zinkyusa;447605 wrote:
The US armed the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Although some of them formed what later became the Taliban there were also other groups involved. This is quite a bit different than saying the US armed the Taliban. Are you so ignorant of history to not understand that alliances shift and people and countries change..Yesterday's enemy is today's friend..
Maybe youd prefer any of the hundred and one other examples where the US have supported terrorist organisations in order to bring down an elected government that was not to their taste?
Russian Rhetoric
Russian Rhetoric
zinkyusa;448750 wrote:
just proves my point about the shifting nature of alliances and why it is important to state things in their proper context (Which you seem to have great difficulty doing). Are saying after 1992 Iraq was our allie?
If not then what is recent history to you?
Lets see, how long was Sadam in power before 1990?
Recent history certainly includes the political lifetime of the people involved - or does you event horizon cut off everything over 15 years old?
The events for which Sadam is being tried for crimes against humanity happened in the 80s - when he was being actively supported by the USA. You cannot dismiss them as "not recent history".
just proves my point about the shifting nature of alliances and why it is important to state things in their proper context (Which you seem to have great difficulty doing). Are saying after 1992 Iraq was our allie?
If not then what is recent history to you?Lets see, how long was Sadam in power before 1990?
Recent history certainly includes the political lifetime of the people involved - or does you event horizon cut off everything over 15 years old?
The events for which Sadam is being tried for crimes against humanity happened in the 80s - when he was being actively supported by the USA. You cannot dismiss them as "not recent history".
Russian Rhetoric
I think GMC put is best when he said that looking for morality in geopolitics is about as useful as looking for faries in the bottom of the garden, people from Britain trying to lecture Americans on "ethical" arms sales or foreign policy is fatuous in the extreme don't you think? Who invented the cluster bomb for exampe? Or the shrapnell shell, or the tank? Who pioneered the mass bombing of civilian cities? The RAF, were they worried about morality, no, they were too busy trying to beat the Nazis. Perhaps people in the U.S. are a bit naive about what their government gets up to, I would suggest that French, British, German, and Italian people who think they have a moral high ground to stand on are being utterly hypocritical. The U.S. is no better or worse than anyone it is just more powerful in our era, and the nature of real power is always unpeasant, but somebody has to wield it, American hegemony is far more moral than Europes was, we tended not to worry too much about the natives in our day.
Posting examples to somehow chastize people based on their nationality for the murky dealings of their goverments are a waste of time. Where there are cases of things that are wrong and can be stopped they should be discussed, and governements can be critized fairly, but this beggar thy neighbour stuff is just facitious. I can do some examples though, for example it wasn't the U.S. that gave Israel the technical knowledge to build its nulear weapons, it was good old arab-loving France (the Americans told the Israeli's to bugger off). In terms of Iraq, it was the British that created the country in the first place and in actuality created the current map of the middle east as it now is, it was the US that stopped Britain, France and Israel from invading independent Egypt and taking control of the Suez canal. It was the Russians who gave the Chinese communists the arms they required to install their communist dictaorship, the British were the ones who partitioned India and created the state of Pakistan in the first place, the Americans were welcomed into the gulf by the Arabs after WWII precisely because they were not Europeans. If Europe is a somewhat less miitaristic and agressive power than it used to be, thats entirely because we all blew ourselves to bits in the 20th century becuase of our nationalistic hubris and moral degenercy so please turn down the cant, and stop lecturing the yanks.
Posting examples to somehow chastize people based on their nationality for the murky dealings of their goverments are a waste of time. Where there are cases of things that are wrong and can be stopped they should be discussed, and governements can be critized fairly, but this beggar thy neighbour stuff is just facitious. I can do some examples though, for example it wasn't the U.S. that gave Israel the technical knowledge to build its nulear weapons, it was good old arab-loving France (the Americans told the Israeli's to bugger off). In terms of Iraq, it was the British that created the country in the first place and in actuality created the current map of the middle east as it now is, it was the US that stopped Britain, France and Israel from invading independent Egypt and taking control of the Suez canal. It was the Russians who gave the Chinese communists the arms they required to install their communist dictaorship, the British were the ones who partitioned India and created the state of Pakistan in the first place, the Americans were welcomed into the gulf by the Arabs after WWII precisely because they were not Europeans. If Europe is a somewhat less miitaristic and agressive power than it used to be, thats entirely because we all blew ourselves to bits in the 20th century becuase of our nationalistic hubris and moral degenercy so please turn down the cant, and stop lecturing the yanks.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally;451724 wrote: I think GMC put is best when he said that looking for morality in geopolitics is about as useful as looking for faries in the bottom of the garden, people from Britain trying to lecture Americans on "ethical" arms sales or foreign policy is fatuous in the extreme don't you think?
Well put, but I must disagree.
My take is that *all* arms sales are unethical and I'll call the UK just as loudly as I've been calling the US (you forgot, for example, the arming of General Suharto and the support we gave him in massacering the East Timorese to get at their oil).
Britain's actions were wrong in its days of Empire but it was acting amongst a community of powers according to the ethics of that community and constrained by the relative equivalence of those powers (there were times when we were the strongest single power but we were never that strong that we could defy the rest of the powers)
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
That is also why I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to call foul when they abuse their position - the invasion of soverign nation states is abuse of power.
Galbally wrote:
Posting examples to somehow chastize people based on their nationality for the murky dealings of their goverments are a waste of time. Where there are cases of things that are wrong and can be stopped they should be discussed, and governements can be critized fairly, but this beggar thy neighbour stuff is just facitious
It is purely the actions of the US Administration that I criticize but I feel that those actions should be discussed. I have no axe to grind with the American people and I do not feel that I have done so here.
Well put, but I must disagree.
My take is that *all* arms sales are unethical and I'll call the UK just as loudly as I've been calling the US (you forgot, for example, the arming of General Suharto and the support we gave him in massacering the East Timorese to get at their oil).
Britain's actions were wrong in its days of Empire but it was acting amongst a community of powers according to the ethics of that community and constrained by the relative equivalence of those powers (there were times when we were the strongest single power but we were never that strong that we could defy the rest of the powers)
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
That is also why I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to call foul when they abuse their position - the invasion of soverign nation states is abuse of power.
Galbally wrote:
Posting examples to somehow chastize people based on their nationality for the murky dealings of their goverments are a waste of time. Where there are cases of things that are wrong and can be stopped they should be discussed, and governements can be critized fairly, but this beggar thy neighbour stuff is just facitious
It is purely the actions of the US Administration that I criticize but I feel that those actions should be discussed. I have no axe to grind with the American people and I do not feel that I have done so here.
Russian Rhetoric
Bryn Mawr;451801 wrote: Well put, but I must disagree.
My take is that *all* arms sales are unethical and I'll call the UK just as loudly as I've been calling the US (you forgot, for example, the arming of General Suharto and the support we gave him in massacering the East Timorese to get at their oil).
Britain's actions were wrong in its days of Empire but it was acting amongst a community of powers according to the ethics of that community and constrained by the relative equivalence of those powers (there were times when we were the strongest single power but we were never that strong that we could defy the rest of the powers)
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
That is also why I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to call foul when they abuse their position - the invasion of soverign nation states is abuse of power.
It is purely the actions of the US Administration that I criticize but I feel that those actions should be discussed. I have no axe to grind with the American people and I do not feel that I have done so here.
I accept that you are not just America bashing bryn, and you make intelligent and thoughful posts, but I think its important that we remember that the U.S. administration is not the sole source of bad foreign policy in the world either today or in the past. Britains actions (when it was the governing nation of a global empire) were certainly very cynical and exploitative, but (again) like America now, it was (if not the most peace-nik country on earth), certainly not the worst by any means. It becomes fairly apparent when you look dispassionatly at the U.S. record, its policies in general are far more acceptable to our sort of worldview (which is essentially the same as American's are) than say Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc etc. It does some very unethical things, but frankly who doesn't?, and given the power at the disposal of the U.S. administration, it is quite restrained usually. The U.S. interest in the world has always been essetnially commercial and one that seeks to promote (above all) American propsperity and the capitalist system, and I can't argue with that personally. Of course, there are many issues where I think the U.S. administration is quite wrong, but then being a democracy there is always the safe bet that whoever is in power right now in the U.S., won't be in 10 years time. I also think that when, taken in its entirety, a lot of what makes America great is great: freedom of expression, indivdual choice (i.e. freedom), relgious tolerance, the rule of law, representative government, meritocractic society, rationalism and progress, all things to be very grateful for flourishing in the U.S.
In terms of the arms sales things, I think you have to be pragmatic and look at each case in its context. Examples where say and landmines are sold to poor, depostic coutries that are used as a weapon of terror (landmines are particularly horrible) are obviously wrong and there should be a moratorium on them. The same goes for cluster bombs, chemical weapons, certain types of explosives, (a lot of very nasty stuff), but I think putting a moratorium in all weapons sales in any circumstances is naive and self-defeating. In some instances it is completley in a countries interest to sell weapons to an ally, such as the U.S. did with Britain in WWII and the cold war. War is horrible, but you can't expect that at some point you can avoid it against a nation that seeks to harm your own country's direct interests, its just a sad fact that their are many very countries and organizations against whom the threat of force and its occasionaly use are an absolute necessity. Thats not a subject for ethical debate, but a practical problem that governments have to contend with always. America may be the worlds only superpower right now, but America is also restrained, by its own political system, its very necessary relationship with others, and the fact that even America does not have unlimited resources. Also the fact that the U.S. is the only superpower has only been the case since 1989, (imagine a world in which the Soviet Union had the dominance now enjoyed by the U.S. and shiver) and it will soon change again, also I think Spetember 11th was a little reminder that in fact the west is not invincible, we are not the only civilization on the planet, and that the unthinkable could well happen if we do not act to create a more pluralistic world, while also defending ourselves, our countries, and our way of life vigorously.
Perhaps in the future we will live in a more enlightened planet, but that time is not now, and to ignore that fact is irresponsible.
My take is that *all* arms sales are unethical and I'll call the UK just as loudly as I've been calling the US (you forgot, for example, the arming of General Suharto and the support we gave him in massacering the East Timorese to get at their oil).
Britain's actions were wrong in its days of Empire but it was acting amongst a community of powers according to the ethics of that community and constrained by the relative equivalence of those powers (there were times when we were the strongest single power but we were never that strong that we could defy the rest of the powers)
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
That is also why I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to call foul when they abuse their position - the invasion of soverign nation states is abuse of power.
It is purely the actions of the US Administration that I criticize but I feel that those actions should be discussed. I have no axe to grind with the American people and I do not feel that I have done so here.
I accept that you are not just America bashing bryn, and you make intelligent and thoughful posts, but I think its important that we remember that the U.S. administration is not the sole source of bad foreign policy in the world either today or in the past. Britains actions (when it was the governing nation of a global empire) were certainly very cynical and exploitative, but (again) like America now, it was (if not the most peace-nik country on earth), certainly not the worst by any means. It becomes fairly apparent when you look dispassionatly at the U.S. record, its policies in general are far more acceptable to our sort of worldview (which is essentially the same as American's are) than say Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc etc. It does some very unethical things, but frankly who doesn't?, and given the power at the disposal of the U.S. administration, it is quite restrained usually. The U.S. interest in the world has always been essetnially commercial and one that seeks to promote (above all) American propsperity and the capitalist system, and I can't argue with that personally. Of course, there are many issues where I think the U.S. administration is quite wrong, but then being a democracy there is always the safe bet that whoever is in power right now in the U.S., won't be in 10 years time. I also think that when, taken in its entirety, a lot of what makes America great is great: freedom of expression, indivdual choice (i.e. freedom), relgious tolerance, the rule of law, representative government, meritocractic society, rationalism and progress, all things to be very grateful for flourishing in the U.S.
In terms of the arms sales things, I think you have to be pragmatic and look at each case in its context. Examples where say and landmines are sold to poor, depostic coutries that are used as a weapon of terror (landmines are particularly horrible) are obviously wrong and there should be a moratorium on them. The same goes for cluster bombs, chemical weapons, certain types of explosives, (a lot of very nasty stuff), but I think putting a moratorium in all weapons sales in any circumstances is naive and self-defeating. In some instances it is completley in a countries interest to sell weapons to an ally, such as the U.S. did with Britain in WWII and the cold war. War is horrible, but you can't expect that at some point you can avoid it against a nation that seeks to harm your own country's direct interests, its just a sad fact that their are many very countries and organizations against whom the threat of force and its occasionaly use are an absolute necessity. Thats not a subject for ethical debate, but a practical problem that governments have to contend with always. America may be the worlds only superpower right now, but America is also restrained, by its own political system, its very necessary relationship with others, and the fact that even America does not have unlimited resources. Also the fact that the U.S. is the only superpower has only been the case since 1989, (imagine a world in which the Soviet Union had the dominance now enjoyed by the U.S. and shiver) and it will soon change again, also I think Spetember 11th was a little reminder that in fact the west is not invincible, we are not the only civilization on the planet, and that the unthinkable could well happen if we do not act to create a more pluralistic world, while also defending ourselves, our countries, and our way of life vigorously.
Perhaps in the future we will live in a more enlightened planet, but that time is not now, and to ignore that fact is irresponsible.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally wrote: I accept that you are not just America bashing bryn, and you make intelligent and thoughful posts, but I think its important that we remember that the U.S. administration is not the sole source of bad foreign policy in the world either today or in the past.
No one person or body has a monopoly on being wrong, it's always important to remember that.
Galbally wrote: Britains actions when it was the governing nation of a global empire were cynical and exlpotative, but again like America now, it was if not the most peace-nik country on earth, certainly not the worst by any means.
Britain was acting in an environment of colonialism, not trying to start neo-colonialism after the former colonies have gone their own way. This in no way excuses what passed before but time has passed and what was accepted as the norm in one milieu is not necessarily acceptable in another.
Galbally wrote: It becomes fairly apparent when you look dispationatly at the U.S. its policies in general are far more acceptable to our sort of worldview (which is essentially the same as Americans' is) than say Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc etc. It does some very unethical things, but frankly who doesn't, and given the power at the disposal of the U.S. administration, it is quite restrained usually,
Perfectly true, US culture and outlook are very similar to ours and far more acceptable than the others you mention. I also accept that their actions are “usually” quite restrained. I do reserve the right, however, to speak out when they go beyond acceptable bounds.
Galbally wrote: the U.S. interest in the world has always been essetnially commercial and one that seeks to promote above all American propsperity and the capitaist system, and I can't argue with that.
There comes a point when that goes too far. The one thing I cannot forgive Bush for, above all others, is his refusal to sign the Koyoto agreement on the grounds that it might damage US business.
Galbally wrote: Of course, there are many issues where I think the U.S. administration is quite wrong, but then being a democracy there is always the safe bet that whoever is in power right now, won't be in 10 years time.
but will what replaces it be any better. If we don't speak out now then what is the pressure for things to change?
Galbally wrote: I also think that when taken in its entirety a lot of what makes America great is great, freedom of expression, indivdual freedom, relgious tolerance, the rule of law, representative government, meritocractic society, rationalism and progress, all things to be very grateful for flourishing in the U.S.
Do you not think that many of these thing are now being suppressed in the US? With the rise of the religious right it appears as though religious tolerance is being eroded. We are seeing imprisonment without trial. The preponderant attitude appears to be moving towards “if you aren't with us you're against us” and those who don't toe the party line are ostracized and called a traitor. The sounds coming out of the US are more like McCarthy month on month.
Galbally wrote: In terms of the arms sales things, I think you have to be pragmatic and look at each case in its context. Examples where say and mines are sold to poor coutries that are used as a weapon of terror (landmines are particularly horrible) are obviously wrong and there should be a moratorium on them, the same goes for cluster bombs, chemical weapons, certain types of explosives, a lot of very nasty stuff, but I think putting a moratorium in all weapons sales in any circumstances is naive and self-defeating, in some instances it is in a countries interest to sell weapons to an ally, such as the U.S. did with Britain in WWII and the cold war.
There is a huge difference between arming an ally during the course of a war and selling arms into countries and areas of the world known to be unstable. I can see no justification for the like of the UK holding arms fairs and selling weapons to the highest bidder – often knowingly arming both sides in a potential conflict. I see it as immoral and corrupt.
Galbally wrote: War is horrible, but you can't expect that at some point you can avoid it against a nation that seeks to harm your own country's direct interests, its just a sad fact that their are many very countries and organizations against whom the threat of force and its occasionaly use are an absolute necessity. America may be the worlds only superpower right now, but America is also restrained, by its own political system, its very necessary relationship with others, and the fact that even America does not have unlimited resources.
War is horrible and should only be used where absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable. It should not be used as a tool of foreign policy against any country that harms your direct interest but as an act of self defense in the last resort.
Galbally wrote: Also the fact that the U.S. is the only superpower has only been the case since 1989, (imagine a world in which the Soviet Union had the dominance now enjoyed by the U.S. and shiver) and it will soon change again, also I think Spetember 11th was a little reminder that in fact the west is not invincible,
There is an inertia in the tides of man. After seeing off one threat, it takes a while to draw breath and count your fingers and toes before even the most aggressive would look round for another fight. If the Cold War had ended the other way I could not see Russian tanks rolling out over Germany or China soon after. More likely they'd destabilize a government here, threaten a government there, bully the UN into passing their resolutions for them, etc before moving on to invading the odd country or two.
Galbally wrote: we are not the only civilization on the planet, and that the unthinkable could well happen if we do not act to create a more pluralistic world,
I worry that there is a serious attempt to create a homogeneous world in the image of America. They appear to be intolerant of, and to wish to undermine, any culture that is built on a different pattern to theirs.
Galbally wrote: while also defending ourselves, our countries, and our way of life vigorously. Perhaps in the future we will live in a more enlightened planet, but that time is not now, and to ignore that fact is irresponsible.
There comes a point where “defending ourselves vigorously” is counter productive and only serves to raise up enemies against you. By attacking where there was no direct threat, by declaring, or even suggesting, that the war is against Islam, whether it be a portion of Islam or Islam in its entirety, otherwise inactive people are stirred to militancy and the danger is actually increased rather than reduced.
No one person or body has a monopoly on being wrong, it's always important to remember that.
Galbally wrote: Britains actions when it was the governing nation of a global empire were cynical and exlpotative, but again like America now, it was if not the most peace-nik country on earth, certainly not the worst by any means.
Britain was acting in an environment of colonialism, not trying to start neo-colonialism after the former colonies have gone their own way. This in no way excuses what passed before but time has passed and what was accepted as the norm in one milieu is not necessarily acceptable in another.
Galbally wrote: It becomes fairly apparent when you look dispationatly at the U.S. its policies in general are far more acceptable to our sort of worldview (which is essentially the same as Americans' is) than say Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc etc. It does some very unethical things, but frankly who doesn't, and given the power at the disposal of the U.S. administration, it is quite restrained usually,
Perfectly true, US culture and outlook are very similar to ours and far more acceptable than the others you mention. I also accept that their actions are “usually” quite restrained. I do reserve the right, however, to speak out when they go beyond acceptable bounds.
Galbally wrote: the U.S. interest in the world has always been essetnially commercial and one that seeks to promote above all American propsperity and the capitaist system, and I can't argue with that.
There comes a point when that goes too far. The one thing I cannot forgive Bush for, above all others, is his refusal to sign the Koyoto agreement on the grounds that it might damage US business.
Galbally wrote: Of course, there are many issues where I think the U.S. administration is quite wrong, but then being a democracy there is always the safe bet that whoever is in power right now, won't be in 10 years time.
but will what replaces it be any better. If we don't speak out now then what is the pressure for things to change?
Galbally wrote: I also think that when taken in its entirety a lot of what makes America great is great, freedom of expression, indivdual freedom, relgious tolerance, the rule of law, representative government, meritocractic society, rationalism and progress, all things to be very grateful for flourishing in the U.S.
Do you not think that many of these thing are now being suppressed in the US? With the rise of the religious right it appears as though religious tolerance is being eroded. We are seeing imprisonment without trial. The preponderant attitude appears to be moving towards “if you aren't with us you're against us” and those who don't toe the party line are ostracized and called a traitor. The sounds coming out of the US are more like McCarthy month on month.
Galbally wrote: In terms of the arms sales things, I think you have to be pragmatic and look at each case in its context. Examples where say and mines are sold to poor coutries that are used as a weapon of terror (landmines are particularly horrible) are obviously wrong and there should be a moratorium on them, the same goes for cluster bombs, chemical weapons, certain types of explosives, a lot of very nasty stuff, but I think putting a moratorium in all weapons sales in any circumstances is naive and self-defeating, in some instances it is in a countries interest to sell weapons to an ally, such as the U.S. did with Britain in WWII and the cold war.
There is a huge difference between arming an ally during the course of a war and selling arms into countries and areas of the world known to be unstable. I can see no justification for the like of the UK holding arms fairs and selling weapons to the highest bidder – often knowingly arming both sides in a potential conflict. I see it as immoral and corrupt.
Galbally wrote: War is horrible, but you can't expect that at some point you can avoid it against a nation that seeks to harm your own country's direct interests, its just a sad fact that their are many very countries and organizations against whom the threat of force and its occasionaly use are an absolute necessity. America may be the worlds only superpower right now, but America is also restrained, by its own political system, its very necessary relationship with others, and the fact that even America does not have unlimited resources.
War is horrible and should only be used where absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable. It should not be used as a tool of foreign policy against any country that harms your direct interest but as an act of self defense in the last resort.
Galbally wrote: Also the fact that the U.S. is the only superpower has only been the case since 1989, (imagine a world in which the Soviet Union had the dominance now enjoyed by the U.S. and shiver) and it will soon change again, also I think Spetember 11th was a little reminder that in fact the west is not invincible,
There is an inertia in the tides of man. After seeing off one threat, it takes a while to draw breath and count your fingers and toes before even the most aggressive would look round for another fight. If the Cold War had ended the other way I could not see Russian tanks rolling out over Germany or China soon after. More likely they'd destabilize a government here, threaten a government there, bully the UN into passing their resolutions for them, etc before moving on to invading the odd country or two.
Galbally wrote: we are not the only civilization on the planet, and that the unthinkable could well happen if we do not act to create a more pluralistic world,
I worry that there is a serious attempt to create a homogeneous world in the image of America. They appear to be intolerant of, and to wish to undermine, any culture that is built on a different pattern to theirs.
Galbally wrote: while also defending ourselves, our countries, and our way of life vigorously. Perhaps in the future we will live in a more enlightened planet, but that time is not now, and to ignore that fact is irresponsible.
There comes a point where “defending ourselves vigorously” is counter productive and only serves to raise up enemies against you. By attacking where there was no direct threat, by declaring, or even suggesting, that the war is against Islam, whether it be a portion of Islam or Islam in its entirety, otherwise inactive people are stirred to militancy and the danger is actually increased rather than reduced.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally wrote: but I think its important that we remember that the U.S. administration is not the sole source of bad foreign policy in the world either today or in the past.
But they are the ones casting the stones. This discussion wound down to "are you without sin" and the stone tossing event disregarded. What you criticise is the pointing out that the stone caster should be sinless. It's not *our fault that the rule goes that way, *we're just pointing it out.
* used colloquially
But they are the ones casting the stones. This discussion wound down to "are you without sin" and the stone tossing event disregarded. What you criticise is the pointing out that the stone caster should be sinless. It's not *our fault that the rule goes that way, *we're just pointing it out.
* used colloquially
Russian Rhetoric
No one person or body has a monopoly on being wrong, it's always important to remember that.
Yes I agree completely, and I include myself as I am often wrong like anyone.
Britain was acting in an environment of colonialism, not trying to start neo-colonialism after the former colonies have gone their own way. This in no way excuses what passed before but time has passed and what was accepted as the norm in one milieu is not necessarily acceptable in another.
Yes Britain was a colonial power par excellence, America has never been a colonizer in a major way except on its own continent, and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is. Its also very pertinetent to all this that a lot of what was the British empire are where many of the current difficulties are, in a global context America took over where Britain left off, though the motivation and philosophies of both countrys are quite different. But its something that British people need to remember, when thinking about why the world is the way it is today, its not all Britains fault of course, no more than everything that is happening now is down to American foriegn policy over the last 6 years.
Perfectly true, US culture and outlook are very similar to ours and far more acceptable than the others you mention. I also accept that their actions are “usually†quite restrained. I do reserve the right, however, to speak out when they go beyond acceptable bounds.
Of course you do and you should, if the American Government were in the habit of killing or shutting up everyone who critized their policies (which includes a large percentage of U.S. citizens) I wouldn't be defending them.
There comes a point when that goes too far. The one thing I cannot forgive Bush for, above all others, is his refusal to sign the Koyoto agreement on the grounds that it might damage US business.
Yes, I also think that was a very bad decision, but remember that Bill Clinton was president when Kyoto was signed, not Bush, and congress have been the most implacable opponents of Kyoto, not the President in particular, though Mr Bush hasn't been very constructive on that issue, however, Kyoto has nothing to do with the current conflict in Iraq which is the thing I am prinicpally talking about.
but will what replaces it be any better. If we don't speak out now then what is the pressure for things to change?
I think as Europeans we have a right to give our opinions on certain issues that effect us, but its up to Americans to decide who their leaders are, not us, we wouldn't like them telling us who to elect either.
Do you not think that many of these thing are now being suppressed in the US? With the rise of the religious right it appears as though religious tolerance is being eroded. We are seeing imprisonment without trial. The preponderant attitude appears to be moving towards “if you aren't with us you're against us†and those who don't toe the party line are ostracized and called a traitor. The sounds coming out of the US are more like McCarthy month on month.
I think there is a perception that is the case, I don't think its the reality, many Americans are unhappy with the war on terror and the patriot act, the recent elections reflect this. America has remained a vibrant and strong democracy throughout its history, Europe's 20th century history shows we still could learn a lot from America. Americans are afraid right now, but they are not stupid whatever people might think, and they are far more vocal about their civil liberties than Europeans are to be honest, so although there has been a drift to the right recently, its just a phase and will probably be followed by a subsequent drift to the left.
There is a huge difference between arming an ally during the course of a war and selling arms into countries and areas of the world known to be unstable. I can see no justification for the like of the UK holding arms fairs and selling weapons to the highest bidder – often knowingly arming both sides in a potential conflict. I see it as immoral and corrupt.
Yes I competely agree, thats why every case and issue surrounding arms sales in Western countries should be scrutinized and where wrong, stopped.
War is horrible and should only be used where absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable. It should not be used as a tool of foreign policy against any country that harms your direct interest but as an act of self defense in the last resort.
I understand your sentiments, but someone has to decide it is necessary to use force or the threat of force, and waiting until your country is in a last ditch defence effort to survive, like Britain had to do in 1939 is very unwise. That is harsh and unpleasant I know, but thats the unhappy reality of the world and human beings.
There is an inertia in the tides of man. After seeing off one threat, it takes a while to draw breath and count your fingers and toes before even the most aggressive would look round for another fight. If the Cold War had ended the other way I could not see Russian tanks rolling out over Germany or China soon after. More likely they'd destabilize a government here, threaten a government there, bully the UN into passing their resolutions for them, etc before moving on to invading the odd country or two.
I disgaree completely, if the Soviet Union had beaten America in the cold war, Western Europe would have been invaded and taken over, its further from Berlin to Moscow than it is from Berlin to London. My question is: do you think that a completly victorious Soviet Union would have allowed anti-soviet, capitalist, liberal democracies to have survived in Western Europe? I sincerely doubt it. Stalin had 200 divisions in Europe in 1945, if the Americans hadn't been there, who else would have stopped him?
I worry that there is a serious attempt to create a homogeneous world in the image of America. They appear to be intolerant of, and to wish to undermine, any culture that is built on a different pattern to theirs.
If there is such an attepmt to create such a world, then all I can say is that it isn't working very well is it? I would also say that I personally believe that a world where the majority of countries embraced liberal democracy, personal liberty, relgious freedom, and market economics would be a better world than what we have now.
There comes a point where “defending ourselves vigorously†is counter productive and only serves to raise up enemies against you. By attacking where there was no direct threat, by declaring, or even suggesting, that the war is against Islam, whether it be a portion of Islam or Islam in its entirety, otherwise inactive people are stirred to militancy and the danger is actually increased rather than reduced.
Yes I agree, again its a question of using all the means at your dispoal to first ensure your own long term interests, while also trying to make the world in general a more equitable and tolerant place as that is every human beings self interest, its not just America that is failing to achieve that, we all are, America is not the problem, everyone is the problem, blaming everything on America is just an easy way of abbrogating everyones responsibilities.
My purpose here is not to agree with or excuse all American foriegn policy, simply to present a more balanced approach to looking at the way the world is.
Yes I agree completely, and I include myself as I am often wrong like anyone.
Britain was acting in an environment of colonialism, not trying to start neo-colonialism after the former colonies have gone their own way. This in no way excuses what passed before but time has passed and what was accepted as the norm in one milieu is not necessarily acceptable in another.
Yes Britain was a colonial power par excellence, America has never been a colonizer in a major way except on its own continent, and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is. Its also very pertinetent to all this that a lot of what was the British empire are where many of the current difficulties are, in a global context America took over where Britain left off, though the motivation and philosophies of both countrys are quite different. But its something that British people need to remember, when thinking about why the world is the way it is today, its not all Britains fault of course, no more than everything that is happening now is down to American foriegn policy over the last 6 years.
Perfectly true, US culture and outlook are very similar to ours and far more acceptable than the others you mention. I also accept that their actions are “usually†quite restrained. I do reserve the right, however, to speak out when they go beyond acceptable bounds.
Of course you do and you should, if the American Government were in the habit of killing or shutting up everyone who critized their policies (which includes a large percentage of U.S. citizens) I wouldn't be defending them.
There comes a point when that goes too far. The one thing I cannot forgive Bush for, above all others, is his refusal to sign the Koyoto agreement on the grounds that it might damage US business.
Yes, I also think that was a very bad decision, but remember that Bill Clinton was president when Kyoto was signed, not Bush, and congress have been the most implacable opponents of Kyoto, not the President in particular, though Mr Bush hasn't been very constructive on that issue, however, Kyoto has nothing to do with the current conflict in Iraq which is the thing I am prinicpally talking about.
but will what replaces it be any better. If we don't speak out now then what is the pressure for things to change?
I think as Europeans we have a right to give our opinions on certain issues that effect us, but its up to Americans to decide who their leaders are, not us, we wouldn't like them telling us who to elect either.
Do you not think that many of these thing are now being suppressed in the US? With the rise of the religious right it appears as though religious tolerance is being eroded. We are seeing imprisonment without trial. The preponderant attitude appears to be moving towards “if you aren't with us you're against us†and those who don't toe the party line are ostracized and called a traitor. The sounds coming out of the US are more like McCarthy month on month.
I think there is a perception that is the case, I don't think its the reality, many Americans are unhappy with the war on terror and the patriot act, the recent elections reflect this. America has remained a vibrant and strong democracy throughout its history, Europe's 20th century history shows we still could learn a lot from America. Americans are afraid right now, but they are not stupid whatever people might think, and they are far more vocal about their civil liberties than Europeans are to be honest, so although there has been a drift to the right recently, its just a phase and will probably be followed by a subsequent drift to the left.
There is a huge difference between arming an ally during the course of a war and selling arms into countries and areas of the world known to be unstable. I can see no justification for the like of the UK holding arms fairs and selling weapons to the highest bidder – often knowingly arming both sides in a potential conflict. I see it as immoral and corrupt.
Yes I competely agree, thats why every case and issue surrounding arms sales in Western countries should be scrutinized and where wrong, stopped.
War is horrible and should only be used where absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable. It should not be used as a tool of foreign policy against any country that harms your direct interest but as an act of self defense in the last resort.
I understand your sentiments, but someone has to decide it is necessary to use force or the threat of force, and waiting until your country is in a last ditch defence effort to survive, like Britain had to do in 1939 is very unwise. That is harsh and unpleasant I know, but thats the unhappy reality of the world and human beings.
There is an inertia in the tides of man. After seeing off one threat, it takes a while to draw breath and count your fingers and toes before even the most aggressive would look round for another fight. If the Cold War had ended the other way I could not see Russian tanks rolling out over Germany or China soon after. More likely they'd destabilize a government here, threaten a government there, bully the UN into passing their resolutions for them, etc before moving on to invading the odd country or two.
I disgaree completely, if the Soviet Union had beaten America in the cold war, Western Europe would have been invaded and taken over, its further from Berlin to Moscow than it is from Berlin to London. My question is: do you think that a completly victorious Soviet Union would have allowed anti-soviet, capitalist, liberal democracies to have survived in Western Europe? I sincerely doubt it. Stalin had 200 divisions in Europe in 1945, if the Americans hadn't been there, who else would have stopped him?
I worry that there is a serious attempt to create a homogeneous world in the image of America. They appear to be intolerant of, and to wish to undermine, any culture that is built on a different pattern to theirs.
If there is such an attepmt to create such a world, then all I can say is that it isn't working very well is it? I would also say that I personally believe that a world where the majority of countries embraced liberal democracy, personal liberty, relgious freedom, and market economics would be a better world than what we have now.
There comes a point where “defending ourselves vigorously†is counter productive and only serves to raise up enemies against you. By attacking where there was no direct threat, by declaring, or even suggesting, that the war is against Islam, whether it be a portion of Islam or Islam in its entirety, otherwise inactive people are stirred to militancy and the danger is actually increased rather than reduced.
Yes I agree, again its a question of using all the means at your dispoal to first ensure your own long term interests, while also trying to make the world in general a more equitable and tolerant place as that is every human beings self interest, its not just America that is failing to achieve that, we all are, America is not the problem, everyone is the problem, blaming everything on America is just an easy way of abbrogating everyones responsibilities.
My purpose here is not to agree with or excuse all American foriegn policy, simply to present a more balanced approach to looking at the way the world is.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
koan;453583 wrote: But they are the ones casting the stones. This discussion wound down to "are you without sin" and the stone tossing event disregarded. What you criticise is the pointing out that the stone caster should be sinless. It's not *our fault that the rule goes that way, *we're just pointing it out.
* used colloquially
Actually I think everyone is throwing stones, especially at the U.S., some of it is deserved, some of it is not.
* used colloquially
Actually I think everyone is throwing stones, especially at the U.S., some of it is deserved, some of it is not.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally;453628 wrote: No one person or body has a monopoly on being wrong, it's always important to remember that.
Yes I agree completely, and I include myself as I am often wrong like anyone.
My purpose here is not to agree with or excuse all American foriegn policy, simply to present a more balanced approach to looking at the way the world is.
Excuse me, the first is me to a tee and the second is my excuse - I'm only trying to balance the excessive pro-american bias on this board.
I'll reply properly when I've time and I'm rested.
Yes I agree completely, and I include myself as I am often wrong like anyone.
My purpose here is not to agree with or excuse all American foriegn policy, simply to present a more balanced approach to looking at the way the world is.
Excuse me, the first is me to a tee and the second is my excuse - I'm only trying to balance the excessive pro-american bias on this board.
I'll reply properly when I've time and I'm rested.
Russian Rhetoric
Bryn Mawr;451801 wrote:
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
It's precisely because the US are the sole remaining superpower that makes it all the more important that they act within international law and do not attempt to run the world for their own benefit.
So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
Russian Rhetoric
K.Snyder;454621 wrote: So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
No, I'm saying the US is free to do what it wants to - internally. It is not free to try to force others to do thing's its way. It all depends on how the US "attempts" to spread its values.
No, I'm saying the US is free to do what it wants to - internally. It is not free to try to force others to do thing's its way. It all depends on how the US "attempts" to spread its values.
Russian Rhetoric
Very restrained, Bryn
K.Snyder;454621 wrote: So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
There are so many points this question can be pulled apart from. The question, from my perspective at least, is how free is the US today?
As to the rest of the question; if someone is going about their housecleaning and someone knocks on their door with a vaccuum for sale should that person be permitted to throw the door open, walk in and vacuum all the carpets, throw out the dirty dishes and take all the out of date appliances to the dump? Perhaps the homeowner kept a filthy house but, from my perspective, I'd call that breaking and entering.
K.Snyder;454621 wrote: So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
There are so many points this question can be pulled apart from. The question, from my perspective at least, is how free is the US today?
As to the rest of the question; if someone is going about their housecleaning and someone knocks on their door with a vaccuum for sale should that person be permitted to throw the door open, walk in and vacuum all the carpets, throw out the dirty dishes and take all the out of date appliances to the dump? Perhaps the homeowner kept a filthy house but, from my perspective, I'd call that breaking and entering.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally and Bryn, kudos to both of you for conducting a civil debate...I am taking notes on how to discuss without getting personal . Thank you both....
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Russian Rhetoric
koan;455296 wrote: Very restrained, Bryn
There are so many points this question can be pulled apart from. The question, from my perspective at least, is how free is the US today?
As to the rest of the question; if someone is going about their housecleaning and someone knocks on their door with a vaccuum for sale should that person be permitted to throw the door open, walk in and vacuum all the carpets, throw out the dirty dishes and take all the out of date appliances to the dump? Perhaps the homeowner kept a filthy house but, from my perspective, I'd call that breaking and entering.
I think that the way to look at America's current status as by far the world's most powerful nation should be seen in a wider context of history. Of course there are temptations with such power, and yes some U.S. administrations have used that power irresponsibly or cynically in terms of U.S. foreign policy, but there is a very large check on that power domestically in the U.S. as whatever else the U.S. may be it is a liberal democracy with a free press and a strong system of democractic representation and a free judiciary. It is easier for U.S. governments to get away with foriegn adventures and misdoings than it is for them to adopt bad domestic policies, but although perhaps many americans turn a bit of a blind eye to what their government gets up to abroad for a while, they are not obblivious to such things, as the recent elections and history demonstrate, and ultimatly they decide who is in charge so we are not talking totalitarian state here or despotism. Where the contradiction is I suppose is that in the U.S. you have a country that is generally inward looking, while also being the most powerful actor in the world stage, given the size and geographical location of the U.S. that fairly understandable.
In terms of the historical context, America's power is a late 20th century phenomenon, and other potential superpowers are already emerging in the early 21st century with China being the obvious example, though there are others including the EU and India, and perhaps further in the future Russia once more, whether this will actually be a good thing is hard to assess, but it will inevitably happen as it always has. Its my considered opinion that (despite the occasional calamity like Iraq), America's emergence as a superpower has been a good thing for the world and the West in particular, I don't particarly like everything that U.S. governments do or attempt to do, but then I don't see anyone else being particulaly more enlightened or benign when it comes down to hard self interest. In fact most are worse, (well from my perspective as a European anyway). In my view, America's impact on the 20th century history of Europe specifically has been a very benefical one and it can be argued quite legitamately that the U.S. saved Europe from itself over the last 100 years, It doesn't mean we should slavishly agree all the time with U.S. foreign policy, and in fact we should be robust as Europeans in putting our own views across, (which are often different of course) but I think we should temper some of the more intemperate attitudes with a little respect and friendship for our American cousins, frankly they have been friends and allies and have been for a long time. That way we can have more civilized and honest debates about things like Iraq, Climate Change, the Middle East, terrorism and all the issues that beset us.
There are so many points this question can be pulled apart from. The question, from my perspective at least, is how free is the US today?
As to the rest of the question; if someone is going about their housecleaning and someone knocks on their door with a vaccuum for sale should that person be permitted to throw the door open, walk in and vacuum all the carpets, throw out the dirty dishes and take all the out of date appliances to the dump? Perhaps the homeowner kept a filthy house but, from my perspective, I'd call that breaking and entering.
I think that the way to look at America's current status as by far the world's most powerful nation should be seen in a wider context of history. Of course there are temptations with such power, and yes some U.S. administrations have used that power irresponsibly or cynically in terms of U.S. foreign policy, but there is a very large check on that power domestically in the U.S. as whatever else the U.S. may be it is a liberal democracy with a free press and a strong system of democractic representation and a free judiciary. It is easier for U.S. governments to get away with foriegn adventures and misdoings than it is for them to adopt bad domestic policies, but although perhaps many americans turn a bit of a blind eye to what their government gets up to abroad for a while, they are not obblivious to such things, as the recent elections and history demonstrate, and ultimatly they decide who is in charge so we are not talking totalitarian state here or despotism. Where the contradiction is I suppose is that in the U.S. you have a country that is generally inward looking, while also being the most powerful actor in the world stage, given the size and geographical location of the U.S. that fairly understandable.
In terms of the historical context, America's power is a late 20th century phenomenon, and other potential superpowers are already emerging in the early 21st century with China being the obvious example, though there are others including the EU and India, and perhaps further in the future Russia once more, whether this will actually be a good thing is hard to assess, but it will inevitably happen as it always has. Its my considered opinion that (despite the occasional calamity like Iraq), America's emergence as a superpower has been a good thing for the world and the West in particular, I don't particarly like everything that U.S. governments do or attempt to do, but then I don't see anyone else being particulaly more enlightened or benign when it comes down to hard self interest. In fact most are worse, (well from my perspective as a European anyway). In my view, America's impact on the 20th century history of Europe specifically has been a very benefical one and it can be argued quite legitamately that the U.S. saved Europe from itself over the last 100 years, It doesn't mean we should slavishly agree all the time with U.S. foreign policy, and in fact we should be robust as Europeans in putting our own views across, (which are often different of course) but I think we should temper some of the more intemperate attitudes with a little respect and friendship for our American cousins, frankly they have been friends and allies and have been for a long time. That way we can have more civilized and honest debates about things like Iraq, Climate Change, the Middle East, terrorism and all the issues that beset us.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
posted by gabally
Yes Britain was a colonial power par excellence, America has never been a colonizer in a major way except on its own continent, and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is. Its also very pertinetent to all this that a lot of what was the British empire are where many of the current difficulties are, in a global context America took over where Britain left off, though the motivation and philosophies of both countrys are quite different. But its something that British people need to remember, when thinking about why the world is the way it is today, its not all Britains fault of course, no more than everything that is happening now is down to American foriegn policy over the last 6 years.
So it's OK to be a colonizer in a small way? Actually that kind of tribal warfare has been going on since the first tribe decided to take the hunting grounds of their neighbours because they needed them or just because they could. In fact I seem to remember stories of a tribe fom Dalriada in Ireland invading the next door island for much the same reason. wore skirts I believe.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't. Nor were they hanging about when the french and british used similar methods of persuasion with the chinese.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east. (Interestingly enough the british almost became the first to use chemical weapons on the kurds-it was seriously considered as an option in the 20's. )When we created iraq it was all about controlling the oil with no nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy.
and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is.
Chambers Reference Online
neocolonialism noun the domination by powerful states of weaker but politically independent states by means of economic pressure. neocolonialist adj, noun.
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus (actually I pinched the words from the lyrics of al stewart song of the same name )
Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same
And the hand just re-arranges the players in the game
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
posted by K snyder
So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
Don't you find it a bit of a contradiction to preach about freedom and democracy and then invade in order to shove it down peoples throats? How about when you bring down a democratically elected government simply because you think it too left wing as happened in chile. Freedom to elect the govt you are supposed to is just not freedom. If you hold those values dear why not practice them and let others make up their own minds?
What is the US's ideology anyway and who determined how it should be imposed on others? There is a difference between allowing ideas o soread and making people adopt them. If the likes of the venezuelans or the nicaraguans want a left wing govt it is their choice who is america to preach they shouldn't have it.
Actually thinking about it there are a few american values and attitudes to things I would actually find unacceptable, for instance attitudes to healthcare and gun ownership are just two areas where I am glad not to be american. The fact that you believe your society and value system is the best doesn't actually mean that it is. You pinched all the best bits from the british anyway:sneaky:
Yes Britain was a colonial power par excellence, America has never been a colonizer in a major way except on its own continent, and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is. Its also very pertinetent to all this that a lot of what was the British empire are where many of the current difficulties are, in a global context America took over where Britain left off, though the motivation and philosophies of both countrys are quite different. But its something that British people need to remember, when thinking about why the world is the way it is today, its not all Britains fault of course, no more than everything that is happening now is down to American foriegn policy over the last 6 years.
So it's OK to be a colonizer in a small way? Actually that kind of tribal warfare has been going on since the first tribe decided to take the hunting grounds of their neighbours because they needed them or just because they could. In fact I seem to remember stories of a tribe fom Dalriada in Ireland invading the next door island for much the same reason. wore skirts I believe.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't. Nor were they hanging about when the french and british used similar methods of persuasion with the chinese.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east. (Interestingly enough the british almost became the first to use chemical weapons on the kurds-it was seriously considered as an option in the 20's. )When we created iraq it was all about controlling the oil with no nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy.
and I'm not sure what neocolonialism actually is.
Chambers Reference Online
neocolonialism noun the domination by powerful states of weaker but politically independent states by means of economic pressure. neocolonialist adj, noun.
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus (actually I pinched the words from the lyrics of al stewart song of the same name )
Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same
And the hand just re-arranges the players in the game
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
posted by K snyder
So you're saying that the U.S is imorale in it's ideoligy, therefore shouldn't attempt to spread those very same values for the benefit of the world in which may have the potential to be as free as the U.S is today then?
Don't you find it a bit of a contradiction to preach about freedom and democracy and then invade in order to shove it down peoples throats? How about when you bring down a democratically elected government simply because you think it too left wing as happened in chile. Freedom to elect the govt you are supposed to is just not freedom. If you hold those values dear why not practice them and let others make up their own minds?
What is the US's ideology anyway and who determined how it should be imposed on others? There is a difference between allowing ideas o soread and making people adopt them. If the likes of the venezuelans or the nicaraguans want a left wing govt it is their choice who is america to preach they shouldn't have it.
Actually thinking about it there are a few american values and attitudes to things I would actually find unacceptable, for instance attitudes to healthcare and gun ownership are just two areas where I am glad not to be american. The fact that you believe your society and value system is the best doesn't actually mean that it is. You pinched all the best bits from the british anyway:sneaky:
Russian Rhetoric
[QUOTE=gmc;455463]posted by gabally
So it's OK to be a colonizer in a small way? Actually that kind of tribal warfare has been going on since the first tribe decided to take the hunting grounds of their neighbours because they needed them or just because they could. In fact I seem to remember stories of a tribe fom Dalriada in Ireland invading the next door island for much the same reason. wore skirts I believe.
GMC, you will find that I am a realist, I don't moralize about the U.S. because I don't do the moral equivalence thing, and I'm not naive about human nature or the nature of politcal power, in any country, including (allegedly) lovely harmless old Ireland. What I do believe is that Euopeans would be more constructive about the world if they focused on their own shortcomings instead of banging on inanely about the wrongdoings of others.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
I disagree, I think many British people have very little conception of what the sharp end of British imperialism was like for those on the other end of the Lee Enfields, and still manage to avoid the unpleasant fact that when you get into the nitty gritty of the politics of problems like Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland, India-Pakistan, South Africa, the general settlement of the Middle East in the post war era, are all directly linked to policy decisions of past British governments. Do I think that this means that British people should go round in sack clothes and ashes?, no I don't, do I think that a little bit more honest assessment of history would be useful when "spanking the yanks?", yes.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't. Nor were they hanging about when the french and british used similar methods of persuasion with the chinese.
Yes, and who were the Americans originally? White Europeans of mostly British Isles and northern European descent, many of the settles were English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, German, Poles, so are all these countries to make some sort of moral reparations for what is now percieved as a crime in hindsight? Wherever an espanding culture has met an technically, militatry or economically inferior one, its usually bad news, thats a human constant, and the U.S example is just another one. I don't see how Spain was more human, or China, or Islam, or Chritianity istelf, so whats your point? And as for the use of force, thats also a constant in Human affairs and politics, did the ottoman empire hold referendums or gague local opinion when it assimiated the balkans, or the Russians in central asia, or the Mughals in India? Hardly? I'm not saying that being powerful gives you the moral justification for such things, simply the opportunity, most great powers take it in one form or another in the furtherance of their own interests.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
No it isn't, Russian imperialism is very similar, so was the expansion of the Han chinese, the colonisation of Australaisa, the rise of Islam, the Idea of an Empire on which the sun never sets, the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese, its just that for whatever reason, its currently popular to single out America as some supreme exampe of human immorality, perhaps because unlike most countries, America was created in recent history and not in the more murky past.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Actually GMC, locals have always usually been quite vocal about being colonized in history, they just didn't have independent, global media organizations, or international bodies like the UN or amnesty to complain to.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east. (Interestingly enough the british almost became the first to use chemical weapons on the kurds-it was seriously considered as an option in the 20's. )When we created iraq it was all about controlling the oil with no nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy.
Yes, money and power are one thing, the Romans ruled as much by their currency and economic system as they did by the liberal use of the gladius. Trade is a human constant, its not evil in intself, in fact without it most of us would starve so its a very good thing as a general rule, but like power itself its abused of course. But if you are poor, you are powerless, and if you are powerless then others make your decisions for you, instead of complaining about the harshness of the world, (which is sub-student union stuff) its more useful to get rich through trade, and where trade is used against you, you can use other means, and use your power to mae your own decisions in an enightened manner I think.
Chambers Reference Online
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus (actually I pinched the words from the lyrics of al stewart song of the same name )
I know what neocolonialism is supposed to mean, specifically when applied to the U.S. Coca Cola, Microsoft, Haliburton etc. (strange how "Toyota", or say, "Samsung" usually get left out init?) However, whether it really exists as a reality outside of the academic debate of angry young men I am not so sure. Companies certainly cynically expoit opportunities, whether that is a systematic and nefarious policy in action for the last one hundred years is another matter.
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
I think people have changed not one jot for 50,000 years, since the species arose, and I think the evidence backs that up. They do have more information about the world now, but thats a technologcial event, whether that means they are actually individually more enlightened or that surrounding outselves with culture, civiliztion and technolgy changes fundamentally what we are, is not a question that is really answerable in the sort term. People are fundamentally motivated by self interest, always have been and always will be, thats biology, not politics, and until teh species changes, that will not change, probaly not then either as all life is the same. People are not intriniscally evil, but neither are they intrinsically good, they are simly designed to survive and reproduce in a social group of one form or another, and basing any sort of geopolitcial policy on the goodness in human nature is extrememly unwise.
So it's OK to be a colonizer in a small way? Actually that kind of tribal warfare has been going on since the first tribe decided to take the hunting grounds of their neighbours because they needed them or just because they could. In fact I seem to remember stories of a tribe fom Dalriada in Ireland invading the next door island for much the same reason. wore skirts I believe.
GMC, you will find that I am a realist, I don't moralize about the U.S. because I don't do the moral equivalence thing, and I'm not naive about human nature or the nature of politcal power, in any country, including (allegedly) lovely harmless old Ireland. What I do believe is that Euopeans would be more constructive about the world if they focused on their own shortcomings instead of banging on inanely about the wrongdoings of others.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
I disagree, I think many British people have very little conception of what the sharp end of British imperialism was like for those on the other end of the Lee Enfields, and still manage to avoid the unpleasant fact that when you get into the nitty gritty of the politics of problems like Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland, India-Pakistan, South Africa, the general settlement of the Middle East in the post war era, are all directly linked to policy decisions of past British governments. Do I think that this means that British people should go round in sack clothes and ashes?, no I don't, do I think that a little bit more honest assessment of history would be useful when "spanking the yanks?", yes.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't. Nor were they hanging about when the french and british used similar methods of persuasion with the chinese.
Yes, and who were the Americans originally? White Europeans of mostly British Isles and northern European descent, many of the settles were English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, German, Poles, so are all these countries to make some sort of moral reparations for what is now percieved as a crime in hindsight? Wherever an espanding culture has met an technically, militatry or economically inferior one, its usually bad news, thats a human constant, and the U.S example is just another one. I don't see how Spain was more human, or China, or Islam, or Chritianity istelf, so whats your point? And as for the use of force, thats also a constant in Human affairs and politics, did the ottoman empire hold referendums or gague local opinion when it assimiated the balkans, or the Russians in central asia, or the Mughals in India? Hardly? I'm not saying that being powerful gives you the moral justification for such things, simply the opportunity, most great powers take it in one form or another in the furtherance of their own interests.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
No it isn't, Russian imperialism is very similar, so was the expansion of the Han chinese, the colonisation of Australaisa, the rise of Islam, the Idea of an Empire on which the sun never sets, the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese, its just that for whatever reason, its currently popular to single out America as some supreme exampe of human immorality, perhaps because unlike most countries, America was created in recent history and not in the more murky past.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Actually GMC, locals have always usually been quite vocal about being colonized in history, they just didn't have independent, global media organizations, or international bodies like the UN or amnesty to complain to.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east. (Interestingly enough the british almost became the first to use chemical weapons on the kurds-it was seriously considered as an option in the 20's. )When we created iraq it was all about controlling the oil with no nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy.
Yes, money and power are one thing, the Romans ruled as much by their currency and economic system as they did by the liberal use of the gladius. Trade is a human constant, its not evil in intself, in fact without it most of us would starve so its a very good thing as a general rule, but like power itself its abused of course. But if you are poor, you are powerless, and if you are powerless then others make your decisions for you, instead of complaining about the harshness of the world, (which is sub-student union stuff) its more useful to get rich through trade, and where trade is used against you, you can use other means, and use your power to mae your own decisions in an enightened manner I think.
Chambers Reference Online
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus (actually I pinched the words from the lyrics of al stewart song of the same name )
I know what neocolonialism is supposed to mean, specifically when applied to the U.S. Coca Cola, Microsoft, Haliburton etc. (strange how "Toyota", or say, "Samsung" usually get left out init?) However, whether it really exists as a reality outside of the academic debate of angry young men I am not so sure. Companies certainly cynically expoit opportunities, whether that is a systematic and nefarious policy in action for the last one hundred years is another matter.
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
I think people have changed not one jot for 50,000 years, since the species arose, and I think the evidence backs that up. They do have more information about the world now, but thats a technologcial event, whether that means they are actually individually more enlightened or that surrounding outselves with culture, civiliztion and technolgy changes fundamentally what we are, is not a question that is really answerable in the sort term. People are fundamentally motivated by self interest, always have been and always will be, thats biology, not politics, and until teh species changes, that will not change, probaly not then either as all life is the same. People are not intriniscally evil, but neither are they intrinsically good, they are simly designed to survive and reproduce in a social group of one form or another, and basing any sort of geopolitcial policy on the goodness in human nature is extrememly unwise.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
Galbally wrote: I think people have changed not one jot for 50,000 years, since the species arose, and I think the evidence backs that up. They do have more information about the world now, but thats a technologcial event, whether that means they are actually individually more enlightened or that surrounding outselves with culture, civiliztion and technolgy changes fundamentally what we are, is not a question that is really answerable in the sort term. People are fundamentally motivated by self interest, always have been and always will be, thats biology, not politics, and until teh species changes, that will not change, probaly not then either as all life is the same. People are not intriniscally evil, but neither are they intrinsically good, they are simly designed to survive and reproduce in a social group of one form or another, and basing any sort of geopolitcial policy on the goodness in human nature is extrememly unwise.
This is very Ernest Becker (Escape from Evil, Denial of Death)
There is nothing to prevent the species from changing, imo. That is the reason philosophers, psychiatrists and sociologists study what they do. To not try is the biggest sin. The blame for the perceived evils in society rest on no individual shoulders but as soon as those evils are perceived I think it is a person's moral imperative to try and fix it. On that note, I go to sleep. lol
This is very Ernest Becker (Escape from Evil, Denial of Death)
There is nothing to prevent the species from changing, imo. That is the reason philosophers, psychiatrists and sociologists study what they do. To not try is the biggest sin. The blame for the perceived evils in society rest on no individual shoulders but as soon as those evils are perceived I think it is a person's moral imperative to try and fix it. On that note, I go to sleep. lol
Russian Rhetoric
koan;455520 wrote: This is very Ernest Becker (Escape from Evil, Denial of Death)
There is nothing to prevent the species from changing, imo. That is the reason philosophers, psychiatrists and sociologists study what they do. To not try is the biggest sin. The blame for the perceived evils in society rest on no individual shoulders but as soon as those evils are perceived I think it is a person's moral imperative to try and fix it. On that note, I go to sleep. lol
I think that you certainly have a very valid point in that human beings as indivduals are to a huge extend shaped by their culture and immeadiate society, but I also believe that our biology is the dominant factor in what we are, and the unleasant potential within human nature always needs to be kept in mind when you are trying to determine big general ideas about how to order the human world. I am not a philosopher so I don't see it from a sort of "we are doomed to be betrayed by the evil in us" type idea, neither am I a social darwinist, human beings are different than all other animals in that we are concious, culture creating, and technical. However, as a scientist I recognize that we are primates, and we share all the aspects of other mamal species in terms of our very deep motivations, we have a dual nature, instinct and conciouness, we tend not to dwell on the instinct as we find it unpleasant, but we shouldn't be so hard on ourselves, we are only what nature intended us to be, that encouraging I think.
There is nothing to prevent the species from changing, imo. That is the reason philosophers, psychiatrists and sociologists study what they do. To not try is the biggest sin. The blame for the perceived evils in society rest on no individual shoulders but as soon as those evils are perceived I think it is a person's moral imperative to try and fix it. On that note, I go to sleep. lol
I think that you certainly have a very valid point in that human beings as indivduals are to a huge extend shaped by their culture and immeadiate society, but I also believe that our biology is the dominant factor in what we are, and the unleasant potential within human nature always needs to be kept in mind when you are trying to determine big general ideas about how to order the human world. I am not a philosopher so I don't see it from a sort of "we are doomed to be betrayed by the evil in us" type idea, neither am I a social darwinist, human beings are different than all other animals in that we are concious, culture creating, and technical. However, as a scientist I recognize that we are primates, and we share all the aspects of other mamal species in terms of our very deep motivations, we have a dual nature, instinct and conciouness, we tend not to dwell on the instinct as we find it unpleasant, but we shouldn't be so hard on ourselves, we are only what nature intended us to be, that encouraging I think.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Russian Rhetoric
gmc;455463 wrote:
posted by K snyder
Don't you find it a bit of a contradiction to preach about freedom and democracy and then invade in order to shove it down peoples throats? How about when you bring down a democratically elected government simply because you think it too left wing as happened in chile. Freedom to elect the govt you are supposed to is just not freedom. If you hold those values dear why not practice them and let others make up their own minds?
What is the US's ideology anyway and who determined how it should be imposed on others? There is a difference between allowing ideas o soread and making people adopt them. If the likes of the venezuelans or the nicaraguans want a left wing govt it is their choice who is america to preach they shouldn't have it.
I'll take this as a simple no. I agree with American Ideology,..for the most part...how they act upon that is up to the people who have the power to do so, and upon certain instances I would pick and choose my approval.
gmc;455463 wrote:
Actually thinking about it there are a few american values and attitudes to things I would actually find unacceptable, for instance attitudes to healthcare and gun ownership are just two areas where I am glad not to be american. The fact that you believe your society and value system is the best doesn't actually mean that it is. You pinched all the best bits from the british anyway:sneaky:
We have the Greeks to thank for that. I don't much agree with burning people at the stakes, but I am willing to say that we've come along way in society don't ya think?
posted by K snyder
Don't you find it a bit of a contradiction to preach about freedom and democracy and then invade in order to shove it down peoples throats? How about when you bring down a democratically elected government simply because you think it too left wing as happened in chile. Freedom to elect the govt you are supposed to is just not freedom. If you hold those values dear why not practice them and let others make up their own minds?
What is the US's ideology anyway and who determined how it should be imposed on others? There is a difference between allowing ideas o soread and making people adopt them. If the likes of the venezuelans or the nicaraguans want a left wing govt it is their choice who is america to preach they shouldn't have it.
I'll take this as a simple no. I agree with American Ideology,..for the most part...how they act upon that is up to the people who have the power to do so, and upon certain instances I would pick and choose my approval.
gmc;455463 wrote:
Actually thinking about it there are a few american values and attitudes to things I would actually find unacceptable, for instance attitudes to healthcare and gun ownership are just two areas where I am glad not to be american. The fact that you believe your society and value system is the best doesn't actually mean that it is. You pinched all the best bits from the british anyway:sneaky:
We have the Greeks to thank for that. I don't much agree with burning people at the stakes, but I am willing to say that we've come along way in society don't ya think?
Russian Rhetoric
So it's OK to be a colonizer in a small way? Actually that kind of tribal warfare has been going on since the first tribe decided to take the hunting grounds of their neighbours because they needed them or just because they could. In fact I seem to remember stories of a tribe fom Dalriada in Ireland invading the next door island for much the same reason. wore skirts I believe.
GMC, you will find that I am a realist, I don't moralize about the U.S. because I don't do the moral equivalence thing, and I'm not naive about human nature or the nature of politcal power, (in any country), including (allegedly) lovely harmless old Ireland. What I do believe is that we Euopeans would be more constructive about the world if they focused on their own shortcomings instead of banging on inanely about the wrongdoings of others, specifically the Americans.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
I disagree, I think many British people have very little conception of what the sharp end of British imperialism was like for those on the other end of the Lee Enfield 303's, and still manage to avoid the unpleasant fact that when you get into the nitty gritty of the politics of problems like: Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland, India-Pakistan, South Africa, the general settlement of the Middle East in the post war era, they are all directly linked to policy decisions of past British governments. Do I think that this means that British people should go round in sack clothes and ashes? No I don't. Do I think that a little bit more honest assessment of history would be useful when "spanking the yanks?", very much Yes.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't.
Yes, and who were the Americans originally? White Europeans of mostly British Isles' and northern European descent, the majority of the settlers in the 19th century were English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, German, Poles, so are all these countries to make some sort of moral reparations for what is now percieved as a crime in hindsight? Wherever an expanding culture has met an technically, militatry or economically inferior one, its usually bad news for the latter, thats a human constant, and the U.S example is just another one. I don't see how Spain was more humane in Meso America, or the Han Chinse were during their expansionary phase, or the Islamic conquests of the 8th century, so whats your point? And as for the use of force, thats also obviously a constant in human affairs and politics. For example did the Ottoman empire hold referendums or gague local opinion when it assimiated the Balkans, or the Russians in central Asia?, or the Mughals in India? Hardly! I'm not saying that being powerful gives you the moral justification for such things, simply the opportunity, most great powers take it in one form or another in the furtherance of their own interests.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
No it isn't, Russian Imperialism is very similar, its just called something else; so was the expansion of the Han chinese, the colonisation of Australaisa, the rise of Islam, the Idea of a very British (English really) Empire on which the sun never sets (starting with the annexing of the other 3 countries of the British Isles and moving on from there), the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese, its just that for whatever reason, its currently popular to single out America as some supreme exampe of human immorality, perhaps because unlike most countries, America was created in recent history and not in the more murky past.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Actually GMC, locals have always usually been quite vocal about being colonized in history, they just didn't have independent, global media organizations, or international bodies like the UN or amnesty to complain to.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east.
Yes, I agree oil is a vital interest and informs most of our geopolitical decsions and will do until we wean our economies from it. Also money and power are one thing, the Romans ruled as much by their currency and economic system as they did by the liberal use of the gladius. Trade is a human constant, its not evil in intself, in fact without it most of us would starve so its a very good thing as a general rule, but like power itself its abused of course. But if you are poor, you are powerless, and if you are powerless then others make your decisions for you, instead of complaining about the harshness of the world, (which is sub-student union stuff) its more useful to get rich through trade, and where trade is used against you, you can use other means, and use your power to mae your own decisions in an enightened manner I think. I would also say that America seesm to always come in for particular moral approbrium from other western nations, partly I suppose becuase they are the most powerful nation, partly because they are hypocritical about morality, and partly because other westerners are also hypocrits and to a large extent revisonists.
Chambers Reference Online
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus
I know what neocolonialism is supposed to mean, specifically when applied to the "U.S." "Coca Cola", "Microsoft", "Haliburton" etc. (strange how "Toyota", or say, "Samsung" usually get left out init?). However, whether it really exists as a reality outside of the academic debate of angry young men I am not so sure. Companies certainly cynically expoit opportunities, whether that is a systematic and nefarious political policy in action for the last one hundred years is another matter.
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
I think people have changed not one jot for 50,000 years, since the species arose, and I think the evidence backs that up. They do have more information about the world now, but thats a technologcial event, whether that means they are actually individually more enlightened, less guilible, or easily led; or that surrounding outselves with culture, civiliztion and technolgy changes fundamentally what we are. It is not a question that is really answerable in the short term, civilization's been around for only about 8,000 years, and though human life has always involved technology (from stone hand axes used by Homo Erectus to the Large Hadron Collider, the species Homo Sapiens has changed not one iota since it emerged in Africa, there simply hasn't been enough time for serious changes in the species, outside of more advanced material cultures and its effects. People are fundamentally motivated by self interest, always have been and always will be until we are superseeded by the next species or just go extinct (which is in the long term a certainty as evolution has not ended with us whatever we might like to think). Thats biology, not politics, and until the species changes, that fact will not change, probaly not then either as all life is the same. People are not intriniscally evil, but neither are they intrinsically good, they are simly designed to survive and reproduce in a social group of one form or another, and are essentially morally neutral actors fulfilling whatever role the circumstances of their lives give to them, and basing any sort of geopolitcial policy on the goodness in human nature is extrememly unwise. [/QUOTE]
GMC, you will find that I am a realist, I don't moralize about the U.S. because I don't do the moral equivalence thing, and I'm not naive about human nature or the nature of politcal power, (in any country), including (allegedly) lovely harmless old Ireland. What I do believe is that we Euopeans would be more constructive about the world if they focused on their own shortcomings instead of banging on inanely about the wrongdoings of others, specifically the Americans.
I don't think you will find many british posters unaware of our colonial past or suffering from any illusion that it was done for the sake of the natives. What started out as simple defence from more powerful foes ended up building an empire and became it's own justification.
I disagree, I think many British people have very little conception of what the sharp end of British imperialism was like for those on the other end of the Lee Enfield 303's, and still manage to avoid the unpleasant fact that when you get into the nitty gritty of the politics of problems like: Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland, India-Pakistan, South Africa, the general settlement of the Middle East in the post war era, they are all directly linked to policy decisions of past British governments. Do I think that this means that British people should go round in sack clothes and ashes? No I don't. Do I think that a little bit more honest assessment of history would be useful when "spanking the yanks?", very much Yes.
America did exactly the same kind of thing when it took over the indian lands, picked a war with Spain or when commodore perry opened trade negotiations with the japanese by the simple expedient of threatening to bombard their capital if they didn't.
Yes, and who were the Americans originally? White Europeans of mostly British Isles' and northern European descent, the majority of the settlers in the 19th century were English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, German, Poles, so are all these countries to make some sort of moral reparations for what is now percieved as a crime in hindsight? Wherever an expanding culture has met an technically, militatry or economically inferior one, its usually bad news for the latter, thats a human constant, and the U.S example is just another one. I don't see how Spain was more humane in Meso America, or the Han Chinse were during their expansionary phase, or the Islamic conquests of the 8th century, so whats your point? And as for the use of force, thats also obviously a constant in human affairs and politics. For example did the Ottoman empire hold referendums or gague local opinion when it assimiated the Balkans, or the Russians in central Asia?, or the Mughals in India? Hardly! I'm not saying that being powerful gives you the moral justification for such things, simply the opportunity, most great powers take it in one form or another in the furtherance of their own interests.
Manifest destiny is a uniguely american way of justifying actions that everyone else called colonialism. Extending your influence even if spurred on by semi religious fervour is still empire building whatever you call it or how you justify it and despite the abscence of one called the emperor. Whether it is immoral or amoral you can debate till the cows come home but everybody has done is doing and probably would do the same thing.
No it isn't, Russian Imperialism is very similar, its just called something else; so was the expansion of the Han chinese, the colonisation of Australaisa, the rise of Islam, the Idea of a very British (English really) Empire on which the sun never sets (starting with the annexing of the other 3 countries of the British Isles and moving on from there), the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese, its just that for whatever reason, its currently popular to single out America as some supreme exampe of human immorality, perhaps because unlike most countries, America was created in recent history and not in the more murky past.
America is no more culpable than anyone else nor are they innocent bystanders either. One hand in the imperial game has been played out and now a new one is being dealt even as we watch. The difference is the bystanders ( the various populations that used to be the cannon fodder) are a lot more vocal in their opposition and less likely to just join in without questioning what is going on.
Actually GMC, locals have always usually been quite vocal about being colonized in history, they just didn't have independent, global media organizations, or international bodies like the UN or amnesty to complain to.
Industry and empire have always held hands that hasn't changed either. Who determines what a nations interests are? surpisingly often it is trade and industry calling the tune. Were it not for oil no one in the west would care about the middle east.
Yes, I agree oil is a vital interest and informs most of our geopolitical decsions and will do until we wean our economies from it. Also money and power are one thing, the Romans ruled as much by their currency and economic system as they did by the liberal use of the gladius. Trade is a human constant, its not evil in intself, in fact without it most of us would starve so its a very good thing as a general rule, but like power itself its abused of course. But if you are poor, you are powerless, and if you are powerless then others make your decisions for you, instead of complaining about the harshness of the world, (which is sub-student union stuff) its more useful to get rich through trade, and where trade is used against you, you can use other means, and use your power to mae your own decisions in an enightened manner I think. I would also say that America seesm to always come in for particular moral approbrium from other western nations, partly I suppose becuase they are the most powerful nation, partly because they are hypocritical about morality, and partly because other westerners are also hypocrits and to a large extent revisonists.
Chambers Reference Online
neo colonialism old colonialism. to paraphrase nostradamus
I know what neocolonialism is supposed to mean, specifically when applied to the "U.S." "Coca Cola", "Microsoft", "Haliburton" etc. (strange how "Toyota", or say, "Samsung" usually get left out init?). However, whether it really exists as a reality outside of the academic debate of angry young men I am not so sure. Companies certainly cynically expoit opportunities, whether that is a systematic and nefarious political policy in action for the last one hundred years is another matter.
On the whole I feel quite optimistic I don't think people generally are as gullible as they once were, they have a clearer view of what is being done in their name and less likely to believe what politicians tell them and they understand very well the consequences of another major war.
I think people have changed not one jot for 50,000 years, since the species arose, and I think the evidence backs that up. They do have more information about the world now, but thats a technologcial event, whether that means they are actually individually more enlightened, less guilible, or easily led; or that surrounding outselves with culture, civiliztion and technolgy changes fundamentally what we are. It is not a question that is really answerable in the short term, civilization's been around for only about 8,000 years, and though human life has always involved technology (from stone hand axes used by Homo Erectus to the Large Hadron Collider, the species Homo Sapiens has changed not one iota since it emerged in Africa, there simply hasn't been enough time for serious changes in the species, outside of more advanced material cultures and its effects. People are fundamentally motivated by self interest, always have been and always will be until we are superseeded by the next species or just go extinct (which is in the long term a certainty as evolution has not ended with us whatever we might like to think). Thats biology, not politics, and until the species changes, that fact will not change, probaly not then either as all life is the same. People are not intriniscally evil, but neither are they intrinsically good, they are simly designed to survive and reproduce in a social group of one form or another, and are essentially morally neutral actors fulfilling whatever role the circumstances of their lives give to them, and basing any sort of geopolitcial policy on the goodness in human nature is extrememly unwise. [/QUOTE]
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.