Civilization, War, and so on.

[Pindar]

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

I don't like normal approaches

Anyway, I don't necessarily meant nation but more the general picture of it: a nation, or a country, or a state, a civilization, a people. Basically I still stand by what I said in the previous post(s) for now, though it might change.

To answer the question you asked... hmm, if I stand by what I meant, then the simple answer is probably that I must ask you about what exactly your question means. I was specifically referring to an aggressive "civilization" and being imperialist / expansionist, not just a nation / civilization / people etc. engaged in war.

But to quickly post as I fight my fatigue ....Legio kind of generally said what I mean. In that case my previous saying about "good" and "bad" could generally refer to englightened and not englightened.

Your position then is: any people engaged in imperialist expansion is unenlightened? Is that right?

[Bijo]

Redleg, I did not claim using military force always means imperialism. And I did claim the US has been being imperialist, and probably is right now (also by different means besides the military).


Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people. There are differences here and there, but ah -- how should I explain this -- ....I look at it "holistically" if that's the proper word. (I don't mean to go into too many details, for saving time.)

We can see this by the way the nation has behaved politically / militarily / etc. And besides that: I've visited this lovely country and what I saw most was people who were always angry, aggressive, arrogant, impulsive, greedy, and hostile. I look at American (foreign) policy and I see the same principle.

Sure there are nice American people -- for example here on the Org -- but it will take a hell of a convincer to convince me and to prove to me that in general the American nation is not aggressive, not hostile, and so on, both within (-- the society --) AND without (-- foreign politics). Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.
_________________________
By all means, no offence meant to anybody American in here
_________________________

"Sir, hello. Eh, I jst need to know where and--"
"I ain't no ******* guide, ya bastard!"

Either that answer or:
"......" *quickly walks away with head down*

That's only two examples

[Pindar]

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

[Stig]

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

Would anything be wrong with that?

[Don Corleone]

Would anything be wrong with that?

Not at all. It just qualifies your opinions as something other than objective.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I did not claim using military force always means imperialism. And I did claim the US has been being imperialist, and probably is right now (also by different means besides the military).

My comment was directed at gathering a better answer then this. Explain why you believe that the United States is engaged in Imperialism. What methods are being used by the Government of the United States to engage in Imperialistic policies? In your explanation how do you explain the huge trade imbalance that the United States is engaged in with China? In other words a simple belief that the United States is engaged in Imperialism does not equate to proving the premise.

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people. There are differences here and there, but ah -- how should I explain this -- ....I look at it "holistically" if that's the proper word. (I don't mean to go into too many details, for saving time.)

Again what foundation in fact is such an accusation based upon? There are many different explanations for the different foreign policies of the United States? For instance are you attempting to classify Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somilia into aggressive foreign policy actions of an Imperialist nation.

We can see this by the way the nation has behaved politically / militarily / etc. And besides that: I've visited this lovely country and what I saw most was people who were always angry, aggressive, arrogant, impulsive, greedy, and hostile. I look at American (foreign) policy and I see the same principle.

All depends on what part of the nation you have visited and when. Sterotypes are the basic downfall of your arguement.

Sure there are nice American people -- for example here on the Org -- but it will take a hell of a convincer to convince me and to prove to me that in general the American nation is not aggressive, not hostile, and so on, both within (-- the society --) AND without (-- foreign politics). Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.
_________________________
By all means, no offence meant to anybody American in here
_________________________

"Sir, hello. Eh, I jst need to know where and--"
"I ain't no ******* guide, ya bastard!"

Either that answer or:
"......" *quickly walks away with head down*

That's only two examples

Pinder-san has summed up your position in my opinion. Your going to have to explain your postion a whole lot better or I will just have to assume that your basing a lot of your opinion on sterotypes. And sterotypes are always a bad thing to base one's opinion on.

[Pindar]

Would anything be wrong with that?

The answer to your question should be rather obvious. If it is not, then the cognitive dissonance will make any attempt to "enlighten"...pointless.

In such cases, it is usually best to simply smile and direct the afflicted to the appropriate sandbox.

[Papewaio]

Pindar, forgive me for shoving aside your question. The whole point (at least I hope it got through) of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.

So, you are basically wanting to say you are anti-american?

Not sure if pointing out perceived flaws in a relationship (tab A) makes one anti-the flawed object (slot B).

Mind you if the wife ever asks 'Do these jeans make me look fat' then ones response may will lead to one finding out the hard way that people tend to link tab A to slot B automatically.

[Papewaio]

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war.

The basic point is woefully incorrect. A peace bought to Europe by the US's nukes not a cultural change.

Immediately post WWII Europe was shell shocked and war weary. By the time it would have been able to play WWIII the weapons of war had changed and they were living under the cold shadow of nuclear war. Peace caused by fear of annihilation not from some complete cultural change across Europe. To emphasize how little had change check out what Europeans were gleefully doing in the nations that were fighting the cold war by proxy. It has been involved in conflicts around the world... Vietnam, Falklands, Malaysia, Middle East. Development of nuclear bombs... of course in fragile coral in the south pacific rather then Europe. Terrorism, anti-state and state sponsored also do nothing to add to this idea that Europe is a peaceful state.

The carrot to the stick is economic prosperity and the realization that why take over a country when you can just use corporations to make sweat shops.

Peace out of fear of death not because of some sort of mass epiphany as the people went into the age of Aquarius.

[Bijo]

@Redleg

For instance are you attempting to classify Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somilia into aggressive foreign policy actions of an Imperialist nation.

No, I did not: you attempt to make it look as if I stated this, it seems.

Imperialism:
It does so through commerce and unfounded military action.


@Pindar
Are you selectively taking out pieces of my words and then attempting to besmirch and confuse me with your questions (especially with the anti-American question)?


@Papewaio
Correct, I'm not anti-American. I just criticize the country :) (though if people are I could understand it.)

But now is not the same as immediately post-WWII.

America is just the new empire of today.

[Stig]

Bijo, it's just that some people don't like it if people think their country isn't as good as they think it is.
I'd leave it, they will always find something to argue with you, simply because they don't like your views.

[Warmaster Horus]

Just a comment: the fact is that all countries have a bad side, something other people can criticise upon. If you don't agree, find one nation that doesn't have that characteristic.

[Warmaster Horus]

EDIT: sorry double post.

[Pindar]

Not sure if pointing out perceived flaws in a relationship (tab A) makes one anti-the flawed object (slot B).

My comment does not note a relationship, but an identity statement: A is B. To whit: "The whole point...of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization...". The thrust of the judgment is a condemnation. To condemn is to be opposed to the thing condemned. The thing condemned is the nation, its people and 'civilization'. To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

[Pindar]

Are you selectively taking out pieces of my words and then attempting to besmirch and confuse me with your questions (especially with the anti-American question)?

No. I am trying to understand what seems a rather convoluted position which may be a simple hostility looking to justify itself.

[Redleg]

@Redleg


No, I did not: you attempt to make it look as if I stated this, it seems.

You should notice that it was asked as a question not a statement. If your unable to understand the nature of the query then state so, However I notice that you still have not answered the question with any detail.

Imperialism:
It does so through commerce and unfounded military action.

Again this does not account for the trade imbalance between China and the United States. Commerce imperialism would normally entail that the United States gains the greater benefit from the relationship. In actuality China currently has the greater benefit from the current commerece relationship between the two nations. Unfounded Military action is ill-defined as it relates to imperialism. Imperialism often has a mix of justified military action and yes even unfounded military action. One could claim that Iraq is an unfounded military action - but that can not be said of Afganstan, or several other military actions in the last 15 odd years. Hince the earlier reference to the nations above.

Now in economic terms the United States did attempt to create an Imperialistic policy dealing with Central and South America, a stance that still causes many problems for the United States. So if your just focusing on that aspect then all it takes is a statement that indicates that versus the neublus statements so far.

I am still waiting on an answer that is of greater detail then just belief.

[Redleg]

Bijo, it's just that some people don't like it if people think their country isn't as good as they think it is.
I'd leave it, they will always find something to argue with you, simply because they don't like your views.

Actually its not even that, some what a more detailed explanation for negative views versus simple statements of belief based upon sterotype comments.

If you want to be critical of the United States by all means do so, but when one uses sterotypes don't be surprised when one is called on it.

[Papewaio]

My comment does not note a relationship, but an identity statement: A is B. To whit: "The whole point...of the thread was that to criticize America as an imperialist nation, as an aggressive nation, or an aggressive people... Basically, I think America has a bad civilization...". The thrust of the judgment is a condemnation. To condemn is to be opposed to the thing condemned. The thing condemned is the nation, its people and 'civilization'. To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

To criticize the identity of a thing is to be anti that thing.

I think the last part is incorrect. It I had an overweight enemy and said that they looked fine and that the best thing for them was to sit on a couch, watch DVDs, play PC games and eat chocolate then I would not be criticizing them but I would be anti their long term health and hence anti that person. (edit: I'm my own worst enemy by the looks of things)

On the other hand if I told my overweight friend that they had a muffin top and that they should pull their finger out and exercise, I would be criticizing them but pro their long term health and hence helping them.

I'm pretty sure the biggest critics of athletes are themselves closely followed by their coaches and trainers.

The issue is that criticism should be factual, timely and have an action plan to resolve the issues highlighted so that it is positive criticism. Also the delivery mechanism has to be sweet enough to be digested... heck most headache pills are sweetened... so should positive criticism.

I do think that it is often one and the same as Tab A slots into Slot B on many an instruction sheet (spent the weekend at IKEA and assembling Babywaio's new bed so lots of building analogy's are at my red raw finger tips). However I don't think it is automatic that to be critical of something is to be anti it.

[Pindar]

However I don't think it is automatic that to be critical of something is to be anti it.

To be critical can mean to evaluate a thing. It can also mean to find fault with a thing. The latter meaning is always 'anti' its object. Which meaning is being used by the thread's author? The post I responded to is clear which of the two meanings is being used. The nation, people and 'civilization' are labeled imperialist, aggressive and bad. These are condemnations. Thus it is an 'anti' position.

[Papewaio]

I think you can be anti an attribute of an object and not automatically anti the object IMDHO.

[Redleg]

I think you can be anti an attribute of an object and not automatically anti the object IMDHO.

However that was not the statement made by the individual.

but it will take a hell of a convincer to convince me and to prove to me that in general the American nation is not aggressive, not hostile, and so on, both within (-- the society --) AND without (-- foreign politics). Basically, I think America has a bad civilization, and you can fill in the reasons -- the details -- yourself.

The statement was a generalization of all people and the nation itself. It wasn't directed at a single attribute or even several attributes of the object, it was directed at the object in general.

Its also based upon a generalization and one that he even contradicts himself in the previous sentence.

[Pindar]

I think you can be anti an attribute of an object and not automatically anti the object IMDHO.

Sure, but that is not what this issue turns on. The fellow made an identity claim: nation, people and 'civilization' are not attributes. Redleg also spoke to this above.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

Of all the variants of anti-Americanism that plague the civilised European continent, this must be the richest.
How many wars were fought in the whole of the America's in the last one hundred years? And how many in Europe?
How many 'imperialistic' wars were fought by America in the last century? And how many by Europeans?

If I am a pacifist, it's for no other reason than that I know Europe all too well: one never needs to scratch below the surface very deep to find the same old disdain and hatred for the other, the barbarian, the less-civilised: the one on the other side of whatever particular linguistic, religious, etnic, regional divide is the flavour of the day.

Forget about it, America isn't going to finally start maintaining peace once they've fought some wars on their own soil: they're much too civilised for that to happen.

[Kralizec]

War is something that's going to be always with us, there will be periods of relative tranquility across most of the globe but those won't last forever. It's why I could never become a pacifist- being pacifist is only worthwile if everyone is a pacifist.

The fact that western European countries haven't started a lot of wars since WWII has frankly more to do with the fact that none of them are capable of doing much without US' support then with a different mindset.

The US did some pretty ugly things in the Cold War, some that were in retrospect unnecessary but perfectly understandable given the need to battle the "red tide".
After the Cold War there's the 1st Gulf War (a reaction to an attack on an ally), Somalia ( up, but the intent was humanitarian), the intervention in Yugoslavia (same as Somalia), Clinton lobbing a few cruise missiles into Iraq to destroy weapon cashes, Afghanistan and the 2nd Gulf War. The only one in this list that I'd consider uncalled for and possibly imperialist is the last one. Wich was supported by quite a few European countries.