Going To Extremes...Logically

Yeah, I too get dismayed when we constantly feel the need to debate minor issues like whether we have the right to invade other countries just because we feel we should over and over again, when there are so many more important issues we could be discussing, like how much money we have, and how we can have more.

 

Maybe this will help some; In every war, since the beginning of recorded time, there is a pattern. This pattern has been increased since the age of responsible governments has come into being, but it is still not new.

First, you have the caussi bello(i), the cause for war. This is easy to pinpoint; it is that whithout which there is no war, but which itself causes hostilities to commence. It may be the occupation of a certain territory, it may be an agreement to cease hostilities against another party, it may be disarmament of WMDs, or the release of Osama Bin Laden. Whatever it happens to be, it is noticable because negotiations include caveats which state that if the caussi bello(i) is resolved, there will be no war.

When war is determined to be inevitable, sometimes earlier, sometimes later, there is always, in every single case, the beginings of what we now call propoganda, the purpose of which is to portray the enemy as savage, the enemy leader as a war monger, immoral, or more recently the trend has been a madman. This happens each and every time, without fail. You will never see a war without it. Look back to the punic wars, and you will see Roman claims that Carthaginians eat their babies. More recently we can look at the invasion of Afghanistan; we all know the reason, Osama Bin Laden. Had the Taliban turned over Osama, or told us where to find him, we would not have invaded. No one is confused about our caussi bello(i). Yet, like clockwork, as soon as we began to talk about invading Afghanistan, we were immersed in all kinds of discussions about the woes of the people there, about female circumscision, veils and the like. Why?


There are various reasons we do this, but it boils down to one thing; leaders know people don't like war, but will be more likely to support it, and for longer, if they feel the enemy is evil, the enemy leader is evil, etc. Take a look back at any war...see WWI. Now no one will now suggest that WW One was fought for moral or humanitarian reasons, but if you look back at the common publications of the day, you will see more said about the Huns, their evil ways, etc. than about any real causes for war.

The funny thing is that, in retrospect, we often remember these propoganda campaigns more than the real reasons; recent polls show that many American believe that WWII was fought to stop the Holocaust, which couldn't be further from the truth. It is easier for the common man to buy into moralistic reasons for war rather than to think they're dying for dirt, etc.


Some of the propoganda is true, some not, but in the end they cannot be confused with causes for war. We went to war over WMD. We said so. Yes, subsequent to that we talked at length about more humanitarian reasons, just as we did with Afhghanistan, Vietnam, and every other war in history. But had we found that Osama had no connections with Afghanistan, we couldn't have turned around and said that we went to war only in part ofr Osama, and in part for the veils, and pointed to the reality of treatment of women as caussi bello(i). DId the women have it bad? Yes. Could our invasion have made their lives better? Yes. Did we talk about their bad situation pre-war? Yes. Does any of that alter the fact that, had the Taliba turned over Osama, we would have never gone in? Of course not.

Same goes for Iraq. Don't confuse the propoganda with the cause for war, just because it was basd on reality.

 

A reason without which there is no war, unlike the others. Hmmm....

 

Really? His history shows that he would do damage to the US, if he were able? Can you give, I don't know, say...one example of this?

 

If I thought you were serious, I'd feel sorry for you. Now that I know that you aren't anywhere near the fool you pretend to be, you're worth a guffaw.

 

So let me get this straight; you are actually arguing that a conclusion that we are better than everyone else is A) valid, B) objective, and C) therefore supporting the argument that we will, as such, 'wear the white hats' in any given situation?

Wow. There are times I think that the image the rest of the world has of Americans is based on myth...and other times it becomes clear that there are many among us who conform to the stereoptype all too well.

Okay, let's take a look at your objective criteria for why we're better than others...

Assumption. Inocrrect by and large. Do Europeans envy our freedoms? Do Canadians? Do Scandanavians or Italians or the Japanese? When will we learn that there are different cultures who prioritize different things, just as there are different individuals who prioritize different things. Each tries to find it's medium. We are not, contrary to opinion, the paragon of freedom. Several nations have at least, if not more freedom in principle and more importantly in practice than we do. Several nations don't have our recent history of restricting freedoms from people who weren't the right race, creed, sex, or presuasion. Several nations don't have slavery and extermination of natives as foundations upon which their white men built 'freedom'.

We stand for one thing to the vast majority of the 'free' world: $$$$$. I live in Canada. I have heard of many Canadians moving to the US for the reasons of $$$$ and weather; not one because of freedom. I have heard of people moving up to Canada from the US because of freedom. I am not supposing that this is the norm, but am trying to give context to an assumption many Americans who know little about the rest of the world make. There are many, ,many countries wherein freedom is at least as realized as the United States. Canadians are free to smoke pot if they want, to be gay in the military, etc. Icelanders vote on every national issue en masse. Etc. Etc.

Some Americans tend to frame the concept of freedom according to whatever American priorities are, and then pat themselves on the back in congratulations that they have epitomized their self-reflective ideal. ANd to defend this theuy cite the fact that people in oppressed countries see America as free. Yes, they do. They see any country as free. That's what seperates the free from the oppressed. But it's not America and the rest. Please.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, about the grave threat that p*rnography poses to our society, but I would suggest that rectent history shows that we have tended to err more on the side of restricting freedom ( slavery, genocide, reservations, segregation, McCarthyism, selective conscription, etc.) than on the side of being too permissive. As such, to me, there is a lot more to fear in the Patriot Acts than in Penthouse...

Of course these apply in countless other countries as well.

Yes. Yes we are.

Compared with whom?

Statistically insignificant. When we were expanding westward/industrializing, rising in the ranks of industrial output, there were many rags to riches stories. Every study I've seen depicts this as largely a thing of the past. Outside of one single growth area, (computers), what we have seen in the past few decades is a remarkable lack of income level jumping. There has been a stagnation of economic class, in fact theere has been the reverse. The percentage of gross wealth has increasingly been redistributing into the hands of the few. The middle class has been shrinking. We are in the midst of economic polarization in this country, and you are now, more than ever, likely to live and die on the same economic level into which you were born.

Are there some opportunities? Sure...we do stress $$$$ over all things more than almost any other nation, and as such we work more hours at our jobs, spend fewer with our families and children, fewer engaged in education, ect. than almost any other industrialized nation. If you just want to earn and buy, there are opportunities here, probably more than in many other countries. But, like all things, it comes at a price. I don't see how this translates into our wearing the white hats, but oh well...

We are among the, if not THE least healthy industrialized nation in the world, and the ONLY ONE without nationalized healthcare. You can rationalize that our health problems are out of gluttony and greed, but that could be true of many wealthy nations. I still don't get that some Americans think that it's better to be unhealthy out of wealth than out of poverty...It's like saying suicides are better in the rich neighborhoods, because they use nickle plated revolvers...The end rseult is the same, and our results are abysmal.

And there is a wide discrepancy in the nature of our health problems between the haves and have-nots.

Okay...I gove up. Can someone please explain to me how $= being the good guys? What do our natural resources, for which we can take as much credit as we can for the weather, have at all to do with our assumption of moral superiority!?!?!?

This would read as a comic book for an outsider: An American is asked why he assumes that Americans are the good guys in any dispute, and he spends much of the rest of the discussion citing his material wealth...boggles the mind.

The latter is again only relevant when compared with oppressed countries, about which I have more to say in a second, but the former is a nice attempt to side-step a major issue: Compared with every other 'industrialized', 'wealthy', 'developed', 'free', etc. nation in the world, an American has by far the least reason to feel secure in his/her day to day life. By far the most muders per capita, or even gross, by far the most violent crimes, by far the most imprisoned, by far the country witht he highest rate of repeat offenders, etc. etc.

As to our 'fear' that our governmant will gas us, etc., you are largely right. There is little real fear of that. However, in that we are discussing the reasoning behind why you feel it right to assume/conclude that Americans wear the white hats, let's take a little look at the external effect we have had. We have contributed to, armed, set up, supported, etc. many of the world's tyrants who did much of the exact kinds of things you mentioned. We have also helped put down, fight against, undermine etc. several populist movements, governments, etc. which stood opposed to the people who were doing these kinds of things.

Very many of the other nations who also don't have to fear gassings at home can also look without a guilty conscience at their record of supporting gassings abroad. We cannot. It is incredibly ego-centric, not to say dishonest, to claim moral superiority over other people because we don't face the oppressions that they do when we are partly responsible for much of the oppression that has occurred. To defend it by saying it was best for us, allowed us to ensure our wealth, etc. hardly alters that fact.

Where do you get this? We are often first in places where it benefits us, and last in places where it doesn't. See Liberia. There are many, many nations which contribute to helping troubled areas, any many of them don't even expect to be rewarded for it. I have used Canada as an example countless times in this, but it hasn't sunk in yet;

Despite being a relatively small nation, Canada is among the largest contributors of peace keeping forces in the world. In both WWI and WWII, Canadian enlistment was much, much higher than American, and for much longer. Canadian troops were considered the bravest by the Germans in both wars ( according to several accounts, Von Rumstead, Goerring, Speer, etc.), with a second nod to Australians.

Canadians lost a much larger percentage of their population in both wars than the US did, were responsible for one of the 5 D-Day beaches, were THE force used as guinea pigs in the D-Day preperation, wherein they lost thousands upon thousands, were THE ONLY force to hold their positions in the key Battle of Ypres, facing the first gas attack ever used, despite being in their first combat situation, and being in the center of the gas attack's focus...If you don't know, Ypres is considered by many to have been something akin to Stalingard, etc. in terms of it having been a Battle that had we lost it, we might have lost the war...(For those of you who don't know the details, at Ypres, the Canadian forces were in their first combat situation, and when the Germans sent in the gas attacks, all the other nations abandoned their lines, and the Germans surged forward. Canadians pissed in their handkerchiefs, wrapped them around their mouths and noses, spread out to cover the other countries abandoned lines, and fought off the German attack alone)...And there are many more examples...Vimy Ridge, the Sonne, etc. And yet, honestly, I have yet to ever hear a Canadian talk about how Canada saved Europe's butt, etc. Not once.

Canadians are currently in Afghanistan, currently in Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 30 other countries. And when those disputes are over, just like in WWI and WWII, the Canadians who survive will simply pack up and go home. This is why Canadians are generally loved around the world; they contribute as much as they can, don't brag about it, don't expect thanks much less assume an obligation of fealty ( see Rummy re: Germans and French, for ex.) or an economic advantage post-bellum. Canadians are not alone in this regard, merely one example.

And there are several other areas which count as far as other nations are concerned. The problem is, giddy, that it's ok to say you are proud of your country...or that you are a great country. I am proud of several aspects of both of my countries. But you have to recognize that your standards are not those of the rest of the world's, and many countries could take their own criteria and say they are the best, and therefore assume they are right on every issue, irrespective of what everyone else says. But it is also worth noting that, America excluded, most of them don't do that.

 

How does it possibly say that?