577 Page Report: the USA Tortured Detainees

[Lemur]

So an exhaustive, 577-page report (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/684407/constitution-project-report-on-detainee-treatment.pdf) [PDF warning] has been released by the Constitution Project. Among the people who signed off on the findings are Asa Hutchinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Hutchinson), Thomas R. Pickering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Pickering), and William Sessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions). All people with impeccable conservative bona fides, none of them lightweights.

I haven't read the report yet, but those who have say it's clear (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html), well-documented (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/constitution-project-report-on-enhanced-interrogation-concludes-u-s-engaged-in-torture/), and damning (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/post-911-torture-report-041613).

My only question: Can or will we (the USA) do a damn thing about it?

Democracies have a hard time acknowledging, much less prosecuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet) war crimes committed by elected officials. Will we be any different?

Should we be any different?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Should we be any different?

Does that even have to be asked?

America (and indeed Western nations in general) justifies a lot of its foreign interventions on moral grounds - these findings really make a mockery of that. It's one thing to have lower-level institutional problems allowing abuse to happen, but it's something else entirely when the commands are coming from the top.

It's something that the USA really has to sort out if it is going to improve its image across the world. And more importantly, because it's the decent thing to do.

[Fragony]

557 pages makes having an opinion on anything a bit unreasable

[Montmorency]

Should we be any different?

Easy - once governments attain the capacity to tap directly into the information-source, the torture dilemma becomes moot.

Prosecute someone disposable (i.e. right below the President) to throw the myopic off the trail and buy ourselves the necessary time - and discretion...

[HoreTore]

Liberal BS.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Should we be any different?

Ouch. You would ask the toughest question and in the toughest format.

Should implies strict adherence to the spirit and not the letter of any moral/ethical code -- and obviously signals the answer you deem appropriate.

To be fair, that answer may well be the correct answer as well as the right answer.


Did the USA torture detainees in the fashion of the guards at the Hanoi Hilton? Not even close. Did the USA torture detainees (under the label of harsh interrogation techniques) by the UN definition (probably the most widely accepted definition) as well as farm out detainees to locales where we could be virtually certain that they would be tortured (under either definition)? Yes.

Not our finest hour.

[Lemur]

signals the answer you deem appropriate.
Hmm, I'm not as solid on this subject as I could be. Attempting to prosecute any member of President 43's administration would be a political firestorm, not to mention a colossal distraction. I really do understand why President 44 is avoiding this.

More important to this lemur is that the truth be documented, footnoted, annotated, and filed away. Let's record the facts and let history be the judge.

On the other hand, the "enhanced interrogation" program was a massive mistake, a moral failure, and a non-stop global PR nightmare. How many officers in Iraq reported that the insurgents they captured were inspired by reports of USA torture? Lots and lots. "Enhanced interrogation" was one of several policy decisions that manufactured far more enemies than it silenced (and don't get me started on the summary disbandment of the Iraqi army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority_Order_2)).

So ... this isn't a rhetorical question. I get the reasons why we should do nothing. I also get the reasons why we should at least try to do something. And I get that attempting to hold anyone accountable is going to be ... difficult.


Did the USA torture detainees (under the label of harsh interrogation techniques) by the UN definition (probably the most widely accepted definition)
Actually, if you read the summary, you'll see that one of the primary definitions of torture used by the report was techniques we (the USA) have prosecuted/accused/charged other governments for using.

Perhaps the most important or notable finding of this panel is that it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture.

This finding, offered without reservation, is not based on any impressionistic approach to the issue. No member of the Task Force made this decision because the techniques “seemed like torture to me,” or “I would regard that as torture.”

Instead, this conclusion is grounded in a thorough and detailed examination of what constitutes torture in many contexts, notably historical and legal. The Task Force examined court cases in which torture was deemed to have occurred both inside and outside the country and, tellingly, in instances in which the United States has leveled the charge of torture against other governments. The United States may not declare a nation guilty of engaging in torture and then exempt itself from being so labeled for similar if not identical conduct.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmm, I'm not as solid on this subject as I could be. Attempting to prosecute any member of President 43's administration would be a political firestorm, not to mention a colossal distraction. I really do understand why President 44 is avoiding this.

More important to this lemur is that the truth be documented, footnoted, annotated, and filed away. Let's document the facts and let history be the judge.

On the other hand, the "enhanced interrogation" program was a massive mistake, a moral failure, and a non-stop global PR nightmare. How many officers in Iraq reported that the insurgents they captured were inspired by reports of USA torture? Lots and lots. "Enhanced interrogation" was one of several policy decisions that manufactured far more enemies than it silenced (and don't get me started on the summary disbandment of the Iraqi army).

So ... this isn't a rhetorical question. I get the reasons why we should do nothing. I also get the reasons why we should at least try to do something. And I get that attempting to hold anyone accountable is going to be ... difficult.

Sorrry, proto-simian pal.

I did not mean to say that your question was an attempt to push-poll. I felt that the wording implicitly framed the question on a "moral high ground" level. At that level, it is almost impossible to assert that the actions undertaken were justified.

The enhanced interrogation policy has indeed been a PR nightmare, did not reflect the spirit of our moral code, harmed relations with some of our allies, and may well have been pointless in terms of the information generated/speed of information generation anyway.

You and I are very much in accord as to the aftermath of our kicking over Saddam's apple cart. Whoever built our post-invasion planning around the image of Iraqis singing hosannas, throwing flowers, and rushing to the polls to elect a Western-style parliament obviously was suffering from rectal-cranial inversion. Regrettably, that was about the sum total prep we brought to the issue. What a total ducking febacle.

[Kadagar_AV]

What's new?

The Red Cross reported the same YEARS ago.

As to what You will likely do about it... Nothing... As You seem to honestly think You are the good guys, all evidence aside.

[Papewaio]

557 pages makes having an opinion on anything a bit unreasable

You've been reading TRs posts again...

=][=

As for what the US or its citizens choose to do. Well it's their choice, just remember though it was also other people's citizens who were/are in the main affected and as such you cannot expect to stop the consequences at the border or the next election.

Torturing, Gitmo, drone assassinations, unaccounted for collateral damage, killkng journalists (buring the evidence and not acting on it) probably added to the numbers of insurgents in theaters of combat and probably has increased dangers for Americans traveling both international and domestically.

It also makes it hard to have leverage in realpolitik when you can't use higher moral appeals. When the likes of China and Russia can easily shrug off criticism and say 'You do it."

The end results of the last ten years is two screwed up countries that are now even more screwed up.
A massive finicial deficit for the US. A larger politically loss. And a massive to be realized social burden when the veterans are all home.

So yes it is an option to ignore this outcome. Just don't expect to be belle of the ball for a while in the international community. But don't worry you will always have Australia which is a bastion of anti-racism by your side... With allies like us who needs North Korea...

[HopAlongBunny]

So, you lost the War on Terror; this is not news.

[Greyblades]

Now all we need to do is provide confirmation that OJ is guilty, Global warming is real, Elvis Presley is not coming back and the moon landing was real and we get a no $#!! Sherlock $10 voucher.

[LittleGrizzly]

If I remember rightly there wasn't much doubt that the USA engaged in Torture...

What I remember us debating on the .org a while back was whether the enhanced interrogation (I always thought it was such a pretty name) was torture and whether enhanced interrogation was the right thing to do...

My views are the same now as they were then. Enhanced interrogation is torture and it is wrong.

What to do about it now is a lot more complicated, I would say find everyone (who was or still is) in power responsible and lock them up. It is the only way to get any moral superiority back.

Although as some average Joe that is much easier for me to say... I can only imagine the storm if Obama tried to do this, it is certainly the right thing to do though.

How does this fit in with international law?

Could somebody take charges to the hague, assuming they found somebody with responsibility in this matter?

Would the USA then refuse to hand them over?

Or due to the USA's influence would such a charge never reach the court?

Or is that outside the courts jurisdiction anyway?

[Papewaio]

I don't think the US acknowledges the Hagues jurisdiction, nor can it constitutionally. Nor could anyone externally force them to the table.

The US reputation has served it well in the past. One only needs to look at who was part of the Manhatten project to see that.

The long term political and hence economic damage done is probably more then the cost of the two wars combined. You will not notice it anymore then a smoker notices lung damage. But it is there and it will have an adverse effect.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't think the US acknowledges the Hagues jurisdiction, nor can it constitutionally. Nor could anyone externally force them to the table.

The US reputation has served it well in the past. One only needs to look at who was part of the Manhatten project to see that.

The long term political and hence economic damage done is probably more then the cost of the two wars combined. You will not notice it anymore then a smoker notices lung damage. But it is there and it will have an adverse effect.

You are of course correct. The US does not acknowledge the Hague. Along with a few other "axis of evil" states. Don't forget You are the GOOD GUYS, why bother with war criminals when You per definitions can't have them?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think the US acknowledges the Hagues jurisdiction, nor can it constitutionally....

Quite true, and thank you for remembering that.


KAV:

How do you manage to climb up on a horse that tall? Axis of Evil? If you're argument is that the USA has always been more realpolitik with sanctimonious rhetoric than it has been a beacon of light for humanity, then you are wasting your time -- you'll find few arguers (especially at this forum). If you are truly equating the USA's treatment of its own citizens and those of its allies with that treatment meted out by the governments Bush highlighted with that charming phrase, then you REALLY need to sit down and re-think.

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus Fermanagh, are You directing me?

Kad or full name makes it more clear, preferably in bold.

[Sarmatian]

I don't know if I would agree with axis of evil thingie, but...



If you're argument is that the USA has always been more realpolitik with sanctimonious rhetoric than it has been a beacon of light for humanity

... but this is sugarcoating it to say the least. Even though in the last decade or two, US actions have generally been less and less tolerated and fewer people defend them outright, even within the US, but, there are still very few people willing to speak freely of what US is and has always been - an imperialistic country exploiting whoever it can to serve the interests of its elite.

[drone]

Maybe someone should get Yoo and Addington drunk and put them on a plane to Europe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know if I would agree with axis of evil thingie, but...



... but this is sugarcoating it to say the least. Even though in the last decade or two, US actions have generally been less and less tolerated and fewer people defend them outright, even within the US, but, there are still very few people willing to speak freely of what US is and has always been - an imperialistic country exploiting whoever it can to serve the interests of its elite.

Some imperialism assuredly. Yet we've really been shockingly haphazard in our imperialistic efforts. Whyever did we bother paying anything to Mexico after conquering them fair and square? And our Banana Republic decades were pretty sloppy too. We ended up intervening in countries where we did not have major business interests more than in countries where we did -- shockingly ineffective. And what were we thinking with Cuba and the Phillipines? We didn't even set up proper puppet states when we left. After thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, we didn't even annex Iraqui oil production for a while to offset costs. What were we thinking?

So, Sarmatian, don't over-simplify your assessment of the USA. ONE aspect of who we have been and who we are is the summary you provide, but that is not the only facet of who we are and have been. I would argue that it isn't even the dominant explanation of US efforts.

[Greyblades]

Hey, he said you were imperialistic, he didn't say you were any good at it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Some imperialism assuredly. Yet we've really been shockingly haphazard in our imperialistic efforts. Whyever did we bother paying anything to Mexico after conquering them fair and square? And our Banana Republic decades were pretty sloppy too. We ended up intervening in countries where we did not have major business interests more than in countries where we did -- shockingly ineffective. And what were we thinking with Cuba and the Phillipines? We didn't even set up proper puppet states when we left. After thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, we didn't even annex Iraqui oil production for a while to offset costs. What were we thinking?

So, Sarmatian, don't over-simplify your assessment of the USA. ONE aspect of who we have been and who we are is the summary you provide, but that is not the only facet of who we are and have been. I would argue that it isn't even the dominant explanation of US efforts.

I think You over-simplify Your assessment of the USA.

Switch Your view from imperialism for imperialism's sake - to a perspective of imperialism for captitalistics sake.

No indeed, the population in the USA "ain't no smart enough" to win anything, but LOOK at the impact You had on the political world, around the world. And as always, follow the money.

I think Greyblades were spot on... That You are not very GOOD at it, doesn't diminish the scorn I have of You for trying. And killing civilians (also known as "collateral damage") as the main result.

BTW, I for one would throw the first stone at the USAnian who came up with that phrase.

[Lemur]

I think You over-simplify Your assessment of the USA.
Nope, I think you're the one suffering from one-dimensional thinking, at least when it comes to the USA.

Your rhetoric makes it appear you believe that the USA is some sort of uniquely evil, wanton, horrible country. Populated by horrible people.

Personally, I'd say we're a mixed bag of awesome and horrible. And to be frank, more awesome than not. Rock and roll, man on the moon, movies, the GUI, ethernet ... eh, that would be a remarkably long list. And what has Sweden given the world, besides the genocide of the Sami, and the misuse of "viking" as a noun? Or should we examine the military adventurism of 1814, and the unprovoked Swedish attack (and attempted annexation) of Norway?

Or maybe we should throw stones at the idiotic immigration policy of modern Sweden, and the race-purity resentment they're stirring up in the Scandinavian population? I seem to recall some Orgah posting a series of notes about how the dirty immigrants are ruining his white man's land.

Meh. I don't object to the USA being criticized per se, but when it is done in such a trollish, one-sided, strident manner, well, you make me want to wrap myself in the flag and clutch a bald eagle.

Now, before you jumped in with your heroic attempt to derail this thread into yet another MERICA SUX trollfest, we were doing something your probably don't recognize or understand: Free citizens were discussing the free publication of our government's dirtiest secrets, and we were debating what could, ought, or should be done.

[Papewaio]

I think there is a disconnect between what USA sees itself and what it does particularly when it is us vs them.

Truth, Justice and the American Way used to be a superfluous statement now it is more of an oxymoron.

Imprisonment without trial.
Brutal treatment of prisoners.
Torture.
Export of torture.
Kidnapping.
Murdering reporters + covering it up
Civilian casualties ie collateral damage
Damage to the polio campaign
Execution by executive order without trial of both adults and children.

Etc

You can work all your life, be a builder, a painter, a baker, a lover, a fine husband.

But just one goat makes you a goat ~:flower:

[Lemur]

You can work all your life, be a builder, a painter, a baker, a lover, a fine husband.

But just one goat makes you a goat ~:flower:
By that logic, every nation on Earth is up to the hips in goat, since every nation on Earth has done something despicable.

Besides which, there's absolutely nothing the USA is currently doing that can compare with the genocide of the Native Americans. So if you're gonna hate us as the Worst People On Earth, at least hate us for the right stuff.

[Montmorency]

we were debating what could, ought, or should be done.

What's the semantic distinction between "ought" and "should"?

[Lemur]

What's the semantic distinction between "ought" and "should"?
Ought—indicates what somebody should do: "You ought to tell her how you feel." Implication is that you don't really have a choice.

Should—gives a suggestion on what is the right thing for somebody to do: "You should tell her how you feel." It's the best course of action, so you should do it.

Now I believe Sweden and Australia were in the middle of telling the USA how horrible we are, and how much better-behaved they would be if they stumbled into a hegemony.

[Strike For The South]

hey remember when Sweden used to seterlize retards and minorites?

THEIR PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE MURDERED

I also think its a bit rich if you were born in a country that the British decided looked ever so posh and proceeded to rape and maim the local populace.

Then their descendants had a white only policy. until the 70s

And they still can't seem to assimlate the Lebanese.

Oh, and you've killed the same brown people we have. That coalition of the willing thing, remember that?

You guys are dense

[Papewaio]

Australia is one of your allies. At least with the goat you aren't getting sloppy seconds...

[Strike For The South]

Australia is one of your allies. At least with the goat you aren't getting sloppy seconds...

So you assume the same risks we do?

[Montmorency]

Ought—indicates what somebody should do

:wacky:

[Papewaio]

So you assume the same risks we do?

We should assume responsibilty for being enablers.

[ajaxfetish]

What's the semantic distinction between "ought" and "should"?

A tricky question. There's a lot of overlap in their meaning, but then that's the case for many of our modal auxiliaries. For example, if I want to indicate that something is possible but not necessarily true, I can use could, may, and might essentially interchangeably. Must indicates a stronger level of certainty:


These may be the droids we're looking for.
These might be the droids we're looking for.
These could be the droids we're looking for.
These must be the droids we're looking for.

Here we've got a similar case where multiple modals have taken on the meaning of having an obligation to do something. This was the original meaning (as far as we have records to go by) of shall, but it later shifted to become a future marker, and has now all but dropped out of American English. In its place, we now have should (originally the past tense form of shall), must (which originally meant "able to" or "allowed to" but now has taken on obligation as its primary function), and ought (which started out as the past tense form form of a verb meaning "to own"). It's not so much that the two have a distinctly different meanings in their obligation senses; it's more that they map to a different constellation of related meanings, so they may be interpreted in subtly different and difficult to pin down ways. Here are the OED definitions for the two in their deontic (obligation-based) senses.

Ought

II. As a modal auxiliary.
* Expressing duty or obligation of any kind; originally used of moral obligation, but also in various more general senses, expressing what is proper, correct, advisable, befitting, or expected. Orig. and chiefly in past tense form (indicative or subjunctive), which may be either past or present in meaning. (The only current use in standard English.)

Should

*** The past tense should with modal function.As with other auxiliaries, the pa. tense (orig. subjunctive) of shall is often used to express, not a reference to past time, but a modal qualification of the notion expressed by the present tense. Where in addition the notion of past time is to be expressed, this can often be effected by the use of the perf. instead of the pres. inf. (though sometimes this produces ambiguity); the temporal notion may however be merely contextually implied, and in that case the pa. tense has the appearance of having both functions (temporal and modal) at once.
18.
a.

(a) In statements of duty, obligation, or propriety (originally, as applicable to hypothetical conditions not regarded as real). Also, in statements of expectation, likelihood, prediction, etc.

Ajax

[Ja'chyra]

Report and 577 page in the same sentence means the author should be sacked.

[Sarmatian]

Some imperialism assuredly. Yet we've really been shockingly haphazard in our imperialistic efforts. Whyever did we bother paying anything to Mexico after conquering them fair and square? And our Banana Republic decades were pretty sloppy too. We ended up intervening in countries where we did not have major business interests more than in countries where we did -- shockingly ineffective. And what were we thinking with Cuba and the Phillipines? We didn't even set up proper puppet states when we left. After thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, we didn't even annex Iraqui oil production for a while to offset costs. What were we thinking?

So, Sarmatian, don't over-simplify your assessment of the USA. ONE aspect of who we have been and who we are is the summary you provide, but that is not the only facet of who we are and have been. I would argue that it isn't even the dominant explanation of US efforts.

This is exactly what I'm talking about - the inability to accept what USA is without "buts" -> "but" we're not the first one to do that, "but" we're not the only one, "but" we don't always do such a good job, "but" we sometimes screw ourselves in the end...

It's a step in the right direction, though. Twenty years ago it would have very rare for someone to admit even that.

And, yes, I'm not talking about just a few last years, I'm talking about last two centuries, from the land grab and genocide, justified by myths of white anglo-saxon supremacy, to treating latin america as a personal fiefdom, to installing military worldwide to "safeguard interests", puppet regimes, control of resources etc...

No, USA isn't the first or the only one, but it is the biggest and most successful we've seen so far, also with best PR department. I remember an old cold war joke, when a Soviet propaganda expert defected to the west, and after a while, he was asked what's the difference between soviet and american propaganda. He replied: "Well, you believe in yours".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is exactly what I'm talking about - the inability to accept what USA is without "buts" -> "but" we're not the first one to do that, "but" we're not the only one, "but" we don't always do such a good job, "but" we sometimes screw ourselves in the end...

It's a step in the right direction, though. Twenty years ago it would have very rare for someone to admit even that.

And, yes, I'm not talking about just a few last years, I'm talking about last two centuries, from the land grab and genocide, justified by myths of white anglo-saxon supremacy, to treating latin america as a personal fiefdom, to installing military worldwide to "safeguard interests", puppet regimes, control of resources etc...

No, USA isn't the first or the only one, but it is the biggest and most successful we've seen so far, also with best PR department. I remember an old cold war joke, when a Soviet propaganda expert defected to the west, and after a while, he was asked what's the difference between soviet and american propaganda. He replied: "Well, you believe in yours".

Okay. I understand your point. It is not as though I haven't heard it before.

Your primary goal with this line of reasoning is to assert that my culture should self acknowledge something along the lines of:

"We are self-interested and selfish exploiters with little to no concern for other cultures, peoples, and other's natural rights and that we are no better morally or ethically than any of the other Western nations who lucked into a technological edge in the gunpowder era and shamelessly used that edge to pilfer whatever we wanted to feather our own nests. We use morality as a fig leaf to do what betters our own interests and, despite a more positive "tone" over the last couple of decades we continue to hold on to power, manipulate resources to suit our interests, and actively use economic and military power to maintain our 'top dog' position."

Is that, more or less, what you want American opinion to acknowledge?

[Greyblades]

"We are self-interested and selfish exploiters with little to no concern for other cultures, peoples, and other's natural rights and that we are no better morally or ethically than any of the other Western nations who lucked into a technological edge in the gunpowder era and shamelessly used that edge to pilfer whatever we wanted to feather our own nests.

Hey we didnt luck into a technological edge mister, we earned it by continuing to beating the crap out of each other for 500 years after the rest of the world had decided to give up and let peace reign, bunch of do nothing hippys.:P

[Papewaio]

Do you know that despite being one of the earliest developers of airplanes the US lagged behind in creating an American made Air Force.

Why? Patents prevented them.

So when WW I came around the US flew French made planes.

So yes, the greatest threat to USAs success is its own litigation.

"Better get a lawyer son
Better get a real good one"

[Tellos Athenaios]

We didn't 'luck' into our technological edge. We earned it by being a bastion of relative freedom when most of Europe was still run by Kaisers, Emperors, Kings, and all other kinds of oppressive nonsense. Heck, by the time WWII broke out we were technologically inferior to some of the belligerants. Hate on our imperialistic past (and modern poorly disguised imperialistic tendancies) all you want, but we didn't 'luck' into anything.

Nope. You got it the same way England, Germany got it, the same way China is attempting to gain it: by judicious use of "selective" application of laws and social conventions when it comes to "free trade" and "(intellectual) property". You are forgetting that the USA comprises a lot of territory with lots of resources all present in abundant quantities, exactly what a budding industrial power needs.

As for the freedom bit, meh. Economic opportunity from kicking out the natives and taking their lands, that is how the USA bought and paid for it and the promise of a new beginning (away from things like "potato famine") is what drove people to seek it out. Your economy, including "high" tech industry for the day, was well and truly established prior to WWI. It's just that WWI and WWII offered the USA another bonanza, by becoming the UK's supplier.

[Papewaio]

Obviously US has large tracts of land with lots of mineral and oil deposits.
What isn't obvious is things like how much fresh water it has access to. Ever wonder why US has 15x the population the Australia. One is a barren desert with old worn out soil the other has plenty of water supplies and much more fertile soil.

Another not obvious thing is that freedom, democracy and equality all have impacts both in economics and warfare. The US has been in the leadership sphere of these for so long it may have forgotten that these are competitive advantages too.

[LittleGrizzly]

Obviously in comparison to the likes of Germany and Russia America was a free loving society but was it really any more free than the likes of Britain and France?

Edit: The luck factor probably comes in to your geographical location, I am sure there were a bunch of countries that would have loved nothing more than to be half the world away from the Nazi war machine holding off a few years whilst they tiring themselves before getting involved.

Your point somewhat stands for WW1 but even then very few of the leaders actually wanted war, had America also been part of Europe they probably would have been involved in that one as well from early on.

It certainly wasn't due to skill or cunning that the Americans found themselves half a world away from the main action.

[Papewaio]

There was quite an influx early on into what is now the US.

By the time it fought for Independence it was already relatively wealthy. Essentially the Founding Fathers were the Gates, Buffetts, Zuckerbergs and Musks of their time.

[LittleGrizzly]

Just out of interest at what point do they become Americans building their own destiny rather than colonists of other nations I mean surely much of America's success is down to the Irish, English, French, Africans and many others who built the nation, reaped the fields and fought the battles...

They did so under a different national banner, now many of those people stayed but I imagine some of the military and naval units that also played a big part probably went back home...

This is without even considering the national budgets of those countries that went towards colonising this new country.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not disagreeing for the hell of it here but this one just came to me...

............................................
If Mexico hadn't been so terminally unstable they could still control most of the western US today.
...........................................

Could the British system of governance have played a part here, I have heard it said before and my somewhat limited knowledge would back this up that ex British colonies are usually more successful than their Spanish and French counterparts.

[Sarmatian]

"We are self-interested and selfish exploiters with little to no concern for other cultures, peoples, and other's natural rights and that we are no better morally or ethically than any of the other Western nations who lucked into a technological edge in the gunpowder era and shamelessly used that edge to pilfer whatever we wanted to feather our own nests. We use morality as a fig leaf to do what betters our own interests and, despite a more positive "tone" over the last couple of decades we continue to hold on to power, manipulate resources to suit our interests, and actively use economic and military power to maintain our 'top dog' position."

Is that, more or less, what you want American opinion to acknowledge?

More or less, yes...


Every successful nation is founded on genocide, war, and all that. Serbia isn't exactly all butterflies and rainbows, you know.

Exactly, with the difference that Serbia isn't successful or as powerful. When we screw something up, it affects 16-17 people, when you screw something up, it affect the whole world. Accepting that isn't easy. We're all taught in schools how our nation is teh greatest. Not on the platter like that, but it's biased toward achievements of our own nation. Been there, done that.


However, I agree with Sarmation that you can't move forward as a society without baldly acknowledging the moral failures of the past. Every day that we move forward as a nation that largely thinks of itself as better than everyone else is another few steps down the rabbit hole.

Well, eventually, the burden of the empire outweighs the benefits, and nations that let go off it, or tone it down still manage to do quite well, sometimes even better. Look at Japan - for a first two decades in the XX century, it was one of the most imperialistic nations in the world. Nowadays, they don't have an army, and its people are much better off. The country as a whole is much better off. And they don't have nearly the resources of the US. Yes, it sucks when you have to pay 90$+ for a barrel of oil from Venezuela instead of 15$, but you'll survive.

[Kadagar_AV]

What country has more blood on their hands since ww2?

What country spies the most on other countries?

What country doesn't acknowledge international laws?

What country pursue to kill other nations leaders?

What country hasn't managed a decade without severe armed conflicts in modern history?


USA = the biggest rogue nation we have. The right now biggest evil affecting the world. Note That I didn't say IN the world, other regimes are worse. But they have little or no effect on the world at large, or even other countries.

[Sarmatian]

I agree with your sentiments, but your facts are a little off. Modern American Imperialism isn't out of a desire to get your stuff (none of you people have anything we want, honestly...) its out of a paranoia about our security as a nation. We didn't make a dime off Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Kosovo, for that matter.

You know that little thing called the UN? The first version was called the League of Nations. It was an American idea, and you Europeans screwed it up (along with our own Congress, ironically; until WWII it was generally understood by every American that foreign entanglements weren't worth it). Americans value stability, trade, and prosperity on the geopolitical level. Ever since World War II ended and the Cold War began, maintaining that level of stability has meant (in the minds of many) taking an active and violent role in global security. Japan doesn't have an Army because we utterly destroyed their nation when they attacked us that one time. They prosper because of the security we have always provided--economically and in terms of our military umbrella that extends well into that region.

Once again, I agree with your sentiments, but your anti-American bias is just that--a bias.

Ok, let's get something straight - I don't have anti-American bias. There's nothing anti-American about me. I have nothing against America as a nation, its ideals or its people. I'm speaking strictly about American foreign policy (I'd have a thing or two to say about domestic policy, but that would be purely academic. Your backyard - your problem).

I'm feeling that it isn't the same as anti-American, which is usually taken to mean being against everything American just because it is American.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world have stuff you want but that isn't the issue. Meaning of "American security" has been so broadened that it encompasses just about everything. Invasion of Iraq was for "American security". A country that didn't attack or even threatened to attack US or its allies. Everywhere else in the world it's called conquest. In America, that's liberation. What's called torture in the rest of the world, in America it's "enhanced interrogation".

You did make a dime of Iraq. Not the budget of the US, but those that fill the budget did. Oil companies, building firms, private security companies, transport companies, military-industrial contractors... The list goes on and on. And you guys, the taxpayers, funded all that. You were paying taxes to keep you in Iraq so that the money you've already paid to the government can be given to various contractors. In the end, US succeeded in securing a long-term military presence in the central area of a very important region strategically. And when many nations are now more vocally demanding withdrawal of US troops, that's is not trivial.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with your sentiments, but your facts are a little off. Modern American Imperialism isn't out of a desire to get your stuff (none of you people have anything we want, honestly...) its out of a paranoia about our security as a nation. We didn't make a dime off Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Kosovo, for that matter.

You know that little thing called the UN? The first version was called the League of Nations. It was an American idea, and you Europeans screwed it up (along with our own Congress, ironically; until WWII it was generally understood by every American that foreign entanglements weren't worth it). Americans value stability, trade, and prosperity on the geopolitical level. Ever since World War II ended and the Cold War began, maintaining that level of stability has meant (in the minds of many) taking an active and violent role in global security. Japan doesn't have an Army because we utterly destroyed their nation when they attacked us that one time. They prosper because of the security we have always provided--economically and in terms of our military umbrella that extends well into that region.

Once again, I agree with your sentiments, but your anti-American bias is just that--a bias.


I agree whole-heartedly with your second paragraph.

In earlier posts there were comments agreeing that the USA did not do Imperialism very well, but that we were still imperialists. I'd suggest a read of Max Boot on small wars. American imperialism was actually pretty damned effective. What we did that was different was that we believe in human freedom enough to go against our own selfish interests. We did NOT annex Cuba in 1899; we've offered PR independence repeatedly while offering to fund the transition; we gave the Phillipines independence less than 40 years after acquiring them. We gave back --albeit after a longish stretch -- the Panama canal. When we conquered Mexico, we felt guilty about picking that fight so we not only left them with most of their country, but actually paid for the chunk we'd taken by right of conquest.

We really DO have that "do-gooder" theme running throughout the history of our foreign policy. Quite a few yanks are unaware of how we have played the great game and how we have sought economic interests and the like -- the more simplistic history lessons tend to emphasize the do-gooder elements and gloss over the less "perky" episodes. On the other hand, trying to explain US foreign policy without accounting for that do-gooder impulse will leave the analyst with an incomplete picture.

I have always been rather happy that the USA has not followed a foreign policy based solely on realpolitik. We'd be the best of the best at putting boots on necks had we done so, but I am happy we have not.

[Greyblades]

We really DO have that "do-gooder" theme running throughout the history of our foreign policy. Quite a few yanks are unaware of how we have played the great game and how we have sought economic interests and the like -- the more simplistic history lessons tend to emphasize the do-gooder elements and gloss over the less "perky" episodes. On the other hand, trying to explain US foreign policy without accounting for that do-gooder impulse will leave the analyst with an incomplete picture.

I have always been rather happy that the USA has not followed a foreign policy based solely on realpolitik. We'd be the best of the best at putting boots on necks had we done so, but I am happy we have not.
...You know it's this attitude that I really wish my own country would have; we did bad but we did good too.

[Greyblades]

Without the long and complicated history of the UK, there could be no long and complicated history of the USA. :shrug:

At least In the USA you learn all of it's long and complicated history in schools. And flagwaving isnt the monopoly of the racists. Basically what you take pride for we take shame and I'm annoyed.

[Sarmatian]

I agree whole-heartedly with your second paragraph.

In earlier posts there were comments agreeing that the USA did not do Imperialism very well, but that we were still imperialists. I'd suggest a read of Max Boot on small wars. American imperialism was actually pretty damned effective. What we did that was different was that we believe in human freedom enough to go against our own selfish interests. We did NOT annex Cuba in 1899; we've offered PR independence repeatedly while offering to fund the transition; we gave the Phillipines independence less than 40 years after acquiring them. We gave back --albeit after a longish stretch -- the Panama canal. When we conquered Mexico, we felt guilty about picking that fight so we not only left them with most of their country, but actually paid for the chunk we'd taken by right of conquest.

We really DO have that "do-gooder" theme running throughout the history of our foreign policy. Quite a few yanks are unaware of how we have played the great game and how we have sought economic interests and the like -- the more simplistic history lessons tend to emphasize the do-gooder elements and gloss over the less "perky" episodes. On the other hand, trying to explain US foreign policy without accounting for that do-gooder impulse will leave the analyst with an incomplete picture.

I have always been rather happy that the USA has not followed a foreign policy based solely on realpolitik. We'd be the best of the best at putting boots on necks had we done so, but I am happy we have not.

No, you didn't annex Cuba, you installed a puppet dictator who kept the population in poverty for the sake of American companies. When he was replaced by another dictator who wasn't to your liking, you simply cut the island of the rest of the world.

You gave independence to the Philippines, but you kept the military presence for another 50 years. Nowadays you just control their economy and have troops visiting from time to time.

You gave back Panama Canal to Panama for administration. Before that you helped wrest it from Columbia. After they got the idea that they can actually control the Canal, you simply walked some troops over. Nowadays, they realize that they're just there to ensure a smooth running of the Canal. If they do get certain ideas, they would be forced to comply again.

After the war that was waged on the premise that white anglo-saxon-american race is superior to the brown guys in the south and that it would be a crime not take the land so it could be properly exploited, you left them with most of the country and even tipped them afterwards. Love thy neighbour indeed.

I wouldn't argue that there was no worthy goals at any point in the history of US foreign relations, or that weren't people who genuinely thought they were doing good, but it was small scale most of the time, rarely worth the mention. You would have done far more in the 19th century if you weren't afraid of the British fleet.


And you're right, some people certainly did profit from the Iraq war, but the country as a whole was robbed by it. Which is why I said:


an imperialistic country exploiting whoever it can to serve the interests of its elite.

Sometimes the interest of the elite is the interest of the country as a whole but just as often it isn't. People get screwed over, rich people get richer. All those bullets you guys fired in Iraq while you were bleeding and dying in Iraq need to be replaced. Who makes them and who pays for them?


It should make you kind of happy that there's still a people with so much happy faith in their system that they let criminals come to power, lie their way right into a war, line their pockets, then dip out and leave it for the black guy to try and fix. That could never happen in Serbia, because the people would see it coming. Hopefully we'll see it coming next time too. :book2:

It could never happen in Serbia because Serbia couldn't conquer Luxembourg even if 2/3 of the Luxembourgian army defected. Ten Impi warriors could get an unconditional surrender from Serbia if they were persistent enough. We're not better, we're probably worse, it's just that we're so small and poor that we're insignificant on the global stage.

[HopAlongBunny]

I seem to remember the Banana Crusade on behalf of the United Fruit Co.; the Copper Crusade in Chile; the Let Drugs Flow Freely Crusade in Nicaragua; the We Don't Like Land-reform Crusade in Guatemala; indeed one would be hard-pressed to imagine a situation when America was not on the side of righteousness and justice.

Too bad, after laughing ourselves silly over the way the Bush admin folded to the terrorists, we were sobered by the thought: "They're still the last best hope" :rolleyes:

[Husar]

In fact, one of the biggest reasons the American people are so easily manipulated into backing these paranoid fantasies that enable these rich white old bastards to wage private wars for private agendas with public funds and American lives is because the rest of you (by which I mean everyone outside our borders) have already pretty much proven they can't be trusted.
:inquisitive: :stare:

Firstly you should explain that a bit more.
Secondly do you mean all the normal people or just the elites who dupe the normal people into looking untrustworthy to Americans?
Thirdly, the reason some people want to bomb normal Americans is because Americans have proven to be untrustworthy imperialists who want to subdue them. Or at least that's what it looks like to them. That makes about as much sense as saying everybody outside the USA has proven to be untrustworthy to Americans. Especially since I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that since I can think of several ways to interpret that statement.



Second, the rest of the world has to realize that as long as it looks like you might even cough on us the wrong way, we're going to hurt you. We have a long history of utterly destroying our enemies. We don't do half-measures and conditional surrenders like you Europeans. Even in our own Civil War, the Rebels fought way past the point of reason. Wars where we stopped short of getting exactly what we wanted are few and far between. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, for all the failings against the Insurgency, we decimated their governments. You want to see peace on Earth? You want to see the USA retreat from policing the world? Stop giving us reasons to worry about you barbarians beyond our borders then. That's just as important as changing the way we look at things within our own borders.
Two points:
1. That sounds like some collective case of severe machoism or some collective mental illness the way you describe it.
2. That's a really "nice" way of putting it. It's like the big bully going "If you want me to leave you alone, you just have to stop resisting and hand over your chocolate cake in every break. Oh and if you ever look at me again, I'm going to bash your head in!" In other words, you talk about how to make the US more peaceful and in the same sentence threaten with violence/destruction in case other countries don't bend to your every wish. It makes even a European like me unwilling to compromise simply because I refuse to let myself be coerced into such a "peace". It also sounds incredibly vague, next year "looks like you might even cough on us the wrong way" might apply to not letting your corporations break our laws or demanding that our corporations get equal rights in your country and stuff like that. Which brings us back to the topic of having proven to be untrustworthy...

[Sarmatian]

I totally agree with you. My point was that you (and everyone who isn't American, really) should be careful to distinguish between the American people and the elite who actually make things like this happen. It is a pathetic and ignorant argument to say that because this is a democracy the people are responsible for the fact that they've been manipulated. That's a dumb argument, because if people knew they were being manipulated they wouldn't let things like Vietnam, Iraq, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, the Iran-Contra affair, CIA drug-smuggling, torture, or any of that go on. In fact, one of the biggest reasons the American people are so easily manipulated into backing these paranoid fantasies that enable these rich white old bastards to wage private wars for private agendas with public funds and American lives is because the rest of you (by which I mean everyone outside our borders) have already pretty much proven they can't be trusted.

Oh please, you don't give yourselves enough credit. But your point is sound. With great power comes great responsibility, and Americans have been conditioned (with some good reason, given the failures of everyone else) to believe that we have both the power and the discipline to use it properly.

You want to see the USA disengage from the world stage as an aggressor? Several things need to happen: First, Americans would have to realize that they've been lied to and screwed over pretty consistently by their own government throughout the entire Cold War for reasons that didn't always have to do with containing communism, and in fact were often just the adventures of Bush Sr. (a big CIA man in his day--one might say he is one of the principle architects in how we treated Central and South America). Second, the rest of the world has to realize that as long as it looks like you might even cough on us the wrong way, we're going to hurt you. We have a long history of utterly destroying our enemies. We don't do half-measures and conditional surrenders like you Europeans. Even in our own Civil War, the Rebels fought way past the point of reason. Wars where we stopped short of getting exactly what we wanted are few and far between. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, for all the failings against the Insurgency, we decimated their governments. You want to see peace on Earth? You want to see the USA retreat from policing the world? Stop giving us reasons to worry about you barbarians beyond our borders then. That's just as important as changing the way we look at things within our own borders.

Well, the thing is, from all the nations in the world, USA should be least worried about security. The last war fought on its territory happened some 150 years ago and that was a Civil War. Between the US and the nearest enemy that could be considered a serious opponent there are thousands of km of ocean, which US controls. How exactly has the rest the rest of the world proven itself untrustworthy?

And by the way, the only major opponent that was beaten almost exclusively by US and surrendered specifically to US, Imperial Japan, did make a conditional surrender, the condition was to keep their Emperor. Germany did make an unconditional surrender, but the brunt of the work was Soviet there, so...

No need to get defensive. As I've said, I'm talking about American foreign policy, not Americans.

[LittleGrizzly]

If the external threat does not exist it will be created, if you are already in a panicked state it will be taken advantage off. You will be hard pushed to present Iraq as a threat to the US but many of it citizens believed so. Many of America's adventures since WW2 direct and indirect have been towards people who had no real threat towards America other than maybe for the profit of American companies...

If your asking local people to be happy with that and not cause any fuss that makes you react you are probably going to have to ply them with material things if you want to avoid the usual routes.

[Sarmatian]

Untrustworthy? Incompetent? Unwilling? I'm talking about global stability here. If we don't do it, who will? Germany? That worked out real well last time. China? Have fun with that.

Why not all together? We could have something like representatives of every country have a voice, with several most powerful having biggest influence but it won't too bad cause it would be evenly spread. All nations could be united, in a way. I know, we could call it United Nations... which are severely sidelined at the moment since it's the only international organization of importance in which USA doesn't have absolute control.


I think we should get the hell out of the international scene and leave you all alone, but I'm in the minority! For most Americans its a very easy comparison of the world before we took over, and the world after we took over. Which one do you like better?

That's kind of asking me do I like plague more than cholera, or did I have a preference toward a particular bully at school. What I want is no bully scenario, not pick the best bully.

[LittleGrizzly]

In fairness Sarmatian I think even the if the USA put all its goodwill behind it the UN is going to struggle to work, even if America has a moral enlightenment and let us assume the UK and France want to be good guys you still have Russia and China with veto power.

Everyone is the same with it though, great organisation when it is doing what you want. All of a sudden when it is doing something different it is seen as some kind of foreign interference.

Gelatinous you will break down sobbing confessing your crimes as an American citizen and only then shall forgiveness be considered.... ;)

[Sarmatian]

Don't ask me. I'm with you on this one. You all should spend less time trying to find an argument in my posts, and spend more time actually trying to understand what I'm saying. I lose patience by the day. :rtwno:

I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic.


In fairness Sarmatian I think even the if the USA put all its goodwill behind it the UN is going to struggle to work, even if America has a moral enlightenment and let us assume the UK and France want to be good guys you still have Russia and China with veto power.


So? Who said democracy was easy?

If I won't accept an enlightened despot in my country, even though he would definitely rule more efficiently, why should I accept a global one? Then we get to the point just how enlightened he really is. And who are the good guys and who are the bad guys between US, China, Russia, France and UK is more of a point of view than an axiom at this stage.

[HopAlongBunny]

America divides its time between: establishing that "shining city" on the hill or pissing in everyone's Cornflakes.

That they spend more time in piss fights explains why "trickle down" economics was such an easy sell in America; the process is understood.

[LittleGrizzly]

Gelatinous the bit you quoted was a joke that obviously failed badly, nothing to do with my views.

[Husar]

You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. We're the 800lb Gorilla in the room, you all are the gnats who won't stop biting. I'm trying to explain this in a big-picture kind of way, because you can't look at this issue narrowly. But I'll try to do better:
That's a correct assessment, at the moment. But who is going to stop me from expressing that I don't like it? ~;)


Untrustworthy? Incompetent? Unwilling? I'm talking about global stability here. If we don't do it, who will? Germany? That worked out real well last time. China? Have fun with that. I think we should get the hell out of the international scene and leave you all alone, but I'm in the minority! For most Americans its a very easy comparison of the world before we took over, and the world after we took over. Which one do you like better?
That's hard to say without hindsight or more insight. However, you sort of invalidated this question with what you said next:


Its the same collective mental illness that affects every other nation. Did the British Empire put up with crap? Did the Romans? We have more power than any of them, and with that comes the same failings--even though modern political correctness makes it a very hard conversation to have.
You basically admit that you're no better, yet expect me above to say that the world is better off under US leadership?
Don't forget that empires have to be judged by the times, of course the Romans were harsher in some things, but so was everyone else!
If you want me to say that we are better off under the US than we were under the Romans, you have to compare the empires to the rules and "political correctness" of their times and you say yourself that there is not much of a difference then.


Don't ask me. I'm with you on this one. You all should spend less time trying to find an argument in my posts, and spend more time actually trying to understand what I'm saying. I lose patience by the day. :rtwno:
You should spend less time thinking we don't like you just because we challenge your arguments! ~:grouphug:

[Husar]

I'm not here to be liked. I'm here to point out the obvious because apparently it isn't that obvious.
America being the strongest nation militarily is so obvious that we're only discussing the implications.
When you mention it in the way you did you can easily appear rude in an "in your face, we're stronger you wimps!" way.
And whether that is a good thing is obviously a topic that can be debated. I'm not as anti-American as I may seem, I just like to give back some of the aforementioned attitude whenever Americans show it. ~;)

[Kadagar_AV]

Wouldn't we all live a more educated and happy life, if the whole world watched Fox News and let the World Bank run the business?

No... wait... that is absolutely ludicrous...

[drone]

What this guy said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gahL5j4ack

[Greyblades]

Obama did a good one recently about drones and secret warfare (ironic, I know), but nothing tops the Eisenhower farewell address. Sometimes I feel like the nation made a conscious effort to ignore what he said after he left, because there's no excuse for failing to heed such specific warning so spectacularly.

Seemingly everyone in power right now is either interested in maintaining such a millitary industrial complex, or heavily influenced by those who want a millitary industrial power. I wonder if it was avertable at all.

[Husar]

Is that all you got out of it? That we're stronger than you? That's not the point I was making, that's a given.
No, there was more obvious stuff in your post that just pointed out that the majority of Americans enjoy being a bully. ~;)
Fits with the failure to heed the warnings in the Eisenhower speech I guess.

I think that boils down to what I said in the Boston thread about people lacking rationality. Two dead people from a bombing attack can make you spend huge amounts of resources to retaliate, which may even increase the threat level. Meanwhile thousands of people die every day from diseases and accidents many of which could probably be prevented if they received as much attention as the retaliation efforts.

[HopAlongBunny]

Could the MIC be averted?

Wow!
I really think there was no good reason to avert it. It was built out of necessity and continued for much the same reason; all those returning vets...oh yes! let us shut down the factories and have them mow lawns.
Hmm, but they need to buy houses to have lawns to mow...so they need jobs....it seems we have all this (now) idle/underutilized industrial capacity...

Simplistic, I know; but I don't think Eisenhower was worried about the fact of the MIC, just that you had to be aware that it existed, had aims not always congruent with the aims of society, and was capable of influencing policy and individuals to accomplish those ends=>to the detriment of sound national policy. Insofar as it is funded by taxes perhaps it should be considered a branch of government and made absolutely transparent.

[HopAlongBunny]

Which is why I didn't think he was concerned with the fact but was very concerned with its effect; to me he stresses the need to be aware of and oversee the MIC in such a way as to limit its ability to promote it's goals as society's goals.

[Brenus]

“For most Americans its a very easy comparison of the world before we took over, and the world after we took over” For MOST Americans. There is the problem. The world changed. After the WW2, America (USA) was the most loved country in the world, helping the countries in their struggle for Independence, feeding the poorest etc. Then it changed when the Independent Countries were tempted by, I almost can’t write it, communism… So, after decades of decimating the lefties and the enemies of within (as the Baroness Thatcher -Rust in Peace- said once), the unions,their leaders and their thinkers, the way to protest openly was left to the more conservative movements, historically around Churches.
So they came: the Taliban, Hezbollah, Amal and others. And they hate USA.
Even the most leftie of the left still have a secret love story with USA.
Not the Religious one as they share the same point of view with all others Conservative: They agree on everything from the axe of evil to oppression of women… The minor point is, in their point of view, USA is the axe of evil and it has to be destroyed until it converts to the right way of thinking.
And now, every US Embassy is a fortress…
So, just convert to the right God, and no more bombs in the US: That was what Osama Bin Laden didn’t stop to say: We don’t want to kill you, don’t force us to kill you, just do what we want, convert…

“We're the 800lb Gorilla in the room,” Good image, like it. Gorilla is a species in danger. Because the 65 kg human (a lot of them) cut their trees and made his way of life vanished.

[HopAlongBunny]

Yes, and he was also the author of at least one of the crusades I mentioned earlier. You are right of course, if anyone realized just what we had wrought it was Eisenhower.

[Husar]

Major props to Drone for busting it out here.
Does "Major props" refer to the 'MRD Award of Excelency'?


For Husar and others who are having a hard time understanding my over-arching point here, just consider the life and accomplishments of General and later President Eisenhower. And watch that frakkin' video.

I don't and I already mentioned the video, it's a good speech that supports the point you already made before it. My beef was not with your opinion or the facts you stated as much as with the fact itself. Also frakkin' is bad for the environment. ~;)