And Monte Carlo has covert terrorist training camps. How long are you going to put up with that ?
Printable View
And Monte Carlo has covert terrorist training camps. How long are you going to put up with that ?
Actually, the thing about Albania is that the so-called "defeat" by the Italians pre-World War II was absolute crap!
Mussolini was a puppet of King Zog! And now they're returning! America, hide or fight!
...
All I could say about the subject is that I don't feel like living under an evil Imperialist country right now, which is a good sign, but I also don't see a particular wonderful world, so it's not the Benevolent Gentleman for sure.
Tolkien once commented on a what-if scenario for Lord of the Rings, saying that Gandalf, if he had used the Ring to defeat Sauron, would have become as great a tyrant as Sauron ever was. Except worse, since he would have been insufferably convinced that all the tyranny was being done for a higher cause. Some of that can be seen in the Galadriel scene, where she replies to Sam's pleas for help in the Shire by saying that it would begin with help, but would not end there.
How much credence you place in the Ring as a study of power and the corrupting effects of power is up to the individual reader.
For those who want to accuse Tolkien of anti-Americanism, it is more likely that he based this on the history of British "benevolence" in the colonies, being strongly conservative, pro-England and anti-empire.
Not too sure about the first two stats. Certainly as a percentage of wealth the US is well behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by makkyo
The US is not benign. It does benign things in the process of exercising it's power, but they aren't the fundamental drivers of the nation's policy.
The US is driven by economics. And the vast majority of the wealth in the US is owned and managed by corporations. The corporations run the politics and economy. What they are principally interested in is cheap raw materials and ever expanding sales.
Therefore the two things they hate most, and consequently the two things US foreign policy challenges, is protection of foreign markets and foreign control or monopoly of raw materials.
Which is of course why they're so keen on installing hopefully friendly regimes in the Middle East. The democracy of those is pretty irrelevant, and seeing as what the US prestige among the common folks of the region is not really desirable either, one suspects. Just a little reminder, but Iran got its current governement model after they kicked out the hugely unpopular, wholly autocratic pro-West Shah in a popular uprising that left the country with a sort-of parliamentary democracy...
And among the few things the new Iraqi adminstration has actually managed was the repealing of some of Saddam's actually progressive and modernizing laws. Go fig.
As far as "imperialism" goes; It's better to have a petty dictator in your pocket and on a leash than fighting against you. Obviously, we would prefer capitalist democracies in every country since that would mean the entire wolrd would be free to trade and pursue individual liberties.
And yes. Democracy is the best form of government. I won't argue economics, but democrarcy is the way to go and every man and women in the world should be born free.
That second part I can agree with. :2thumbsup:
The first, however, gets a :dizzy2: , as the factual evidence supporting it is a bit so-so.
Don't count on it. If your nation was a superpower at any time you can bet your socks that you'll have people referring to it's (often exaggerated) misdeeds for centuries to come. Have fun with that. :2thumbsup:Quote:
And then everyone will be talking about them instead of us.That'll be the day.
Sorry but these are just platittudes. Free to buy Pepsi? Free to join a union? Free to demonstrate? Free to take crack? Free to exploit those poorer? Free to trade with Cuba? Free to start up a nationwide chain of wheel alignment service stations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
What does any of that actually mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
THe problem is that you live in a relative free society - where I could image from the statement you just made - you have lost the idea behind what being Free means.
If you want to know what it means - study some history. The idealism being being Free is evident in the history of the world.
Ok Redleg. Are you free to smoke a cuban cigar? Are you free to start a communist political party with offices on your towns main street? Are you free to go on state tv or radio and tell everyone that you are gay and proud and so was Jesus, and then tell everyone your address. Are you free to cross the road wherever you want and not at a designated crossing? Are you free to go and ask a policeman to help you find a reliable supplier of heroin?
I have no idea what you mean by a relative free society. I have lots of relatives knocking around. I visited one on saturday.
Your blind spot is that you live in a society that is endlessly telling itself how free and great it is. The words are just accepted on face value. You don't challenge these meanings or think deeply about them.
Actually I am -Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Yes - the government can not prevent me.Quote:
Are you free to start a communist political party with offices on your towns main street?
Are you free to go on state tv or radio and tell everyone that you are gay and proud and so was Jesus, and then tell everyone your address.[/quote]
Yes I am
Yes indeed - do it oftenQuote:
Are you free to cross the road wherever you want and not at a designated crossing?
I could if I desired to. And the Policeman could feel the need to arrest me after he watchs me buy the drugs.Quote:
Are you free to go and ask a policeman to help you find a reliable supplier of heroin?
Hence your diliema - you have forgotten what a free society is because you live in one.Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by a relative free society. I have lots of relatives knocking around. I visited one on saturday.
You couldn't be more mistaken. It seems your blind spot is that you assume that anyone who doesn't think like you is not capable of deep thinking or challenge those ideas.Quote:
Your blind spot is that you live in a society that is endlessly telling itself how free and great it is. The words are just accepted on face value. You don't challenge these meanings or think deeply about them.
Now pay close attention to this statement. Freedom requires responsiblity. Now go find how many times I have written that statement on these Forum.
Think about what that means - I know it will require you to think deeply beyond the idealogue baised views that you often protray on this forum.
The word is "complacency". In the context of the thread topic, that mainly comes in the form of a sort of baseline automatic assumption of Doing The Right Thing, which usually isn't the case at least without fairly major conditionals tacked on.
Which is exactly what makes the US so insufferable. It seems to be casually insulting your intellect and judgement way too often.
freedom is the right to choose what you wish to do, that no one can alter your ideas or to crush them because they are not there own.
freedom is being able to choose to smoke the cuban cigar, and to declare you are gay, to throw out a stance on jesus, free to cross where ever you want, free to get yourself killed or arrested. Our american ancestors left your country because they could not choose there religion, because they were not allowed to choose a political stance, any attempt at choice the first settlers made under the british crown could (and many times would) get them killed or imprisoned. ands later when the colonies were older and stronger great britian was still choosing for them, choosing to tax them, imprison them, impress them into service. america became the democracy it is today so we could choose how our country is to be run and how we shall run our own lives.
the problem now is that we have become so used to freedom we have forgotten what a lack of freedom is, we are so proud of how "free" we are we are blind to the realization that our choices are being limited more and more by our government and corperate industry.
Funny thing I've read is that among the first things the Pilgrims "chose" after getting established was... to oppress their own minorities. Particularly religious ones.
:juggle2:
I'll bet that doesn't get mentioned all that often, does it ?
I am always amazed by these juxtapositions; Benevolent Super powers, when does it happened? A super power is by definition arrogant, believing in own self proclaimed mission. Imperialism is always seen as evil, but imperialism is always covered by good ideas and ideals.
The USA isn’t an exception to the rule. Like all the former super powers from the past, the US first serves it own interests and, if it gives some good to others it is a bonus.
Call me cynical if you want but I don’t believe in benevolence in politic, but in interest well serve and preserve, and, if possible, extend.
So, for me, the US are nor evil, nor benevolent. It is just a normal super power, actually unmatched.
Actually, the U.S. tried the "He's a thug, but he's our thug" approach to dealing with dictators during the Cold War. It may have had some relevance in that context, but has had a lot of negative fallout since. Therefore, Idaho, we really are interested in establishing relatively stable, largely capitalist, reasonably-independent democracies elsewhere. You may ascribe that to benevolence of purpose or to corporate interests working to create more stable and lucrative long-term market conditions, but the purposes dove-tail. By they way, to assert that the U.S. is functionally a syndicracy is simplifying things overmuch, though I would concur that "business" has quite a lot of impact on U.S. policy, laws, etc.
Idaho/Redleg:
I don't know how productive it is to argue "freedom" in a absolute libertarian sense. All societies restrict individual freedom to some extent. I don't think anybody can make a useful argument against traffic rules as a concept, for example, as a true "free-for-all" would be counterproductive for everyone. So yes, Idaho, citizens of the USA are not completely "free."
That said, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a culture wherein the individuals possess a greater degree of personal freedom and economic opportunity than exists in the United States, and certainly no country possessing a comparable total population. Arguing that "jay-walking" or the inability to purchase a Cuban cigar legally represent a meaningful degree of restriction of freedom is absurd.
Perhaps you'd prefer the definition of freedom posited by Sister Janice in her rendition of "Bobby McGee?"
freedom is watever you want it to be, and i suspect different for everyone...thats slightly ambiguous but difficult to put...gah
i think its unfair to classify amercia as either of the two, its not "evil" as such, and is hardly "benevolent" (although im not 100% sure of what that actually means) it is a very typical superpower, and isnt actually that bad-a superpower, its people live relatively well and the rest of the world benefits from the trade etc...
The parts that aren't under embargo or being bombed to bits over "national interests", anyway.
Incidentally, I tend to make a point of not using the adjective "evil" if at all possible. It's too... bipolar.
The Holocaust was evil. There is no other way to define it.
Evil exists.
The Nazis are one of the very few exceptions I'm willing to make, granted. They were just bad.
Calling the nazis evil is oversimplified.
Of course it is. Which is why I rarely do it. I avoid the word "evil" specifically because it... diminishes the moral concept it's supposed to refer to. It turns it into little more than a slogan.
Well, if you can concede that the Nazis were evil, then at what point would they not have been evil?
Half the Genocide? Only a million Jews?
A Thousand?
What about the invasion and occupation of most of Europe? (And for you anti-americans: note that we want to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as we possibly can! There is no comparison. So don't get giddy.)
But seriously, is Evil an ultimate or merely the end of a spectrum? If that is the case then how good is good? Is saving one life any less good than saving two?
I just think it is important to define what is evil here, so we can choose between the lessor of the two. I would choose to steal before murder, for example. Lesser of two.
Which is the lessor of two evils: Bombing Iran's nuclear sites or allowing them to obtain a weapon that could annihilate Israel in one shot?
You're in a wrong thread for that, really.
Calling the Nazis evil merely defines them as a moral phenomenon, so that if we keep ourselves good we can guard against a repeat. If only things were that simple. Europeans have recognised, as did Americans half a century ago (remember that video posted just before Christmas) that the Nazis were a social phenomenon just waiting to happen. To that end, we've identified various aspects of that social phenomenon, so we can take appropriate action whenever any of that happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Believe it or not, calling people Nazis is one of those factors, if it prevents people from exercising free speech for fear of identifying with them. That's the demonisation and scapegoating part, a role that used to be played by Jews and is now increasingly played by Muslims. Others include disenfranchisement of a large part of the population, caused in the 1920s by the Great Depression. There's also the free investigative press, needful to be investigative because there's a natural tendency to bow down to power blocs. There are other signs, but the ultimate sign is making war on other countries without just cause (when one Nazi complained he was being tried for losing a war, his American guard corrected him, saying he was being tried for starting a war).
Nazism is the great demon that all Europe is afraid of, that it might rise again in our midst. We do not appreciate being told to ignore our fears and to create again the environment in which it might thrive, just to oblige the foreign policies of other countries. Nazism probably won't appear again in its old form, but something very much like it might under another name. If the rot appears again, at least let us not infect the rest of the world by invading this country and that. The awfulness of Nazi Germany might have been much less had its troops never crossed its borders.
Has there been substantive evidence thus far that Iran is prepared to go to war with Israel, much less use those weapons? Funding terrorist groups doesn't count, we've had descendants of Irish ex-pats in Boston and New York funding IRA bombs and bullets in Britain without treating it as a state of war between the UK and the US. I don't think many British people worried that America had weapons that could literally wipe our island from the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
If we're going to go to war, let there be a just and proven cause. That's why Woodrow Wilson set up the League of Nations, and Roosevelt the United Nations, so that nations will never again fight wars of conquest. Does war with Iran fulfill any of the three conditions that define a just and legal war?
1. In response to aggression.
2. Pre-emptive in response to clear and imminent threats (the 1967 clause).
3. Authorised by the Security Council.
Besides, Israel already has the "one shot kill" weapon. In the spirit of fair play, why not let the Iranians have one too ? Then the two can stare at each other over their missiles and have their eyes dry in their sockets for not daring to blink.
:juggle2:
I'd actually be half willing to say the nationalist twerps deserve each other.
How About.... Poland?? lmao
Joined the EU not long ago, if memory serves. Why ?
Your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCWarman88