I think the term "moral authority" assumes that if the U.S. has good intentions all other nations will see that and adjust their foreign policy to join this moral highground, which is obviously not true.

Originally Posted by wilberhum

America does not Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World.
Neither does any one else.

so true!

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

i disagree with this bit...

i am convinced that if put to the vote then the US / UK / West's choice would be to continue the oppression.

this is because their only alternative is a massive drop in living standards as it is all maintained through oppression overseas.

put this question to your non-muslim colleagues...
if you had the choice to stop all the wars the west has going overseas but it meant a half in your income and standard of living would you vote for this or not?

YES!. (we in the west have tons of stuff we don't need anyway) but actually, this is wrong. if the u.s. helped other countries to raise their standards of living, it would be a whole lot cheaper than waging criminal wars on countries.
for the amount of $ the u.s. spends on its wars, everyone in the world could live a life of ease. every one could have a much better life and the world would be much safer. (except for those profiting from war, of course).

i think most people in the west would vote for stuff the foreigners and keep the cash and standard of living for themselves. sad but this is the state of the people.
Daw'ud

we in the west are very diverse. there are many people who disagree with u.s. foreign policy, but aside from protests, there is little we can do because the politicians could care less what we think. after all most of their $ doesn't come from ordinary people so they are not really there to serve us, anyway.

Originally Posted by scentsofjannah

Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?

NO(Simplest answer )

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

i disagree with this bit...

i am convinced that if put to the vote then the US / UK / West's choice would be to continue the oppression.

this is because their only alternative is a massive drop in living standards as it is all maintained through oppression overseas.

I love it when a bit of old fashioned Leninism breaks through the clouds. It is odd that you, who supports the more, umm how can one put it?, Green end of the Muslim spectrum, ought to take this line. Where in the Quran does it suggest that trading with people or employing them is oppression or exploitation? The West is rich because it is productive. Not because it oppresses anyone. The people who really benefit from trading with the West are the people of the Third World. You can simply ask yourself - why are placed like Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam so poor? It ain't because we all are oppressing them.

put this question to your non-muslim colleagues...
if you had the choice to stop all the wars the west has going overseas but it meant a half in your income and standard of living would you vote for this or not?

No I would not. Because the West fights in the main to protect itself. Cutting our standard of living would not stop them from hating us and hence would not stop the fighting. The West is attacked despite the good it does the world. Dropping our standard of living would only impoverish the world as a whole and would do nothing to make the those hate us love us.

As for America, it leads the world in large part because people trust it and want to work with it. Even under the present President. Look at Afghanistan where the majority of people have not risen against the Americans despite a trivial number of soldiers there. The Afghans trust them. No other country cna do this so every day in thousands of ways, the rest of the world shows that America has the moral authority to lead the world.

one form of oppression is HIGH INTEREST RATES..ever thought about that?

one poor african country borrows $1 million and in a couple of years later it has to pay 16 million back!! and because of that they even have to borrow YET more money to pay off the **** interest! this is PURE EXPLOITATION....if you agree with that then you donot deserve to live on this earth.

America pumps third world countries with its cheap produce just in time when the local crops in those countries are harvested..this results in people going for the cheap american produce..and then this means the local FRESHER produce ROTS ..this in turn means more POVERTY..bad economy, dependacy on foreign countries...meaning people will never be self sufficient.

America does help out poor people..oh yeah we've seen the monstrous sacks of grains with the big captial letters U.S.A scrawled on them..but do you even know that 'aid' is actually genetically modified produce thats been REJECTED by the american people??..it dumps its rubbish into poor countries then calls it 'aid'..no wonder the Zambian president refused it for his people during the famine.

Keltoi by the way you're not off the hook..i hope you 're-energised' now and hope you are able to refute every single sentence in that article..you called the man a liar..you have to explain yourself and come up ith something better than ' i have no energy'

Originally Posted by snakelegs

YES!. (we in the west have tons of stuff we don't need anyway) but actually, this is wrong. if the u.s. helped other countries to raise their standards of living, it would be a whole lot cheaper than waging criminal wars on countries.
for the amount of $ the u.s. spends on its wars, everyone in the world could live a life of ease. every one could have a much better life and the world would be much safer. (except for those profiting from war, of course).


we in the west are very diverse. there are many people who disagree with u.s. foreign policy, but aside from protests, there is little we can do because the politicians could care less what we think. after all most of their $ doesn't come from ordinary people so they are not really there to serve us, anyway.

dont lose hope..this world is in God's hands not America's

NO WAY

Originally Posted by scentsofjannah

Does This Country Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?
Stephen Gowans
Media Monitors
29 October 2001
http://www.mediamonitors.net/

It claims to be conducting a war on terrorism against a network (al-Qaeda) it helped create to fight proxy wars on its behalf (in Afghanistan and the Balkans.)
The U.S. aided the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan, with most of the funds going to native Afghan groups. The foreign fighters obviously benefited from this relationship, but to suggest that the U.S. "created" Al-Qaeda is quite misleading.
It says it must bring anthrax terrorists to justice, but has the world's largest stockpile of smallpox, anthrax, and other biological weapons. It continues to experiment with new weaponized pathogens. It refuses to agree to measures to strengthen a biological weapons treaty. And there's evidence it has used biological weapons (in the Korean War.)
The article mentions all these dangerous pathogens and diseases the U.S. is harboring, then mentions they MIGHT have used them in Korea...European nations have just as much access to chemical weapons as the U.S., and they liked killing each other with mustard gas in WW1.
It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia.
This is a result of the Cold War, when the U.S. and the other European powers wanted a deterent to any Soviet aggression into Europe. Now that the Cold War is over, many of these bases will be abandoned in the near future, except for those that still have strategic and military value.
In one country alone (South Korea), which it has occupied for over five decades, it has 45,000 soldiers.
The South Korean government is quite happy the U.S. has troops on the DMZ. The South Korean people seem to have a problem with it lately, but if and when Kim Jong Ill or his successor decides to "unify" the country, they will be glad of the assistance.
The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out terrorism, but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as John Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells.
Another misleading statement albeit with some truth intertwined. I would be interested to see the vast oil fields the U.S. has occupied in Yugoslavia, Somalia, South Korea, Japan, Germany, France, etc, all countries they have occupied for the reasons mentioned above.
It's always strapped for cash when it comes to social spending, health care and Social Security, but can find billions at the drop of a hat for a new weapons program.
Again, misleading, but with some truth intertwined. You have to realize that a significant portion of tax revenue is budgeted for military spending. SS also has a budget, which if not altered, will run out as more baby boomers retire. American health care is market driven, and not funded by the U.S. government in most cases.
Its colossal military is more than two and half times larger than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba.)
and this a bad things why?
Its military spending, combined with that of its allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia), is five times greater than that of the next nine largest potential adversaries together. Yet, it says, it's always under threat.
Military spending is why the U.S. has such a large military, which is necessary for the rather large operations the U.S. has a tendency to become involved in. That being said, Japan doesn't much in the way of military spending, it isn't in their constitution. South Korea largely relies on the 30,000 troops on the DMZ for their defense, so don't spend much either. So the countries listed don't seem to make the case.
In the last five decades, it has attacked no less than two dozen countries. In the last four years, it has bombed four countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq) one of them in two separate campaigns (Afghanistan), and one almost daily (Iraq.)
Yes, when you are at war you have a tendency to bomb your enemies. Poor Taliban, poor Saddam Hussein, poor warlords of the Sudan...
Even though the raison d'être of the major military alliance it leads (NATO) has vanished, the alliance is more robust than ever, and is expanding.
and?
It refuses to sign a treaty banning land mines.
I wish they would
It refuses to sign the Kyoto Accords, limiting greenhouse gasses.
This agreement would have damaged the U.S. economy, while countries such as India and China continued to pollute as they industrialize.
It uses cluster bombs -- bombs consisting of dozens of tiny land mine-like bomblets -- which continue to kill, usually children, well after a war is finished.
Good battlefield weapon, bad afterwards, I agree.
It has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons.
mentioned earlier...and? The U.S. doesn't use them or sell them.
It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Primarily because rogue regimes would like nothing better than to show off their new nuclear weapons with a test explosion. The U.S. likes to have the option of showing exactly what their weapons are capable of if pressed far enough.
It refuses to renounce the first strike use of nuclear weapons. It won't commit to refraining from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.
If you renounce the first strike with nuclear weapons you take another card off the table, the U.S. doesn't like to lose cards.
It is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.
Yes, and it probably saved a million lives in the end. The land invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath beyond comprehension.
It says it doesn't target civilians, but, in maintaining the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, is prepared to kill civilians in countless numbers.
I don't see the point to this statement...
In one major campaign lasting over ten years (Vietnam War), it carpet bombed three countries (North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), killing at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, it carpet bombed North Korea so thoroughly it ran out of targets to bomb.
Kept the bomb factories back home in business. When you are fighting a country that is mostly jungle, it is a good way to clear the battlefield in certain areas, not to mention clear the way for ground forces.
It issues ultimata to other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan), and when the ultimata are rejected, it says the other side refused to negotiate. When the other side begs to negotiate, it's bombed.
False statement. The U.S. gave them an ultimatum that was rejected, we then acted upon the threat. Otherwise an ultimatum would have been worthless.
It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around the clock with only a few civilian casualties. It announces in advance of a bombing campaign that some civilian deaths are inevitable, and then, when they occur, say they were accidental and unintended.
Depends upon the bombing campaign. The "shock and awe" campaign was about taking out Iraqi military infrastructure in an almost overnight barrage. Civilians died, I don't think the Pentagon or anyone else expected a bloodless war.
It bombs civilian infrastructure -- water treatment facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage, pumping stations, sewage facilities, bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizer factories, auto-plants, as well as hospitals, schools, old folks homes, Red Cross buildings, and residential neighborhoods. After reducing its enemies to rubble, it imposes sanctions to hinder the rebuilding of all that was destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq), until a puppet regime is installed (Yugoslavia.)
When you are at war with a country, the point is to degrade their ability to make war. The majority of targets mentioned were clearly military targets. The others are unfortunate, but hardly something only the U.S. has experience with.
It enforces one sanctions regime (Iraq) that is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million civilians. One of the country's leaders (Madeleine Albright) said the deaths are "worth it."
I don't know about this quote, but assuming that is correct, that is an unfortunate choice of words.
If it doesn't like another country's economic policies, it tars the leadership as tyrants and brutes, declares the country a dictatorship, and raises concern about human rights violations (Yugoslavia, Belarus) and railroads the leaders into jail (Yugoslavia) or arranges to have them overthrown in a coup (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Yugoslavia.) Authoritarian countries whose leaders are tyrants and brutes and who routinely trample human rights are called friends and allies if they have the right economic policies (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti.) Their leaders don't go to jail (Pinochet.)
Every nation looks after its own interests first, but some of the political tampering of Henry Kissinger, in South America particularly, weren't helpful.
It routinely intervenes in the elections of other countries, funding political parties, NGO's and media, but prohibits other countries from intervening in its own elections.
Not sure what this means exactly. The Saudi and Kurdish lobbies have funneled quite a bit of money into television ads in the states this election cycle.
It commits war crimes unrestrainedly, free from censure and prosecution, because it controls the international body that establishes war crimes tribunals. It refuses to sign a treaty to establish a international criminal court that could prosecute war crimes free from its interference.
I don't support joining an international criminal court either. U.S. forces would be brought up on every charge under the sun, and this court would become another international body of third-world countries attempting to project their power through international organizations. Nothing wrong with that, just do it at the U.N. general assembly.
Its media is described as practicing "suck-up" journalism, afraid to be too critical of the country's leadership, for fear of being frozen out and refused access to "news makers." The media regards itself as duty-bound by patriotism to assist in the production and dissemination of propaganda in times of war, a now permanent condition.
This is more a jab at the media itself, not the U.S government.
The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark.
Quite False. The American people know exactly what their government is doing in 90% of cases. The U.S. government has more leaks than a century old sewer pipe. If the U.S. leaders are "barbarous and sociopaths", then so are the American people who elect them because of their policies.
It has the largest prison population per capita in the world.
yes, because we have a large crime rate, and?
In one of its largest states (California), it spends more on prisons than education.
That is because crime is a large problem in California, but I'm sure California's education spending is probably triple that of other states.
The infant mortality rate in its capital is higher than that of a third world country it has blockaded economically for four decades (Cuba), and whose politics it doesn't like.
Not sure where this statistic comes from, but Washington D.C. is a crime-ridden area with a large amount of drug abuse.
Criticism of the country's foreign policy is dealt with by assigning dismissive labels to the critics (anti-American, communists), threats of legal sanction (charges of sedition), or threats of deportation (to Cuba.) The criticisms themselves are never addressed.
I would love to see anyone who has been charged with sedition or been threatened with legal sanction by the U.S. government for free-speech. It simply hasn't happened. Joe Smith down the street can call you anything he wants.
The country forces the poor and wretched of the world to adopt austere economic policies that it, itself, would never adopt, for fear of economic ruin. The polices have the effect of intensifying the misery of the world's poor, while increasing the wealth of the country's business elite.
Corruption is a problem with many developing countries. Developing a solid and productive market and infrastructure is vital to economic growth. Unfortunately, many of the leaders in these nations do not use the funds wisely.
The country claims to have a free press, but only the wealthiest can own the press. Not surprisingly, the press reflects the interests of the wealthy. It's said that anyone can become leader of the country, but only those who can ingratiate themselves with the wealthiest citizens can raise the funds and backing to occupy the country's highest offices. The president, the cabinet, and most elected representatives, have either been bought by, or are members of, the country's economic elite.
This is true. The common man has little chance of being taken seriously these days in elective politics. Although the chance is still there. Many politicians, such as Tom Delay, weren't part of the economic elite, and he became majority leader of the House of Representatives.
The country's foreign policies have caused illimitable suffering throughout much of the world for decades. This has led to it being reviled over the greater part of the globe. Its leader (George W. Bush) can only reply, "I don't know why. We're doing such a good job."

This is just an anti-American slogan. The quote has nothing to do with the sentences before it. In other words, not objective enough to have a point.

PS. I messed up on the font. So it is hard to distinguish the statements from my responses and I have to hit the hay. However, if Scents of Jenna is that concerned about my replies she can sort through it.

Originally Posted by scentsofjannah

one form of oppression is HIGH INTEREST RATES..ever thought about that?

No. At least not for more than two minutes.

one poor african country borrows $1 million and in a couple of years later it has to pay 16 million back!! and because of that they even have to borrow YET more money to pay off the **** interest! this is PURE EXPLOITATION....if you agree with that then you donot deserve to live on this earth.

Sorry to see you think I deserve to die. People with good credit ratings get low interest rates. People who are high risk get higher interest rates. Which is worse for the poor and other bad credit risks - high interest rates or no loans at all? People who have good plans to make money get low interest rates as well. People who have risky ones get higher ones. Which is worse - high rates or no loans at all?

wow you seem to have a justification for every injustice Heigou!! neat!

Keltoi hope you didnt mess it on purpose heh! but ill definetly go through them.

strange ..when almost every other human on earth knows of the fact that there is a North-South divide and trading inequalities..some people on this forum like Mr Heigou etc think everythings perfect and couldnt be better

Originally Posted by HeiGou

Which is worse - high rates or no loans at all?

Neither. Try fair trade and a government that doesnt spend every penny it has on weapons.

Curious

oh that doesnt even feature in their vocabulary..