Is the United States Becoming Too Dominant in the World?

1) So is evil defined because they are determined, as we are, or because they have opposing views? We are suggesting that we want to send in hundreds of thousands of troops to support our view, does that make us evil? Or is 'evil' anyone very determined to defend a position contrary to ours?

2) So we originally said they had the right to self-determination in the Middle East ( not southeast asia, or Cuba, or Panama, etc, but I digress) and the damnn ol' imperialistic Brits screweed it up by staying and trying to 'help', while in fact furthering their own interests? And what are we doing there now, but the exact same thing? It amazes me that you can write thses things and not see the inherant double-standard with which you explain American actions versus others...I'm sure the Brits had people to balme for their having to stay and 'help' too...

3) Darwin himself says that evolution does not imply improvement, merely adaptation. How do you know that what they are currently doing is not the beginnings of the next stage of historical evolution, which will leave us relatively poorly adapted?

4) China, and not attacking them, has already been refuted, by Haven, I believe.

 

Nicaruagua's one of the easiest and least defensible answers. The US doesn't conquer, because it doesn't need to. Client states work just as well, since our borders are already secure. Conquest only occurs when nations face a border threat or need to secure a vital resources. The US faces neither of those problems, at the moment.

The US doesn't support self-determinism. It supports self-determinism as long as such states aren't opposed to US economic interests.

You mention one of the most defensible US interventions: Korea. Yeah, people probably really did want us there. But that usually hasn't been the case. It certainly wasn't in Viet Nam. Or Cuba. Or any # of small South American nations. Or Iran (our support for the Shah). Or the Philippines. The list goes on... and on... and on...

Now, if you believe that the US' sole objective should be to promote it's own power interests... well, that's a different issue. But if so, I don't ever want to hear words like "justice" or "equality" from you on this board. Just like we care about "international law" when Saddam invades Kuwait... but it's not so important when we violate it by invading Nicaruagua.

Conquest isn't the only form of aggressive behavior. A nation behaves aggressively when it engages in an interventionist policy that trumps the self-determinist strain of the indigenous population.

 

My point is that to say 'the US ALWAYS acts out of self interest' is as inaccurate as saying 'the US ALWAYS acts in support of freedom and democracy.' Attacking Iraq can be in the US national interest (by removing both a possible WMD threat and a threat to oil supplies), increase freedom and democracy (by removing an incredibly repressive regime and allowing the emergence of hopefully more democratic forces ala Afghanistan), and 'save the world' (since either active WMD scenarios or endangering the oil supplies is as much if not more of a threat for the rest of the world)...

True, as is every other country and individual on the planet.

Well we do oppose China on multiple levels in many ways. But it is unrealistic to expect us to treat China (a nuclear state with one fifth of the world's population) the same as N Korea or Iraq. China itself would find that insulting. We certainly cooperate in many ways with China, but one of the examples I have repeatedly given is the moving of the 7th Fleet into the Formosa Straits when China was rattling sabers at Taiwan. That IS challenging China militarily.

If find this whole 'Middle East' anaylsis to be a misnomer. Last time I checked that (the Gulf War) was exactly the kind of 'internationalist' or 'multilateral' effort everyone is seemingly clamoring for. And I think we've agreed previously that the US is ripped whichever way it goes. Exactly whose oil was that coalition protecting? We should point out that Europe and Japan are much more vulnerable to oil shocks than the US. You act like Europe is recoiling because they have some 'democratic agenda,' which couldn't be farther from the truth. They are recoiling because they want to feel relevant, and they want to keep office, which they may not do if their indigenous population thinks their country is unwilling or unable to act on the international scene.

Finally, while you can point out actions we've taken that were in our 'national interest' instead of for democracy or freedom or self determination, I have pointed out many examples where we've intervened in places that clearly held no national interest stakes for us. In those cases the ONLY reason we've intervened was to use our power and status to benefit the people involved, usually only to be castigated as imperialist Yankee dogs...

Well *using* force to aid democratic movements is hardly contradictory. Check almost ANY revolution and few are non-violent. Was it anti-democratic for the French to aid the American colonies in revolt? I think not. Similarly, removing an impediment to democratic movements in Iraq (saddam) or N Korea (junior) is not anti-democratic. Although I will conceed you point makes for a humorous poke in our direction ....

 

"safe", "peacefull" , "leader-lead"etc. are subjective terms...

no, we are not the only country to conquer other countries and give it back to them...For example, the Romans did it SEVERAL times with the Greeks, before finally,after hundreds of years, making them a colony. The British have done it several times...because of the logistics involved...there are many other examples...

 

dimsie, I am not totally disagreeing with you here. My professor of the Modern Middle East, who is actually from the Middle East, has said in class, and it's in our book that the leaders of installing governments in the Middle East were the Bristish (in fact, the British are a huge reason that the region is in the condition it is in today). America said they should be able to rule themselves. That's the deal that was made. But the British were the ones to go in and take them over. And I think that's a reliable source.

And I know that America has other reasons than just 'saving the world.' You are the one who refuses to acknowledge that we are trying to do some good. We're not just fighting people we disagree with. We're not fighting China because they are a superpower as well. But we also have agreements with them that we both follow to the best of our ability.

JAG-North Korea can be as socialistic as it wants to be. But as long as they're developing NBC weapons, they're a target for the US. It's a simple as that.

Sweden is a socialist country and we're not attacking them. So saying we're attacking North Korea because they're socialist is completely inaccurate. It may be part of the reason but there's a lot more to it. There has to be more than one reason to attack someone.

America is trying to limit opponents. But they're trying to make the world safer. What's wrong with that. They're not just our enemies, they're threatening to the world. Saddam is insane. You cannot reason with people like him. You can reason with America. I would rather us have nuclear weapons than him or any groups that are like his groups or that support him. These terrorists groups are bad. How can you not see that?

Just because we used a nuclear weapon does not mean we are bad guys. We used it during a time of declared war. I am not saying it was good or right, but it did put an end to a war. Why should Japan fear us? They haven't done anything wrong. The people that we are worried about today that have nuclear weapons are not law abiding countries. Iraq promised that they would not make nukes and they did. Saddam is planning on targeting Israeli children with biological weapons. No one has to fear us unless they're doing something wrong. We follow the rules of war. We don't crash planes into buildings during peacetime. There are certain rules that the world should follow. If you don't follow the rules, your're threatening those who do.

It doesn't seem that anyone actually read the article treeman found that I put here, not that it surprises me at all.

DaDakota said it all. The US is not trying to conquer the world. We're trying to make it more peaceful. We took over as the leader after Britain in WW2. The US has done a much better job, IMO, than the British did when they were the superpower. They did take over other lands and occupy them for their own benefit. The US has taken land as well, but they're tried to make it better. The US is taking over land and building it up for everyone's benefit, not just her own. He's right, it hasn't always worked perfectly, but we're trying at least.

 

There was significant support for the Contra movement indigeously in Nicaragua and significant outside influence propping up the Sandinistas (USSR).

There was, at least initially, plenty of popular support for US support in Vietnam.

Where did this come from? The US and the Philippines have had a great long term relationship. Much different than their relationship with Spain, and including their independence.

Both ways.

As decided by whom? You and JAG act like every government in place is the result of an indigenous referendum, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

I could get into particulars, but I've dealt with them before...If you base everything on subjective terms like "bad", "evil", "insane", "threatening the world", "Japan hasn't done anything wrong" etc...there is just no room for discussion...If you don't see how all of those are based on ONE BIASED PERSPECTIVE, and we use it to justify us doing whatever we want, while denying other people the right to do that even within their own borders, I just don't see any point in further discussion with you...Dogmatism leaves no room for another perspective.

 

The Filipino Insurrection is the forgotten Vietnam. The US refused to give the Filipinos their freedom as they wanted to ensure that they could exploit the economic possibilities that the Phillipines presented as a result of their proximity to China. I think it was Aguinaldo who led the insurrection, the US basically cheated, waved the white flag and kidnapped him, suppressing the insurrection in the process.

Taft did write up a constitution for the country, and purchased land which was distributed to many, many peasants, but at the same time the Americans left most of the power in the hands of the Filipino estate-owning elite, eschewing the creation of a large colonial bureaucracy.

 

Being 1% bad does not make me 100% bad. US intervention can be good or bad. That no more means we should intervene NOWHERE than it means we should intervene ANYWHERE. What was the last government we replaced because of their socialist leanings???

Huh?

blah blah blah. JAG you are being silly. Are you saying that having a state break into 10, or 20 , or 100 pieces, with each of those pieces taking up whatever arms they can get ahold of, and then fighting with each other is NOT dangerous? Look at the former Yugoslavia, which not only resulted in rape camps and ethnic cleansing/genocide but threatened to widen into a major war involving major powers. Sound familiar?

Jingoistic philosophy may satisfy your sense of historical propriety, JAG, but it hardly makes for a tenable foreign policy. Sorry, but a strict non-interventionist foreign policy would not, on balance, benefit anyone.

Your assumption is that the government is in place by popular mandate. AND the purpose of our government is, at its core, to protect our security and way of life. If another country threatens that, ala Iraq, we have legitimate and justifiable reason to act.

Policymaking never has been and never can be black and white decision making. If history has proven anything its that it is in constant flux, and having a rigid unalterable policy direction is a recipe for disaster.

 

JAG-

To say that the only reason that America gets involved is for our own benefit is just as bad as saying we're only trying to have peace, if not worse. There are many reasons America involves itself in war. America can afford a war. We have the power and the resources. America does have a good government. Democracy is a good form of government (and anyone who thinks otherwise has the option to leave). We are not oppressive to our people. We do not dicate what people can and cannot do, say, wear, or how they can or cannot act. We have the ability to make to world better. We have the ability to stop oppression and disease and all sorts of other things.

And I don't recall Britian ever giving something back to who it belongs to. Afterall, we had to fight them in a war to get our land (I know it was the Indian's first and it "belonged" to England after that, but they left us alone for a long time and let us "rule ourselves", but they took over and oppressed us and denied us rights and we died for our land after that).

*****How can you say that these countries are not evil?***** Did you even look at that article? They are breaking the rules and they want to destroy democracy, the US and it's Allies. They will target civilians during peacetime just for the fun of it. Oh, that's not insane!

I guess you wouldn't call Hitler insane either???

 

I'm curious if you'd put yourself in the category (although I'm sure you're loath to categorize yourself) of a cultural relativist. In my understanding of the term, it applies to someone who believes one cultural has no right to infringe on another. If you are, and you certainly seem to be, then you are as dogmatic as you claim others to be.

Example: Do you believe we should act to stop rape, or just in the US?

 

If Bush has been anything, its up front about taking this crisis and expanding it to address security issues beyond this particular incident. Our allies are not comfortable with that, as is their right. That has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of these actions.

When was the last time this happened???

You have said in previous threads how your belief is that the American revolution was an exercise in freedom and slef determination. Was it anti-democratic of the French to support us? Oops.

Uh, most of us weren't alive then.

And it could be argued that millions upon millions of peoples rights are being enhanced right now by the US (check Bosnia, check Afghanistan).

This is such a warped analysis. We sent wooden ships to attack the Barbary Coast once in our history. Are we likely to do that now? Well there IS historical precedent. There are a laundry list of reasons why nuclear proliferation is NOT desirable: instabililty with the territory which results in 'loose nukes' going to terrorists with cash, or warlords with regional scores to settle, lack of PALs/technological controls which risks accidental launches, miscalculation between nations which risks nuclear escalation...and on and on. Sorry if we're oppressing you by not letting you have nukes and decreasing your 'rights' but the impact of a bad decision outweighs your rights in this case. Sorry JAG but we cannot exist in a moral vaccuum.

Some of us are PROPONENTS on the US remaining the sole Superpower and an active US that engages threats to our interests, or our values as we see fit.

 

JAG, I have tried to be as patient with people on this board as possible. I have tried to keep civil in my responses for a while now. But the moral relativism displayed in your posts makes me sick. Comparing the United States to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I am absolutely at a loss to understand how an American citizen could draw that analogy.

Good and evil are no more constructs than are right and wrong-- which, based on your apparent appraisal of American foreign policy as universally "wrong", I know you believe exist.

No. No it is not ludicrous. Racism is wrong, period, end of discussion. I don't care if there are arguments for it, it's wrong. By the same token, I consider the 'American hegemony' the Guardian spoke of-- unilateral action taken against states that sponsor terrorist groups or seek to develop weapons of mass destruction for use against America and its allies-- to be right without the existence of a reasonable opposing viewpoint. And I believe that because, as shown when I asked whether or not the Axis nations would be better off or not with Westernized liberal democracy as their form of government, I believe the answer is simple: they would definitely be better off, in every sense of the word.

Your non-sequitur of a reply-- "Don't you think that's for THEM to decide?" -- is hysterical. Do you think they have the chance to decide that now? It's a happy coincidence that protecting America's interests by toppling those current, oppressive regimes would allow the citizens of those countries to form new governments of their choosing.

Again: I don't justify intervention in Korea based solely or even primarily in the welfare of its people. That's, as I said, a side benefit: not only would America be better off, but the North Koreans would be as well.

By the way, you are the last person on this BBS who should ever dismiss someone else's argument as "dogmatism". You sound like you're regurgitating a Ramsay Clark pamphlet in every one of your posts.

Haven:

That's what I want examples of. You seem to think that there's a litany of such actions, yet I see only a couple of examples that come close to fitting what I consider to be a fair application of the term "aggression" (as defined in my earlier post).

You seem to have a real problem with the United States acting in its best interests. Why?

PS: When did we invade Nicaragua...? Hint: it was well before WWII, which was the timeframe you set for this discussion.

 

BrianKagy:

... yet I see only a couple of examples that come close to fitting what I consider to be a fair application of the term "aggression"

Oh, only a *couple* of recent examples of violently overthrowing democratically elected governments and turning a blind eye to genocide... well, that's all right then.

HayesStreet:

I've worked it out. Our basic disagreement comes down to this statement:

Some of us are PROPONENTS on the US remaining the sole Superpower and an active US that engages threats to our interests, or our values as we see fit.

Bully for you. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow the US blindly wherever it leads. Not that it matters what we think anyway, right?

 

Dimsie, where are you talking about specifically?

When did I say any of other country should 'blindly' follow? Please find one instance when I've said ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT. In fact I have consistenly said in my posts that our 'allies' SHOULD do as they see fit. I believe in multilateralist institutions, and using them whenever a consensus can be found. I don't believe, however, in handcuffing our actions to ONLY those actions that receive multilateral support. Neither, I am sure, does NZ.

And I don't understand the 'bully for you' comment. I haven't said your opinion (or the opinions of people in other countries) are irrelevant. Only that they can't be used as the sole determinant of our foreign policy.

I would be interested which of the probable candidates you'd like to see as the *next* superpower, since you apparently are NOT in favor of the US remaining the sole superpower (as you've indicated above): China? India? Russia again?

 

Uh, let's see. Philippines (or whatever they were called before the SPANISH named them after their King) before the US? Enslaved by the Spanish. Owners of nothing. Under the Japanese? Enslaved. Owners of nothing. Philippines after the US? Independent state. Eventually democratic. That is hardly a case of the US intervening and REMOVING a legitimate government of the people, unless you think they WANTED the Spanish or the Japanese controlling the country.

 

No, I think they wanted to be left alone and allowed to create the government of their choice. McKinley's ostensible purpose for intervention was some "divinely inspired" benevolence, but his real purpose was clearly derived from his activist/imperialist approach to government.

 

HayesStreet-agruing with dimsie isn't really worth it. She wants answers and examples from everyone, but when she's asked to prove something, all she can do is roll her eyes and act sarcastic. It's the nature of the beast I suppose.

No wonder she likes the Guardian. It's just as misinformed as she is.

dimsie-I suggest you read that article I posted. When you get blown to bits by Iraq, or North Korea or any of those groups, don't come crying to the US to save you.

I'm still waiting for all these examples of the US overthrowing great governments.

 

I realize I'm coming into this conversation WAYYYY late!! But...Kagy asks a great question of haven that I've asked before of him and others...just not as too the point as Kagy did.

why do you have a problem with the US acting in its own best interests?? what other nation doesn't act in its own best interests?? or is it that you feel that remaining a world superpower isn't in the best interests of the US??? or something else....???