General discussion

Locked

The Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

By AV . ·
I don't think I like this and there isn't all that much press about it. Are we merging? Just think. It won't be Canada, the US and Mexico anymore. It'll just be North America. Add the rest of South America to that. One big happy family.
http://www.spp.gov

Could this ever work? I'm skeptical.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Far be it for me to be cynical...

by neilb@uk In reply to The Security and Prosperi ...

...but would you be quite so cosy with your northern and southern neighbours if they didn't have lots of oil oil? I suspect that, given the immigration issue, if you didn't have to keep Mexico sweet, you probably wouldn't.

You'll "help" them with their security, will you? Timeo Danaos et donna ferentes!

As for South America, none of them have particularly good feelings towards the US and no real reason to trust you. You have, on a number of occasions, adopted a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude in your dealings with South American countries that has left rather a bitter taste in the mouths of some...

Neil :)

p.s. I can justify that last para but it may take a little time to gather the sources together.

Collapse -

neil,

by Jaqui In reply to Far be it for me to be cy ...

don't forget, the laws adopted by the usa since the 9-11 attack that violate the laws of both Canada and Mexico.

why would any SANE person / company want to do business with a US firm when it will put them in violation of the laws in their home country to do so?

Collapse -

"The power of accurate observation . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Far be it for me to be cy ...

.....is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
~ George Bernard Shaw

Okay, one more:

"The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man, and never fails to see a bad one. He is the human owl, vigilant in darkness and blind to light, mousing for vermin, and never seeing noble game. The cynic puts all human actions into two classes--openly bad and secretly bad. All virtue and generosity and disinterestedness are merely the appearance of good; but selfish at the bottom. He holds that no man does a good thing except for profit. The effect of his conversation upon your feelings is to chill and sear them; to send you away sour and morose. His criticisms and hints fall indiscriminately upon every lovely thing, like frost upon flowers."
~ Henry Ward Beecher

(Now where are the lyrics to the Alan Parson's song? "If I had a mind to........")

Collapse -

A cynic...

by neilb@uk In reply to "The power of accurate ob ...

...is someone who, upon smelling flowers, looks around for the funeral.

Nonetheless, Max old chum, the USA's track record in the interference in other countries affairs - militarily, economically and otherwise - in the last fifty years is not a good one. We - cynic or optimist - do not have any reason to believe that Iraq might be otherwise.

We have already seen the first signs that some of the troops might be adopting some of the "a good **** is a dead ****" mentality that was evident in Vietnam. Should that attitude spread and your (our?) officers not get on top of it immediately, it does not bode well for our future relations with the Islamic world.

But, hey, let's not do Iraq in this thread. We'll have a much better idea by Christmas if there's any hope. I'll post a nice gentle anti-US economic policy post and you can tear off my arm over that.

Collapse -

The problem with comments, like yours, that. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to A cynic...

.....impugn the United States, is that they're never balanced and/or put into perspective with comments that exalt the good our country has done. Just like people, the USA isn't perfect. We may not always do thigs right, but we don't always do them wrong either.

Some people can't take the pot-shots, and they might even compromise their principles for the sake of pacifying others or for the sake of avoiding criticism. But I can take it. Just like I don't care when people like you take pot-shots at me, personally, or my opinions, I stand just as tall when you take them at my country. Quite frankly, Neil, as far as I'm concerned, you can take your cynical comments and shove them up your cynical arse.

Collapse -

But I won't, obviously

by neilb@uk In reply to The problem with comments ...

There are a whole raft of options open to you when I post something that you don't like just as there are similar options open to me when you post something that I don't like. The option you don't have and I don't want is to have me "shove" my views anywhere I don't want to "shove" them. Trust me in that if nothing else.

I don't think that I've taken more than a couple of pot-shots at you personally as it isn't really conducive to debate and as the US is so obviously now a self-promoted arbiter of what constitutes a civilised society, it's fair game.

Dispute my points. List the recent occasions where US foreign and economic policy towards other countries has been beneficial to those other countries more so than to yourselves. Make your point by debate.

Or don't.

If your statement is true then I will be easy to show up.

Collapse -

Neil, for the record

by maxwell edison In reply to But I won't, obviously

When you take a pot-shot at the United States (as described in my previous message), you take a pot-shot at me.

Now that's not to say avoid all criticism, but it would be nice to see balance once in a while. Heck, I even criticize our government, our political parties, and other Americans. I don't make sport of it, however (except towards the man-caused global warming wing-nuts). And I would never stoop so low as to launch salvo after salvo of criticism your way. How rude!

Besides, if the USA really was the terrible monster you guys make us out to be, just join forces with the rest of the world and put us in our proper place. Heck, isolate us, cut off trade, impose sanctions, or invade! Three hundred million against six billion -- we wouldn't stand a chance! But you (the world) don't do it because of what I'll describe in the rest of this message.

As far as your challenge to, "List the recent occasions where US foreign and economic policy towards other countries has been beneficial to those other countries more so than to yourselves", that's a loaded question because it presumes a false premise (or at least one that's different than what I would describe).

Think win-win, not win-lose, or not lose-win. With win-win thinking, I can't answer your question, because it presumes there's a loser or should be a loser. We don't enter into lose-win deals, and we don't try to force win-lose. We always look for win-win.

Take the Marshall Plan, for example. Wasn't that a win-win? Take the decades of US bases in Europe.Wasn't that a win-win? Wasn't Japan after W.W. II a win-win? And look at current day Iraq. Don't you think we seek a win-win? Or do you really think we want to make Iraqis the losers? (The only losers we are trying to create are the terrorists.)

I'll answer your challenge with one of my own. List the recent occasions where US foreign and economic policy towards other countries has not been beneficial to those other countries as well as to ourselves. I don't think you can. But for some reason, you think that makes us a big bad monster.

Segue into this tangent:

Think about it. Why is it that so many people can't think win-win? Even in their every day lives, their thinking presumes there has to be a loser. If ANY of my thinking, or ANY of my positions, or ANY of my opinions presumes to create a loser, please point it out to me. And if you're correct, I'll change my position on that issue.

Collapse -

I accept your challenge

by neilb@uk In reply to Neil, for the record

One of the reasons that I'm doing this is that there seems to be a huge gap between how the world perceives the USA's actions and motives and the way that they are perceived by Americans. It tends to make me go a little over the top to counterbalance your personal take on any anti-American posts.

Consider that I am visiting the country in October and losing some of my well-earned pounds on the tables at Vegas because I like you all and I like the place (not just Vegas, of course). But I still think that you're not as clever, not as honest and not as philanthropic as you would have us believe and you believe yourselves to be.

Collapse -

It still doesn?t balance out.

by mjwx In reply to Neil, for the record

What Neil said was "List the recent occasions where US foreign and economic policy towards other countries has been beneficial to those other countries more so than to yourselves."

The operative part of that is more so than to yourselves so basically when have the US done something they have not benefited from.

Decades of US bases in Europe, how did Eastern Europe benefit. Besides the small economic benefit how did Western Europe benefit? The majority of defences across the iron curtain were German and British (yanks were there too but not in similar numbers). but really the US got more out of that than Europe, namely power and influence in Europe. If the soviets had decided to invade the NATO force would have been overwhelmed. Your own (US) intelligence reports cited at one point the soviet tank battalions outnumbered NATO 11 to 4. The M1A1 was estimated to be able to take out 2 maybe 3 T80?s before being damaged beyond fighting capacity but you were outnumbered almost 4 to 1 and not all of your tanks were M1A1?s.

Japan, the US currently receives a significant economic boon from Japan. Japan is the only 1st world country not liquidating its reserve of US$ for Euros. My point is the US always got as much or more than the other parties. Any act of generosity you can cite max I can cite 5 acts equally as ungenerous. It doesn?t balance out.

Whist I don?t disagree at all with the post-war occupation of Germany or Japan or even Macarthur?s Americanization of Japan (and the axis did start the war unlike Iraq) Iraq is very different (the US started the war for one).

Win-win in Iraq, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. if you?ve bothered to check the facts lately THEIR IN A FREAKING CIVIL WAR. Sectarian violence is rife and its not coming from (Shiite) Iran rather from Sunni groups (Saddam loyalists for the most part, whist I think Saddam should never have been removed rendering the war unnecessary, he has been removed and now you have this mess you?ve created). By all accounts with the exception of US Command Iraq is heading for a lose-lose scenario.

I smell another Vietnam. on the day 30th of January 1968 the US news sources cited that the US was winning the war in Vietnam and the communists were close to being defeated, what happened on the night of the 30th of January 1968 people. For anyone who wants to claim the US won in Vietnam and cite body counts I ask who is currently in control of Saigon?

Collapse -

We're cozy

by TonytheTiger In reply to Far be it for me to be cy ...

because they are our neighbors.

Back to Community Forum
17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums