The United States as a bully

Do you know what a bully is?

from JoeUser Forums
Some people say the United States behaves like a world bully. There's a term for those people: Morons. Pampered morons but morons nevertheless.

Let us pretend that in 1944 when Roosevelt died that his Vice President was actually I. Bully. He was actually the genetic twin of Adolph Hitler. And as World War II came to a close, he instituted a policy of world bullyism. What would he have done and what could have been done about it?

1945: The entire population of Japan is exterminated. Every man, woman, and child is killed. American colonists begin recolonizing the vacant land.

1946: Mass production of the A-bomb allows the sole atomic bomb source, the USA, to annihilate Soviet Russa. Stalin and his regime is wiped from the face of the earth.

1950: There is no North Korea as South Korea absorbs all of North Korea. USA doctrine: No country is allowed to have nuclear weapons. Anyone who tests an atomic bomb will be annihilated immediately.

1951: French and German governments are officially reinstated but must rebuild themselves. US goods are imported in with no tarrifs. No tarrifs are allowed on US goods.

1960: All of middle east is made into a US colony. Native peoples are rounded up and forced to live in reservations where no oil has been found. Uprisings are brutally crushed with deadly force. Any person found with a fireharm has their family executed along with them.

1967: There is no war as US has made known that any move against Israel would result in atomic retaliation from the United States.

1979: Iran is destroyed after several ICBMs level the country in relatiation for uprisings against US embassy.

1980: There is no Iran-Iraq war since Iran doesn't exist anymore. Saddam's regime moves into Iran.

1984: China is caught testing an atomic weapon. All of China is obliterated by the United States in nuclear attack using new low fall-out nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan, who both have suspected nuclear programs at the time, open themselves to inspection by the USAEC.

1989: Canada (except for Quebec) is annexed peacefully by the United States. The border with Mexico is militarized with deadly force to any who cross the border.

1995: WTO now globally accepted. It is different from our reality's WTO in that the United States government is the sole arbitrator of WTO rules.

2000: Trusted countries such as the UK, Australia, and other Anglo-Saxxon based countries form a league with the USA to help maintain "global peace and prosperity".

In this nightmare scenario I have just provided we would all, including Americans, be worse off. On the other hand, there is nothing to have stopped the United States from having done this. The US did have a monopoly on atomic weapons for a long enough time to have made that monopoly realistic as long as it was willing to commit genocide and "bully" the world to achieve its goals. The events of World War II have taught us that genocide is not something unthinkable. It wasn't even the last time when genocide has been commited.

The USA is not perfect. It has its share of faults. But it isn't a bully. Or...if it is, it is a very benign bully. Those who claim otherwise are being dishonest because they rely on the compassion and humanity of Americans to be restrained. I have no doubt that the terrorists of the world would, if roles were reversed, not feel that restraint.
35,207 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
1st Pampered Moron signing in.

Did you know that any country that stations US troops has to sign a contract saying that an US troops cannot be tried under local laws?

Did you know that if Australia didn't help USA in Iraq, we had absolutely no chance of signing a free trade Agreement?

Did you know that if Turkey didn't commit troops to Iraq, the Bam earthquake relief fund from the US was going to be cut off?

America has a responsibility as World leader, this i agree with. They dont handle that responsibilty particularly well on an International level.

BAM!!!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Perhaps the issues is a matter of thresholds.  The US not being willing to do favors back if you don't do favors for it is what you apparently define a bully as.


Personally, I don't consider that bullying. My wife babysits the neighbor's kids on a regular basis. If, however, we asked them to watch ours once in awhile and they refused us when we were in a bind even though it didn't really inconvenience them we would probably consider not watching their kids all the time.  Now, maybe that's bullying. But where I come from, people who are getting favors done for them should recripricate in kind.


Every example you gave involves one party doing something for another. A trade.  A favor.


Are we bullies because we force people to pay money for our software? By contrast, a real bully is someone who forces you to do something by threat of HARM with you getting nothing in return. If the US were threatening, for example, to bomb your cities if you didn't help, THAT would be bullying.


The best example I can think of bullying would be...oh how about France bullying EU wannabe countries to do what it wants or face not being able to get into the EU?

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The best example I can think of bullying would be...oh how about France bullying EU wannabe countries to do what it wants or face not being able to get into the EU?
End of quote


I agree with you in this respect.

The issue with the bullying here wasn't just subjective to the American governent, but anyone that succumbs to these wishes are just as bad.

The simple fact of the matter is that Australians staunchly opposed sending our troops to Iraq, but our govenrnement only saw $$$ from a resulting free trade agreement. That wasn't really bullying per se - but it has a direct and influential outcome on the running of our country.

A lot of the favours the US was asking was against popular opinion though, so it was either go with us, or with your people, not bullying, but an ultimatum none the less.

At the end of the day, i would rather the US as a bully than China for example... that doesn't make what they do right in my eyes though.

BAM!!!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have we done anything to those countries that have opposed the Iraqi war besides just tell them how pissed we are about them being against it?
I think if anything, we're rather tame. Look how long it took us to get rid of Hussein! However, our size and power make us seem more hostile than we really are.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very intresting. That is very true too. I'm very glad it didn't happen, however.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

The simple fact of the matter is that Australians staunchly opposed sending our troops to Iraq


Can you back that up with evidence? The polls I've seen from Australia who the population overall in favor of it.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
We would never have denied Australia free trade, nor would we have denied earthquake relief. That's money that the government gets to spend, like so many women buying shoes. And the host country does get to prosecute servicermen, if the illegal act committed is committed to a citizen. Don't believe the garbage you hear. I was in the Navy. You do get "double jeopardy" if you will. The U.S. has never been a bully, even under the evil Republican regimes of the last two decades. As Brad pointed out, Australia has been either shoulder to shoulder or marching right behind us since they've been able to. Aussies never back down from a good and just fight. Ever. We've only ever been about free trade, capitalism, freedom, human rights, and democracy. Democracy is good and it's not religious.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can you back that up with evidence? The polls I've seen from Australia who the population overall in favor of it
End of quote


This is the best i could find! its from the 21st Jan from the Leading Sydney broadsheet publication.

Thanks
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Entertaining blog. But with all the decimation you illustrate would surely place the environment in an unpredictable state, not to mention death to ourselves from fall-out. Incidentally Bully was never uttered in light of Truman's decision to drop the bombs. But for Japan the world rejoiced. 
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
no... many australians were not in favour of it. The lack of support came from people from all walks of life. even those who are staunched liberal voters. I think this is because in australia, we pride ourselves on being a nation that is tolerant, compassionate and supportive. The lesson is to be careful with poles. they are extremely misleading and are not representative of the whole picture. (eg. who is at home to answer the phone call from the polster, who wants to vote in the poll...etc.)

also, i'm really not sure whether when you are dealing with peoples lives - particularly from the perspective of a nation which is one of the major global forces, that 'favours' is what it should be all about. this is a very individualistic mindset. again - this is a matter of cultural perspective. many countries are not as individually-driven as america. being in a position of advantage and privilege means that you may have a duty to help your fellow person - it becomes an ethical thing. when there is a hidden agenda - it means the geniuneness is lost. and when it comes to helping those in disadvantaged situations, then its altruism that is ssumed as the motive/basis. not deal-making for personal gain.

also we have to be careful what we choose to read and believe from the papers. bear in mind that what the media prints encases plenty of spin - particularly in the USA where public relations and political communications are huge industries. (i know - i study it and work in it). For the Iraq war, the military ran an extremely tight PR ship.

and yes... maybe keep an open mind about how the world views the USA. it's not often in a good light when you look at its foreign policies. there's something called 'cultural sensitivity' which America appears to lack in the international community. while the current government's intentions may have been genuine - it wasn't percieved that way by the rest of the world.

i think the thing we all have to realise is that we only get part of the story. the real motivations are never revealed to the public. particularly when it comes to the world stage and politics.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Muggaz said: Did you know that any country that stations US troops has to sign a contract saying that an US troops cannot be tried under local laws?

That paper is called a SOFA or Status of Forces Agreement, and having lived under one or another for more years than I can count, if a member of the US Military does something stupid they are going to get hammered.....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Muggaz: Your "evidence" is over a year old and before the war. How about something..you know, current. It should be easy to find. The polls I've seen (on CNN admittedly) out of Australia have had it split pretty evenly.


As for the article itself, I think it should be pointed out that in a Nazi Germany dominated world the above scenario seems pretty likely. People often fall into the trap in assuming the world we have today is the only possible outcome we could have had. It's not.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
WHEN YOU GIVE YOUR (LET US PRETEND SCENARIO) YOU GO TO THE ULTIMATE EXTREME-WHY IS YOUR BULLY IN THIS SCENARIO RELATED IN ANY WAY TO HITLER--IS THAT NOT AN EXTREME EXAMPLE-YOU ARE TALKING OF BULLY-NOT A MURDERING INSANE PERSON AS HITLER WAS--YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ALL OF THE WORST OF HUMANITY TO BE A BULLY--IF YOU HAVE WALKED THRU LIFE -LOOKED -LISTENED AND LEARNED THRU YOUR WALK THEN YOU WILL CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO BE A BULLY-PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY--((A QUIET AND SUTLE BULLY CAN BE AS BAD OR WORSE THAN ONE THAT WORKS IN THE OPEN TO BE SEEN BY OTHERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO TALK WITH YOU-DAVID CHARBONNEAU....
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The argument that the U.S. is a world bully is a joke. The fact is that no country other that the U.S. is as active in responding to the plights of people around the world. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey, North Korea, and Bosnia, just to name a few. Some of these nations we don't even have dimplomatic relations with yet we still send in massive amounts of food, medical supplies, and clothes. The U.S. assists people around the world even when the people we help, utterly hate us. I'm just speaking about the past 10 years as well. I won't beat the World War I and II drums today because we all know who cast the deciding vote in those wars. Does the U.S. protect it's interests? Yes. It has to. Just like every other country but the interests of the U.S. are all over the world considering it is a world superpower. Smaller or less powerful nations protect their interests as well. But more often than not their interests are within their geographic region.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure you can call the US a bully, however, when it comes to being a country isn't being a bully a good thing? Every bully is powerful and influential and that is a good thing for a country to be.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The USA isn't a bully. It's liberals who practice their own brand of facism and neo-conservatives that can't keep their hand out of other people's cookie jars. Paleoconservatism could probably save us but it's all gone too far for that.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I say We American bullies stop all of the bullying we do, no more forced aid to other countries, natural disasters wipe you out? pray a lot for food, America will no longer bully you into taking food and medicine. Famine happening? well I am sure France will come to your aid, they will send huge planes of food till you are on you feet. America will no longer force you to eat OUR food. Disease running amok? well heck Ask Allah for help America will no longer force the miracle medications we made on you. Being attacked by a larger stronger country? maybe if you ask nice they will stop or the UN will help, America would not want to appear to be forcing you to accept our protection.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
if us troops cannot be prosecuted in a country that they are posted to. then why did japan prosecute those naval personal charged with rape.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did you know that any country that stations US troops has to sign a contract saying that an US troops cannot be tried under local laws?


This is not true! As a former member of the USMC I can tell you from experience that if a member of the armed forces commits a crime on foreign soil is subject to prosecution in that country. Some laws are not prosecutable because of SOFA, I think that is the contract you are misinformed of, the Status Of Forces Agreement. If I run a stop light and no one gets hurt I get prosecuted by the military if I rape a local I get handed over to the local police and tried in their court system even if the penalty is death. The bad part is that if I break the law in a local town and go to jail in that country when I am released I will be prosecuted by the military. I have seen sailors who got three years for rape in Japan and after they were released they were prosecuted for conduct unbecoming of a service member and given ten years hard labor in federal prison, dishonorable discharge and reduction in rank to E-1. So much for double jeopardy or the protection from it. The military gets to do two prison sentences for the same crime. I don’t hear you wanting to protect our servicemen from that!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don’t hear you wanting to protect our servicemen from that!


As well they shouldn't be. They are, in many instances, the face of our country to those where they serve - their conduct should be exemplary, or their punishment severe, as far as I'm concerned.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The military gets to do two prison sentences for the same crime.


i hate to say this but they are not the same crime.


crime one was the rape. crime two was conduct unbecoming. it comes from the same crime but is not the same crime.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
i hate to say this but they are not the same crime.


crime one was the rape. crime two was conduct unbecoming. it comes from the same crime but is not the same crime.


Hey, shut up! If the other guy can exaggerate by saying that our troops get away with anything I can show the other side with a little stretch of the truth. The conduct unbecoming is the rape. I guess he had to rape someone in the military way to avoid that one. We called it the “catch all” because no matter what you did wrong that charge was always added to the list when they wanted to burn you. If you walked down the street while smoking a cigarette in uniform it was against the UCMJ as conduct unbecoming. To smoke you had to be stationery meaning unmoving. If you walked you were busted.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
As well they shouldn't be. They are, in many instances, the face of our country to those where they serve - their conduct should be exemplary, or their punishment severe, as far as I'm concerned.


The bill of rights specifically states that we are not to be subject to double jeopardy. If we are tried for a crime in Japan or South Korea, even if found innocent of those crimes the serviceman is still subject to the UCMJ. Case on point. A marine brought his girlfriend into his barracks for sex. While he was in the shower three others joined with the woman. Two she liked one she did not like. She screamed rape. According to japans law if the woman liked or had an orgasm from the rape it was not rape. The one that the Japanese police took to jail was the one that did not make her cum. The military arrested the boyfriend and the other two. They went to the brig for thirty days forfeiture of all pay and allowances for two months plus reduction of rank. Gee, not even charged with a crime can get you busted. The guy who was arrested was found guilty and when he got out of prison he was charged with rape. Double jeopardy was not attached because he was not charged twice in an American court. I know this case because I was the one that had to take him from Japan to Leavenworth prison for five years hard labor. I did not care because the man should not have dipped his wick in the first place.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, doesn't everyone know you need to be stationary to smoke a cigarette with honor?