Printable View
As long as there is an endless conflict between US and others, I asked myself "Would it be the same if it wasn't US, say, was Myanmar or Sweden or Turkey?".
Do you think vast power somehow harms the subject itself or would it be different if the super power was another country ?
You may take the question in psycological terms not only in terms of relationship among countries..
The USA is possibly the first superpower to adopt a policy of liberating other countries and using its power for (in their perception) the good. Other super powers in America's position might try conquering territory to form an Empire.
USSR 'liberated' many nations as well
Sorry to sound against US but.. There must be a difference between "liberating" and "tearing into pieces".. US has a policy to create 300 diiferent states that consist the Middle East. "Scatter and Manage" is their policy in Middle East. Chaos and conflicting minor factions are what US aims in order to take control in Middle East..Quote:
The USA is possibly the first superpower to adopt a policy of liberating other countries and using its power for (in their perception) the good. Other super powers in America's position might try conquering territory to form an Empire.
Arguably Britain didn't do much better with it's "unite and annoy" policy in the Middle East. Uniting the 3 Willayats into Iraq was perhaps not such a great idea.
Can you explain the formation of Iraq by Britain historically then ? I do not know..
As to turn back to topic, "unite and annoy" is no different than "scatter and manage" thing. They are ideas both breeded from superpowers. So does that prove our hypothesis ?
Now that is funny - a policy to create 300 different states - where in the hell did you pull that little tidbit of fiction from. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Looks like anti-american propaganda - smells like fear mongering in the Middle-East against the United States. :help:
Oh yea - the conspricacy theories must be rampent and believed by the un-educated masses. ~:eek:
Oh by the way - I am in a foul mood when I hear garbage like that. Now does the United States have some conflicting policies and statements concerning the Middle-East, sure. But come on do you honestly believe that garbage about 300 different states to be created.
Now to answer your question - there is an old adage that states:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is especially true of individuals. All one has to do is look at individuals throughout history. Just using the last 100 years you can see lots of evidence of that. Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Clinton, Nixon, and yes even Bush.
Corruption and abuse comes from gaining power and wanting more.
I heard it was 301 ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
It was actually 30, I exaggerated it.. Funny guys..
its true that power corrupts, but if Sweden on the other hand had US power, we would all live in small red houses in the country, be married to blond women and drink beer every day. We would also sing "Små Grodorna" and jump around the midsommar-cross.
..... ok but seriusly I dont think any Empire has ever managed to "stay good", they all do the same; "liberating" countries and so on.
Must say I prefer the US to the USSR... but as years go by, i grow more and more critical to how the US act in the world arena.
Iraq had been part of the Ottoman Empire since the 16th Century. This rule lasted until WW1 when it was invaded by the British Army. The British needed to secure Iraq for the oil and to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline.Quote:
Can you explain the formation of Iraq by Britain historically then ? I do not know..
According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement most of the territory now known as Iraq became British mandate called "the State Of Iraq." They put a puppet monarchy in place. The territory of Iraq was very poorely chosen because while most nations borders tend to be defined as to coincide with natural barriers, regional and ethnic divides, Iraq was defined under quota. In other words, its frontiers were purely artificial and it's population was too mixed.
The state of Iraq was formed to include the Ottoman Willayats of Mosul (mostly Kurdish), Baghdad (mostly Shi'ite), Basra (mostly Sunni). This annoyed Turkey, since Turkey had legitimate territorially claims to Mosul, but the Kurdish populace wanted to join the new Iraqi nation, since they were promised autonomy - which they didn't get.
Mosul was Ataturk's one of the highest priority issues to solve. But it ended in a failure iwth Sheikh Said rebellion so that the attention was lead towards the rebellion instead of a military touch to Mosul..
Thank you..
Americans and other peoples of Northern European cultural heritage, compared with peoples from many other heritages, are innately more reliable and less corrupt in their dealings with fellow citizens. It is a feature of the culture. This does not mean, however, that there is not corruption, and it does not mean that it will never change (just look at what happened to Roman culture over time).
DA
you may be critical about what the U.S. is doing but can you honestly say that the middle east has gotten any worse since we took the role of "liberator". it is a fractured region and will remain fractured until someone can take the initiative and whip these middle-eastern fools into line.
and i believe that power does corrupt.
Ottoman Empire of 600 years can prove it wrong, I think..
By the way, what are the superpowers of the medieval times and modern times. I think we should make it clear first. Yes, Roman Empire was a superpower and UK was once and it still is a quasi-superpower. US is the superpower, USSR was once. I can not see any other super powers of the Northern European culture in both medieval aor modern times. Is there any I miss ?
Let's take Middle East off topic or at least going offensive off, and move towards the point.Quote:
it is a fractured region and will remain fractured until someone can take the initiative and whip these middle-eastern fools into line
I could agree with you about things getting worse in Middle East after US getting into action. But, whether it may be a native or a foreign one, they do not deserve to be whipped, do they ? Actually this is a confliction of democratic Western way of thought.
Speaking of power and corruption...
Here's the statement of principles of a group formed in 1997, called the Project for a New American Century. Their stated goal is to formulate U.S. policy since it is the only superpower left in the world.
PNAC Statement of Principles
This document forms the basis for our entire foreign policy. Why, you ask? What does a document on the internet from 1997 have to do with current U.S. foreign policy? Just scroll down and read the list of signatories to the statement. Then read the rest of the web site. Among other things, the organization sent a letter in 1998 to President Clinton (signed by the same people), recommending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Among the people signing the PNAC statementof principles, those below are now actually in the government - officially:
Dick Cheney - current U.S. VP
Donald Rumsfeld - current U.S. Secretary of Defense
I. Lewis Libby - Cheney's chief advisor (and one of the players in the Plame leak)
Paul Wolfowitz - formerly U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and now president of the World Bank
Elliott Abrams - Deputy National Security Advisor, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North Africa on the National Security Council. He is also believed to have had, at least, prior knowledge of the 2002 failed Venezuelan military coup against Hugo Chavez. Along with Otto Reich, there is some evidence that he knew in exact detail the entire plan for the coup, approved it and documents show he claimed it would succeed. He also pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges for his role in the Iran-Contra affair.
Paula Dobriansky - U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Peter W. Rodman - U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
and finally (my personal favorite)
Zalmay Khalilzad - Special Envoy to Afghanistan after the invasion in 2001 and now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. He was also, during the mid-1990's, an advisor to Unocal during it's negotiations with the Taliban to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.
The others are all professors or politicians, most of them members of other conservative groups such as the Aspen Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Heritage Foundation.
In truth there were few pre-industrial superpowers whose supremacy lasted very long. The strength of the nation was tied totally to the life of the ruler of the nation, without a strong ruler and with no peaceful mechanism to guarentee a worthy sucessor, a nation was doomed to ignomony until another good ruler could emerge. Also, before the Age of European Conquest (post c.1492) nations did not know all the world and could not claim superiority over other peoples, because the two cultures never encountered one another.Quote:
By the way, what are the superpowers of the medieval times and modern times. I think we should make it clear first. Yes, Roman Empire was a superpower and UK was once and it still is a quasi-superpower. US is the superpower, USSR was once. I can not see any other super powers of the Northern European culture in both medieval aor modern times. Is there any I miss ?
For example, Alexander the Great made Macedon a world superpower, but following his death his Empire collapsed because he failed to name a sucessor. Also, Alexander never encountered the Zhou Dynasty Chinese. The Roman Repbulic Empire could be argued to be a superpower, although again they never encountered the Qin\Han Dynasty Chinese who possesed a ruthlessly efficient military machine.
The first true superpower was England, but when its superpower status begins is open to debate, because it has enjoyed many periods of relative success.
The modern superpowers are America, China and Russia, because they are the countries with the power to destroy the world (several times over). Britain and France are powers and Israel, India, Pakistan, Germany and North Korea are lesser powers.
You are pretty far off base. Arguably the worst mistakes we have made come from not recognizing early enough when nations should be allowed to go their own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
The U.S. did not create the nations of today. Empires of the past did that and we (the world) are still picking up the pieces. In many cases, groups were combined that seem none too happy about being forced together. And absent the U.S., the USSR would run all of Europe, while the Chinese would have Korea, Taiwan, etc.
A guiding principle of U.S. international policy for the past 100 years or so has been "self determination" rather than empire or colonialism. That doesn't mean we've always honored the principle as we should have. Certainly the Cold War got in the way of that...
"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna. It also presents problems where there major and hostile divisions in ethnicity within a nation, but not in any readily separable regions.
The U.S. has repeatedly tried to be more isolationist, but it usually backfires on us in a big way. So you'll have to understand and perhaps forgive us for attempting to be more pro-active as a result. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
On occassion though, the US will prop-up a dictatorial regime because it is in the best interests of the United States rather than the people of that nation, which is the typical behaviour of an empire rather than a world policeman.Quote:
"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna.
True, and I did make allowance for that in the sentence immediately following it...so the selective quoting is misconstruing what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
OK then no selective quoting:
Even with the sentance that follows, what I said remains valid. I don't see how the next sentance accounts for what I said.Quote:
"Self determination" presents some big problems though: If a country develops dictatorial or single party rule through election...then future "self determination" can become impossible, creating a dilemna. It also presents problems where there major and hostile divisions in ethnicity within a nation, but not in any readily separable regions.
Sorry, it was the preceeding sentenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
quoting myself
Quote:
A guiding principle of U.S. international policy for the past 100 years or so has been "self determination" rather than empire or colonialism. That doesn't mean we've always honored the principle as we should have. Certainly the Cold War got in the way of that...
Two things…
1. Absolute power does corrupt. But we don’t have absolute anything in the US. We have a system of checks and balances that spreads our power all over the place (often too spread out in my opinion, it takes a very long time to get some things accomplished). The President has a hefty amount but so does congress, senate, supreme court, the media, etc. (putting our presidents in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot I hope was in fun Redleg). No individual or even group has absolute power here, however as a nation the US is the only remaining super power and definitely has the power to manhandle many smaller countries.
2. The US often uses its power to try and help others; both for our personal gain and sometimes to strengthen a relationship, which is also self-serving but may not directly effect us. Now, many people are quick to criticize the efforts but offer little in the way of constructive criticism or ways to handle the situations better. To them I say, Don’t b!tch, unless you have something helpful to add.
There are many factors in making a decision to “police” another country but it would be ridiculous to decide to do anything if there were no potential for gain. IMO the world is lucky that the US is only policing rather than conquering. With the right combination of payoffs and sneaky agreements I can think of at least several “states” that could be added to the union with little military action and another dozen with force.
Other countries should be happy that there is a country like the US around that can help others. And if by helping others it increases the strength of the US, good. The stronger the US is the more it can help.
To say that the US should keep its nose out of other countries business is silly. The US is giant and already has its nose in every other countries business in the form of trade, alliances, US owned businesses in other countries, relatives in other countries, etc. mostly for the better of that country. Think of a country that doesn’t trade with the US, I cant. That means a major event in almost any country has the potential to affect the US. If the US is affected than the US has a right to insert its nose.
I have no delusions; the US is not perfect but come on, stop complaining unless you have something helpful to offer. Complaining for the sake of complaining just makes you look jealous, and there’s no reason for that. It’s really not that difficult for you to become a citizen too. ~;)
Not really related, but I think UK and France have roughly the same destructive power as China. Actually, UK might even have more nuclear weapons than China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
The original question in its description of America is so innaccurate and biased its impossible to address it. I would not want to give an ounce of legitimacy to what amounts to anti-american propaganda by taking this thread seriously.
I did like this bit though, possibly the most.. outrageous... of a very outrageous thread.
Yes Bush, Clinton, and Nixon are to be lumped in with Hitler and Stalin. Thats quite a concession to make simply for some common ground, Red. :dizzy2:Quote:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is especially true of individuals. All one has to do is look at individuals throughout history. Just using the last 100 years you can see lots of evidence of that. Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Clinton, Nixon, and yes even Bush.
Well, Bush's good buddy the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is on record as proclaiming that Hitler, Stalin and Jesus have all met in the afterlife and proclaimed Moon the new Messiah. So it's not all that much of a leap.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I dont know if you understand exactly who Hitler and Stalin were, and what they did. Do you want me to provide some links?
Also, this is the first ive heard GWB and Moon are "good buddies".
Learn something new every day, don't you?
And after your thread regarding WWII, I'm not sure you understand what Hitler did.