At 01:27 PM 2003-05-24 +1200, I wrote, with Subject: world policeman (was: The Human Freedom Index) {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/9634 } :- At 10:20 AM 2003-05-23 -0500, Diane wrote to LIM: >I would be curious as to LIMers' response to a typical claim of conservat- ives in my world -- that the reason that the top free countries can enjoy the lives they do and spend their money the way they do is because the U.S. takes on the responsibility of being the world's policeman and protects these countries from invasion, such as through all the years of the Cold War > >(I'm not saying I agree.) > >Diane Fitzsimmons >Norman, Okla. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ross Cannon >> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:28 PM >> >> The Human Freedom Index >> Source: Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Report from _1991_, based on data from 1985 http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~kris/FreedomIndex.html >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Country Ranking >> The Top 10 Countries with Highest Freedom Ranking (35-40 points) >> (38) Sweden >> (38) Denmark >> (37) Netherlands >> (36) Finland >> (36) New Zealand >> (36) Austria >> (35) Norway >> (35) France >> (35) West Germany ("data from 1985") >> (35) Belgium > · IMO the purpose of the Cold War, at least from a couple of years after it started, was to protect the USA and smash the "enemy" so as to attain the US's present pre-eminent status. · I am not surprised the USSR threw up a dictator like Stalin when under threat of invasion by Germany, nor surprised that they went all out to protect themselves from being threatened-into-submission by the USA's _monopoly_ of the rightly-feared "atomic" bomb. That was the reason for the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki, to tell the USSR and the rest of the world that the USA was dominant, and would "do what it takes" to remain dominant. There _may_ have been some justification for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (though most do not agree) but there was absolutely no World War II reason for it; it was a _threat_. · The rest of the world has never mattered, as long as it kept out of the USA's way. As a by-product, a tiny handful of east-of-middle European nations (Austria, Germany, Greece, Turkey) _might_ have been prevented from being swallowed-up by the USSR, but from Kruschov onward there was _no_significant_threat_to_other_nations_, requiring that "the U.S. takes on the responsibility of being the world's policeman and protects these countries from invasion, such as through all the years of the Cold War". - _No_significant_threat_ - · This "generally understood view of the world by most Americans" is false. David. (I hope Richard Selinkoff agrees with me.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ At 01:57 PM 2003-05-24 +1200, I wrote with Subject: communism/world-policeman (was: Human Freedom Index) {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/9635 } :- · In my last post I said: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '.. protect themselves from being threatened-into-submission by the USA's _monopoly_ of the rightly-feared "atomic" bomb. That was the reason for the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki, to tell the USSR and the rest of the world that the USA was dominant, and would "do what it takes" to remain dominant. ... there was absolutely no World War II reason for the Nagasaki bomb; it was a _threat_. ... from Kruschov onward there was _no_significant_threat_to_other_nations_, requiring that "the U.S. takes on the responsibility of being the world's policeman and protects these countries from invasion, such as through all the years of the Cold War". - _No_significant_threat_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · The other part, the reason most Americans and similar-minded others won't agree with the above, is that _communism_ has become "the evil empire", something to kill our young men to protect against, in their minds. · That is also false. · In China, they modified communism to suit themselves; in Yugoslavia the same. Poland didn't do well, but part of that was because USSR tanks could and did roll in over the land border. The tanks failed, in Afghanistan. · A failure of democracy - another example of "mob rule" in the USA - was the McCarthy trials in the 1950s. Trying to "wipe out" communism inside the USA. It was almost as bad as what has happened recently, there. · I don't regard communism as a threat. If India, or Australia (or NZ) or Britain had turned communist, they (and the rest of the world) would be somewhat different from now, but not as bad as in the USSR with its being dragged directly from the 18th century (Tsar and peasants) into the present. · No, there is an inherent yearning for justice, a suitable degree of freedom, and social concern, in such nations, that life wouldn't have been _greatly_ changed under communism. _Their_ kind of communism. · _That's why I say: - _No_significant_threat_ - needing a world policeman David. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - sent-on by David. (David MacClement) - Civis Mundi d1v9d @ bigfoot.com ZL1ASX http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html