The United States is not at all right-wing on the world stage. The United States is, by now, idealistic and centre-left on the world stage, sending massive amounts of foreign aid (money, food, hospitals, schools, vehicles, vaccines) all over the world and being susceptible to calls for help from rebels that American politicians naively think want to remove dictators from power. If you want right-wing countries on the world stage, try India (which constantly threatens Pakistan with war over the border situation and Pakistani-funded terrorism), China (which is holding on rather bitterly to its western reaches, especially the lands of the Tibetans and the Uyghurs), Russia (which makes no secret of standing for the interests of ethnic Russians first and foremost) or Brazil (which, also, stands for its own interests).
What we see happening in the world today is a shift in power from the centre-left idealists who want to meddle with the idea that it'll make the world a better place (Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) to the nations that think the world would be a better place if every nation looked out primarily for its own interests (China, Russia, Brazil, India).
30 comments
How does one go about sending another nation a hospital? That must be a truly monumental amount of packing peanuts...
There's a word for nations and civilizations that withdraw into themselves and shun the world beyond their borders. That word is "dead". It was true in the time of spears & arrows and you can bet your ass that it's true in the time of ICBMs and the internet. As for the US being left-leaning... PFft. Sure. Compared to the likes of Iran I suppose we're a fairly liberal nation (though not for lack of trying on the part of our own fundie element).
to be fair to Quintium, he don't seem to talk on the economical spectrum (on which USA can't see many countries to her right).
In most of the (free) world, US Democrats would be the right wing party, with Republicans being the fringe far-right nationalist asshole party that at least every European nation has and that's usually supported by a single-digit percentage of people.
What US is he referring to? 'Cause it sure ain't the one I'm livin' in! What with all these republican warmongers & prudish bible bangers mucking things up; the good thing is they're enjoying record low approval rates now.
If only the US was center-left! I'd be a happy camper.
Not exactly fundie. Yes, America's quite a bit left of Saudi Arabia, but compared to the UK, we range from center-right to reactionary.
Which world stage is this? A stage with just Saudi, Israel, Iran, Hungary, Afghanistan, Uganda and Russia on it? In that group, the US is pretty left-wing.
Honey, the divide between left and right is not charity vs war.
How is it looking out for your own interest to constantly threaten the states around you? War is expensive
A shift in power perhaps, but if you look at surveys for "overall happiness" or satisfaction with one's living condition, all the countries in the first group, except perhaps the US, are in the top, and all in the second group are below the middle.
If compared to other Western countries (and when you compare countries to each other, apples to apples comparisons are best), the United States is about as far to the right as you can get. Now, compared to the developing world, and the regressing world, the United States is socially very left leaning.
>Quintium
No wonder James Bond has done irreparable damage to that worldwide organisation, that the next Daniel Craig one is called "SPECTRE".
MI5/MI6/GCHQ's sharing GCHQ's interception (and total scanning of the telecommunications network) anti -terrorism data with the FBI/CIA/NSA; American lives saved as a result of such, especially during the Labour Blair/Brown governments. Universal Exports indeed.
Current Labour leader Ed Miliband ahead of David Cameron's Conservatives in polls right now, coming up to the General Election. President Obama called previous Labour PM Gordon Brown 'A true freind of America', the 'Special Relationship', and all that jazz.
All those US lives saved via MI5/MI6/GCHQ data intercepts shared with the US. Another potential Labour - as in Leftist - government Obama will call a true friend. As no doubt President Clinton will, come 2016/17.
Oh, do pay attention! [/'Q']
I really don't think how right or left America is can be determined by our foreign policy. I don't know how anyone can say America is left with a straight face when you take into account, well, all the shit we do. From our demonization of the poor to how we still won't let gay people get married.
historically, people function better, are happier and safer, and achieve greater things in groups. the same has also been true for countries or states. somewhere along the line, we decided that fighting each-other into oblivion (now possible with nuclear weapons) was no future for mankind. humanity working together for the benefit and safety of everyone, this applies on a country level to a community and family level. I don't understand how people like this can think that the US (or whatever country) would prosper from being a self-interested, racially/culturally pure, isolated war maker, while the rest of the world builds society and civilization together.
also, the strategy of sending friendly rebels guns has almost never worked in the past.
According to the Fox News/WND-loving Palin-Americans I'm related to, it's more like 25%. But they also believe that Canada is a Stalinist hellhole and when I asked them if they knew the difference between socialism and communism, they angrily replied that they were EXACTLY the same thing.
My family is well-infromed, much like whoever this is.
image
All states act in their own interests, including the European ones. That's how international relations works. A country that views Henry Kissinger, of all people, as a foreign relations maven is not left-wing.
@ Ivurm
In which case communist countries like the USSR and Cuba would rank as some of the most conservative of all time.
That's one huge tissue of flat, deliberate lies. The US is by far the most right-wing nation in the free world. And while the US gives quite a lot in absolute dollars (and it's citizens give even more), it's one of the least generous nations in terms of percentage of GDP.
@creativerealms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE
'On November 15, 2013, MGM and the McClory estate had formally settled the issue with Danjaq, LLC and MGM acquiring the full copyright rights to the characters and concepts of Blofeld and SPECTRE'
I can't wait for this newest Daniel Craig Bond film. Considering how "Casino Royale" was the 'Killer App' for the Blu-Ray format here in the UK (just as "The Matrix" did similarly for DVD in the late 90s; especially for the concept of 'Extras'), then the franchise's future is secure; "CR" was shockingly good, "A Quantum of Solace" outdid that, and "Skyfall" was mindblowing, then "SPECTRE" should do for these 21st Century Bonds as "Goldfinger" & "You Only Live Twice" did for the Connery era ones & Bond films in the 20th C. as a whole.
...oh, and as this retard from Nationstates doesn't realise: Quantum was completely a political, just as SPECTRE plays both sides off each other, in terms of forwarding their own goals & agendas.
Oh, and the United Federation of Planets. Your argument is invalid , Quintium.
The United States' foreign policy is still right-wing and seems to go well in line with it's aggressive economical expansion methods and the fact that one of the States' main 'export items' is in fact War. To add to it, although the U.S. ruling circles declare good intentions left and right, they don't really want true partnership with anyone. They want economical submission. They follow the famous 'separate and rule' formula and try to spread and strenghthen their influence everywhere and beyond all limits of ethics and reason with their instuments being war, revolutions and economical pressure. No surprise that all such actions are heavily backed up with propaganda.
However the States' abnormal pursuit of supremacy is not unique. The issue is that almost all political actions have always originated in economis and still do so. It's not politicians themselves but major economical entities such as nation-scale or trans-national businesses who determine the policy. They use political powers to win themselves resources, priveleges and profits. These are unfair business practices on a global scale. When a foreign state isn't willing to co-operate in a desired way (i.e. it's impossible to pass certain laws there) it is sometimes cheaper to take over their market via disrupting their economy and/or political process rather than to use fair competition. Just business. This model of doing business seems to originate from the times of the first major british trade companies (Ost-Indian etc.). An additional issue here is that some companies tend to use expansive strategies rather than investing into innovation.
And then there is war. There is an interesting aspet that direct conquest is not so profitable anymore. There are easier ways to make money off of war nowadays. The first way is what replaced conquest. Nowadays you don't conquer a sovereign country but rather de-stabilize it's political and/or economical life under some good intentions (i.e. bringing them democracy in case of the U.S.) and istall a puppet regime which allows you to pass laws and rules that are favourable for expanding your businesses there. Among the obvious advantages of such a strategy over conquest is the fact that it may be hard to spot the malicious aspects of your intervention outright and thus you avoid image losses. The second way to make profit out of war is waging a perpetual war in a distant foreign land (with best intentions of course). War is in fact a profitable thing when it's not on your soil and it's even more profitable when you don't actively take part in combat but rather trade with one or both sides. Here I have to clarify something. How can a war be profitable in any way? It obviously can't when it's on your land. Also it obviously is not a good idea to wage an outright war against an enemy which is relatively powerful. But it's a no-loss scenario when you wage war against a weaker enemy or provoke war between other countries (you don't even have to actually provoke an outright war - worsening their relations to the level of perpetual gung-ho pre-war paranoia may be enaugh). What benefits do you get? First of all, you create workplaces and thus boost your economy and lower social tensions. Secondly, you may unite the majority of your people uder an ideological pretense and distract them from domestic problems. Thirdly, you may profit from weapons and supplies trade and not let your army 'rust' without seeing action at all.
To sum it up, the States' foreign policy and international relations as the whole are capitalist in the worst sence. Hostile takeovers, frauds, racket etc. It's all the same on a global scale. And it's also good to remember that there are no idealists in global politics, only pragmatics and their puppets.
Now feel free to post all this in CSTDT if you like.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
