no wonder that Osama Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, the US' prime ally in the middle east. Cause they see (correctly) the saudi regime as rulers only in name, which depends on Washington for it's survival. (incidently the US keeps silent about 'democracy and freedom' for the Saudis)

Completely agree with you. It is the US' insistence on projecting it's hegemony over the world that makes it the target of terrorist attacks. 'Live and let live', it's as simple as that. But the policymakers in Washington don't seem to understand that.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...l=1038394944443 Excellent article by Noam Chomsky.

Excellent piece, BD!

Why is it that almost every thread deviates from the topic after a few replies to a debate about capitalism/communism?

Exactly. Disarmament must be universal, it cannot just be applied to select countries.

Sanctions?? Whatever it does, it shouldn't show double standards. Did the US worry about that when it took down Saddam or when it helped take down Salvador Allende? The US does not have the authority to seize WMD's of any other country. It can move a motion, however, in the UN to ask Pakistan to submit to IAEA inspections. Why do we call it 'Islamic weaponry?' Do we call the US' nukes Christian weaponry, Israel's nukes Jew weaponry or India's as Hindu weaponry? Sanctions. And a UN mandate to ask Pakistan to give up it's WMDs.

If you are comparing the capitalist system with a communist system, you may or may not be right. I'm not sure about the levels of poverty in a communist country, compared to that in a capitalist country. but if you compare the number of poor people in a capitalist vis a vis those in a socialist country, I disagree. Do you think that Canada or Denmark or Norway have more people living under the poverty line than the US? I think you are wrong there. I've heard this argument many times. However, those 'countless' stories that you are talking about, what percentage of the people living below the poverty line is that? 0.5%, 1%? Not more than that. Then how can you justify a whole economic system on that basis? Which socialist country are you talking about here? You know what, first let's agree on the definition of 'socialist'. And, btw, if you are referring to communist governments, which communist government was overthrown by it's own people? (If you're talking about the USSR, please read the book, 'At the highest Levels' by Strobe Talbott)

What exactly do you mean by 'free rides?' Could you be more specific? Living standards cannot be an accurate measure of a country's overall prosperity. The US has high living standards because it has enormously rich business tycoons like Bill Gates and Hollywod filmstars, whose worth, if added up will probably be equal to the GDP of all the African nations put together. Just the other day I read somewhere that the worth of corporations like Microsoft and Sony is more than the entire GDP of some countries. However, that makes only the top layer of society in the US immensely rich, whereas the bottomost layer lives in abject poverty. Thus, when you take the average standard of living, it turns out to be comparitively high. In the case of Canada, the majority of the people have the same, fairly comfortable standard of living. There are neither super rich people nor extreme poverty as in some parts of the US. Canada, therefore trys much more to reduce the rich-poor gap as much as possible, unlike the US, which seeks to widen it. Obviously. What do you expect? Canada spends more on healthcare and welfare programmes, it doesn't just go around the world like the US, fighting meaningless wars which have no connection to the american people whatsoever. Yup. How else do you finance welfare and healthcare and other pro-people programmes? We certainly don't want to 'emulate' the US in this regard, do we? Canada has a smaller economy, what do you expect? That's an absolute non-issue. Which country in the world has wages as high as those in the US? Cdn social liberalism is creating a European styled culture of egotistical self actualisers devoid of responsibility, morality and full of pious post modern nonsense centred on the belief that 'nothing matters.

Capitalism promotes independence. I wish you could tell that to the people who live life on the streets, or the poor, or those who have to make a choice between paying their rent and feeding their children. I'm sure they would relish their independence very much.

I'm sorry. I had provided the link, so I thought it was ok.

It's the same old thing the Americans have been doing in South and Latin America for the past century. I don't think they will ever stop 'championing the cause of freedom and democracy' as they call it.