Discuss.
BUT, let's at least make an attempt at objectivity. I know many of us are "dug in" so to speak.
Printable View
Discuss.
BUT, let's at least make an attempt at objectivity. I know many of us are "dug in" so to speak.
Um Point
I think the tubgirl picture sums up USA foreign policy
Neither. We are a mix of both. The US is certainly not the Great Satan, but at the same time, we are out to make a buck.
Benevolent superpower.
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more benevolent than past super powers.
you guys better be glad you were born in this age and time than in the past, when looking at someone funny might get you killed.
The US is #1 in foreign aid, #1 funder of the United Nations, and consquently #1 military/economic power in the world. It could be worse.
Doesn't make their "We Be Good" attitude any less insufferable though.
Us>Them.
USA? That's near Belarus, right? :dizzy2:
Never really cared. There are a few things that I don't like about the US, but I wouldn't call it an evil imperialist state. Who would you rather have holding the power anyhow? The US or.. Burma, or something?
Neither.
80/20 Benevolent over imperialist.
As I've said consistently, we're lousy imperialists and have never gotten the hang of stepping on necks very well. Heavens, we even beat up on Mexico and then paid them for the land we took (admittedly, a low-ish price, but still.....)
Watchman:
I remind you of M. Ali's (aka Cassius Clay) famous dictum.
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee? :inquisitive:
I agree, we aren't very good at being imperialists, otherwise we wouldn't have invaded Afgahnistan, and we would've taken greater pains to secure Iraq's oil and less to set up a democracy.
It ain't braggin' if you can do it. :2thumbsup:
We aren't evil imperialists no......no we aren't "HURRY RUN":charge::disguise:
I have no idea why americans would ride horses :dizzy2:
They're all gay cowboys, remember?Quote:
I have no idea why americans would ride horses
Quote:
agree, we aren't very good at being imperialists, otherwise we wouldn't have invaded Afgahnistan, and we would've taken greater pains to secure Iraq's oil and less to set up a democracy.
Being chronically incompetent at it isn't really much of a defense, you know.Quote:
80/20 Benevolent over imperialist.
As I've said consistently, we're lousy imperialists and have never gotten the hang of stepping on necks very well. Heavens, we even beat up on Mexico and then paid them for the land we took (admittedly, a low-ish price, but still.....)
Alas, I must profess unfamiliarity with the seeds of wisdom sown by this great thinker. Might you enlighten this curious soul ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Ahem....Our lack of competence in this area stems more from attitude than capability -- though perhaps I wasn't clear given my tendency to wander a bit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Ali said "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Perhaps we are a bit over the top about being the "nice guys," but I would assert that we have more reason than many (though I'm well aware we've a less than perfect track record).
Isn't that what they all say ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think We Too Nice,or we too stupid,or Both..
I think we proably Both Benevolent and Evil.. But Hey, it all good,lol..
Evil imperialists of course. There is no such thing as a nation being benevolent, not even loveable little countries like Australia or New Zealand or Libya or Iran.
Azi
Do I have to choose? Can't we be both, and more?
Why can't we all just get along.
Both indeed. Sometimes both at once, sometimes alternating between the two.
Overall, I would like to quote Churchill's quote about democracy, but as I can't for the life of me remember it, I won't.
Ah, the wonders of Google:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill
One could equal democracy with 'the USA as the sole superpower'.
Yeah Louis until the Chinese or Canadians over run us and take away that title. I'm just waiting for that day to come around.:2thumbsup: And then everyone will be talking about them instead of us.That'll be the day.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Oh please God, no. Nothing lasts forever, and neither will America's status as the sole hyperpower. Someday, somebody's going to take the title from you guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
But please, not them Canadians.
I dont know Louis those are some sneaky Canadians they might take the crown from right under or noses. We should make France and Texas pact to take them out.
Anytime. Got to stop them Canucks.
Say what, you guysfabricatetake some pictures of Canadian WMD's, and we'll back you in the Security Council. :balloon2:
Yeah Louis I'll get right on that we may need some more people to help us out with this project.
...Albania has been eyeing us for far to long...
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
1. USA
2. Ierland
3. Italy
4. Germany
5. UK
6. Denmark
7. Finland
8. Norway
9. Sweeden
10.Poland
11. Portugal
12. Spain
13. Belgium
14. Swis
15. Russia
16. Greece
17. The rest of the blakans
18. Austria
19, Hungary
20. Baltic states
21. China
22. The Dutch~;)
(Nasty comment - Beirut)
Note that Israel is much smaller then Iran, so I would suspect that a given nuke would be much more of a nation-killer(I think this is what is meant by 'one shot, one kill) if used on Israel then on Iran. bit of a nitpick I supposeQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
On topic, I would say lousy Imperialists, at least now. The high tide of American empire ended in the 30s.
Disco don't be a America hater.
What? We bloody OCCUPIED Nicuragua during the 20s and early thirties almost for a decade. The Platt Amendment of the Cuban constition allowed the US to intervene when ever we felt like it. There was that little revolution in Panama that we orcestrated. Among other things. But at least if we are imperialists now, at least its not over bannanas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csar
The rules of the game changed a fair bit after the interwar period anyway. Direct occupation was found to be an ineffective way to control land and the resources contained. Economical and political dominance is the way to go these days.
At the very least it's the local puppet/lackey/other partner-in-crime fighting the rebels in the hills and not your own troops if nothing else.
The point is that ones definition of freedom is inextricably bound up with ones culture. I don't think it is a meaningful restriction on my liberty not to be allowed to possess a handgun, but you might. You don't think it's a meaninful restriction on your liberty to be required to get a permit to camp, put up a dwelling, but a nomad might. I could go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
They are neither evil imperialists nor a benevolent superpower, but there are no world powers in existence that are a pure force for neither good or evil.
The problem with the US is that it's government does go on about freedom, and god and this legendary battle between good and evil, where the US is always the good side and anyone the US doesn't happen to be on good terms with at that time is the evil side. This is of course the usual political spin that get's churned out of the propaganda engine on a daily basis in any country, except with the US it's much more brash and unsubtle. It's this sort of thing that can make the US unpopular with those that read newspapers or watch TV news reports.
True enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This version of your point is clear, concise and relevant. I do think there are basic elements of political freedom that are surprisingly (though not completely) cross-cultural, but the specific expression of freedom is most definitely influenced by one's cultural perceptions. A fair point.
I've put this idea of mine in similar threads before : What if it was yours, not USA ?
That power..It corrupts..Talking about empires of the past, I'm not a Rome-geek (actually I hate the era) but I can say something about Ottomans. A book of an American academician praises how dynamically Ottomans were able to conquer and control while staying away from irritating local populaces. But it was a monarch after all. Who foreigners call "Magnificent", Süleyman I was such an influent and authoritarian figure when Ottoman power had hit the peak. However this absolute power had a "ring effect" on him, rocking the "Achilles heel" points of the empire -tiny but fatal-, driving the whole state's fate to decline. I am with the idea that things would be far different if he was shorter of power, both individually and politically.
USA, founded on vast lands by a mixture of people from every other nation, rised rapidly because the physical opportunities, conditions and talented leaders who were comparably more comfortable than many others. Now they have a word in everything, just like Suleyman did among the Europeans, because they have the power. It's hard to play an ethic game with best cards being in your hand. Also it is not meaningful you being ethical, while most of the others are rigorously striving for what you have in your hand. So power caused corruption. Corruption caused irritation. Irritation was taken care of by more power. More power results in even more corruption.
Well actually that is the dynamic of mankind. Everything they are involved has a life cycle and is corrupted as much as it can grow.
After all, take your sticks away from Middle East and I'll think that USA is a peaceful elf land. :tongue:
The extension of this is that whilst the US' self interested actions may well attract scorn and condemnation, it's benign intentions may also be seen as a negative force in a country. Wasn't it LBJ who insisted on shaking hands with the leader of South Vietnam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Disco thats our right as Americans. We get to do whatever we want and NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP US HHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh I'm sorry thats the Canadians my bad.:shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
:laugh4: Go Canada
IMDHO One important thing about freedoms within a cultural framework is equality.
If you are being restricted freedoms in your country on the basis of sex, creed or race then I would say that that country is not as free as one that does not restrict based on ones sex, creed or race.
On a cross cultural point if you deny people the freedoms that your country has then that you are not enabling freedom. On the other hand if you are cooperatively trying to help them gain freedoms that you have I would see that as a positive thing. Like all cross-cultural exchanges there will be things that one side thinks is a great gift the other side sees as a white elephant, this is one of the few time relativism has a pragmatic use. Understanding the context within which someone does something can promote friendship.
I agree in general terms. But from a purely intellectual view inequalities may be seen as being relative. I think that gay people should be free to marry each other. Some others may think that this is not a freedom but an abomination.