Is the United States Becoming Too Dominant in the World?

That's niiiiice. But absent US intervention there is no reason to believe the Spanish would have left. There is no reason to believe the Japanese would have left. The FACT is that US intervention started an upward swing for the Philippines and ended with a democratic government. Certainly not a blemish in the evaluation of our interventionist history.

 

Max-

The only thing I can say is that they think the US is being selfish. They say the only reason we're going in is to secure our power. We're killing people just because we want to. The US will stop at no cost to hurt other countries.

However, I think that's more the mentality of the terrorists. They want power and control and they truly will stop at nothing to get it.

Any other thoughts? What's wrong with self interest (especially if we're helping other countries along the way)?

 

I guess I'm just going to have to consider the death of 200,000 Filipinos a 'blemish' in our interventionist history.

 

Maybe the key here is that, while we may feel we are being benevolent and serving our interests, the benefactors of that benevolance (and, for that matter, much of the rest of the world) may not view it that way.

I guess that depends highly on your viewpoint. Your standard for defining a "reasonable opposing viewpoint" may be very different from someone else's. Since we don't operate in a vacuum, understanding that differing viewpoints have their own standards to live by helps us to all recognize and respect those opinions even when we disagree.

Also, the whole concept of moral relativism seems a little out of place here. treeman, himself, said recently that you should live by the golden rule EXCEPT in times of war. To suggest that anyone here would be free of, at the very least, a degree of moral relativism is throwing stones in glass houses. It exists for everyone because humans aren't perfect.

If some disagree with others, fine. But, shaping the argument based on the person arguing is walking on a slippery slope here. I've done it before and it bit me on the ass (Freak, you listening? ). We all have problems and make mistakes, but I think we can all agree that no one here should be minimalized simply because their opinion is different.

Too many on this board are not disagreeing without being disagreeable and I could point to people on either side of this discourse as an example. Remember that this isn't the UN or a political summit. Nothing we debate here will change anything but ourselves. Let's try and make it for the better.

 

You're not disputing anything by throwing out random numbers (although I'd like to see where you got that number from). Would Filipinos have been better off without US intervention? I don't think so. You've made no argument that would disprove that either.

 

At least we here in the good ole USA have the RIGHT to debate this topic....

I am sure the women under the Taliban leadership would have liked to have had a say.......

DaDakota

 

Iran and Guatemala had *democratically elected* governments in the 1950's that were overthrown by the US government under the auspicies of the C.I.A. This has been pointed out to you, Princess, specifically, already. Are these not "great governments?" Are we going to play semantics again? Democratically elected governments do not need to be overthrown by supposedly democratic nations, right? Iran and Guatemala posed no threat to their neighbors, or anyone else in the 1950's. The governments were guilty of being left of center. What they proposed to do was to nationalize industries involving their own natural resources (self-determination anyone?) and the US government put a stop to it.
Princess, you can stop reading now. I am not addressing anything else to you and I apologize for communicating with you at all. We can agree that it has been pointless.

My take on the Axis of Evil rhetoric is that it is the wrong path to take. I think another war with Iraq without a clear world mandate would be a mistake. Saddam has wrongly been compared to Hitler. His true model is Stalin. Hussein is only "crazy" in the sense that he is a megalomaniac thug. Unlike Hitler, Hussein wants to maintain power. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War. He did not use them. He didn't use them because he is a nice guy, or anything, or momentarily sane. Sadaam didn't use these weapons because he knew if he did he would be obliterated.
However, during the war with Iran in the '80's, Iraq gassed its own people. The US was aiding Iraq and there was no outcry, or dimunition of assistance by the Reagan Administration (who knew of these atrocities). Again, the reason Hussein did not use the chemical weapons he had during the Gulf War was because the Bush administration made it clear that this would result in total (read: nuclear) annihilation.
What has changed since the Gulf War? Why wouldn't continued sanctions, control of Iraq's airspace and weapons inspections be sufficient? The reason I think going to war with Iraq at this point in order to overthrow Hussein would be dangerous is because it would destabilize the region to the point that weapons of mass destruction might be used elsewhere. I am talking about Pakistan and India. We have already seen that the start of the recent campaign in Afghanistan stirred up the Pakistani-Indian dispute. Both have nuclear weapons and Pakistan is a Muslim nation that has numerous radical elements that might seize control of these weapons.
Secondly, Hussein might actually use whatever weapons of mass destruction he has if he is going to be toppled. Again, if Hussein did not use the chemical and biological weapons he had during the Gulf War with the Allied forces, why would he unilaterally attack the US, or Israel with nuclear weapons? Hussein already had the opportunity to irrationally use great weapons when he was at war *and he chose not to do so to remain in power.*
Let me make it clear that I do not like Hussein and I wish we had other options there, but waging war on Iraq with only the pretext that Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction will only destabilize the region to the point that nations that actually have such weaponry may use them. Vietnam has been bandied about in this thread and it is instructive to understand why the US response was constrained to a certain extent. The war could not be escalated for fear of drawing in China to active combat. In the case of Iraq, waging a war that does not have a significant international coalition could exacerbate other thorny issues in the region.
The inclusion of North Korea into the axis of evil club was simply to forestall the accusations that Bush's actions in Iraq were anti-Muslim. Our allies, South Korea, are livid about Bush's rhetoric. This is sloppy diplomacy to say the least. In the last few years, North and South Korea have been making great strides in their relationship. Again, why would North Korea, a nation that has suffered a devastating famine over the last few years, unilaterally attack the United States, or South Korea with nuclear weapons when it has been the US policy for 50 years that they would automatically be wiped from the map?
The inclusion of Iran on the axis of evil was similarly ill-advised, in my opinion. Iran is one of the few countries in the region that has a strong moderate element and has been making strides to erect a democratic system. Iran also has cooperated with the US during the campaign against the Taliban. Now, with a mere speech, Bush has driven away any moderate faction that might have gained real power in Iran. The situation in Iran is a lot more complex than Bush has recognized and now Iran and Iraq are making entreaties to each other. Why not continue to play Iraq and Iran off against each other? Why make this speech in the first place?
Why: the state of the union and the message of good versus evil was made for domestic consumption. Before 9-11 Bush and Chaney wanted to operate in crisis mode to push their agenda. Remember the great energy crisis of the first part of his administration? Crisis helps a minority president. Since 52% of the population did not vote for him and because there were concerns about his legitimacy, his advisors felt that fomenting a crisis would help his agenda in Congress.
Bush is now using the War on Terrorism to push his drug agenda, promotion of Big Oil and budget tax cuts. The Axis of Evil is also a nice way to get attention away from the Enron scandal (a company which was also suspiciously involved in the formation of Bush's energy policy) and congressional concerns about new budget deficits. This is no conspiracy, of course. Politics and policy go hand in hand. I am sure Bush really does believe in his axis of evil. There is, however, a real reason why US allies are not "getting in line" with this new war. They are also worried about the current US policy of fighting the war and leaving the occupation and nation-building to them. How many US soldiers will be in the peace-keeping force again?
If Bush wants to go after Hussein he needs to make a better case than the "he's crazy" argument. The US has tolerated and often supported dictators who were just as "crazy." Allende in Chile had CIA help in massacring thousands of his citizens in 1973...the US obviously didn't worry about his relative sanity. Is Saddam more crazy now than he was in 1991? The same people that make up US policy now were around then...what has changed? There simply is no conclusive evidence that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks. Bush did not even mention any during his state of the union. More to the point, China has nuclear weapons right now. With US approval they have been *awarded* most favored nation's trading status. This despite the fact that they brutalize their people *and* the people of Tibet. Where is the US response to that? Do evil actions get rewarded with most favored nation's trading status? You bet your ass it does if big money is involved. Seems like the premier of China is pretty crazy...want to go to war with them?

 

HayesStreet and Princess:

Dimsie, where are you talking about specifically?

Did you miss my previous posts? The ones where I talked about Iran, and Guatemala, and Cambodia? Those well-documented, *referenced*, *concrete examples* that both you and Princess and every other US foreign policy apologist on this board keep asking me to give?

I gave them. With perfectly credible references, as if they were needed. And they got utterly ignored. Can you not see why I get a little frustrated by these discussions?

Oh, and speaking of the Philippines, since you won't believe poor old tacoma park legend either:

"In one especially violent campaign U.S. troops were ordered to kill all males ten years old or older who were capable of bearing arms against the United States.... U.S. troops herded more than 300,000 civilians into concentration centers, where many died of disease or starvation.... Approximately 4.200 Americans and over 20,000 Filipino soldiers had died in the struggle. Perhaps another 200,000 Filipino civilians died of famine, disease, and war-related incidents."

This quote is from James Kirby Martin et al, A Concise History of America and its People, Volume Two since 1865, published by HarperCollins in 1995. It's the bloody *textbook* we use for freshman history classes at U of H, so questioning the source won't work either. 'Random numbers'. How *insulting* to all those poor people.

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?

Call me a crazy idealistic kid, but I don't really believe in *any* nation being a superpower.

HayesStreet, your arguments are based on the idea that the United States is somehow a 'better' superpower than any other country would be. And I don't know how I would prove my point if I wanted to completely disagree with you (and I'm not sure I do, because unlike many others here, I'm not pretending to be an expert on 'what-if' history). I'm just saying that 'at least we're better than anyone else' isn't good enough as a response to our concerns about your past actions. And 'we'll only listen to you if you agree with our way of thinking' isn't good enough as a response to our concerns about your future actions. You're damning your country with faint praise.

 

Actually, I'm a Realist/Functionalist. I don't have a problem with it. However, I do have a problem with self-serving, self-righteous, hypocritical rhetoric on the subject.

I also have a problem when the US violates its own ideals in its foreign policy. Looking after interest is one thing... behaving against one's own professed ethical code is another. I think the US should serve its own interest... but without violating the autonomy of other nations.

I also think that the US tends to think of short-term corporate interests, above it's long-term interest. And sadly, politicians usually think of their donors before their voters. Voters are stupid, donors are not...

I also don't think it's *good* when one nation is capable of dominating the international system to the extent that the US does. No matter what, there's going to be abuse.

 

dimsie-
I am glad we seem to be putting the insults aside for the moment. It's much easier that way.

However, why should I listen to you when you clearly don't want to listen to anyone else. It's like you're "god's gift to this board" or something.

And you're example of the US setting up governments in the Middle East was wrong, just flat out wrong. It was the British. So why should I believe anything else you have to say if you got that one wrong?

And how many examples do you have us the US actually trying to help versus the 3 examples you gave us of overthrowing democracies. I think there are probably more examples of us trying to help than not.

And just because we help someone when they don't think they need or or if we don't help someone when they do need help means nothing. Every single case is different. I love America and I support America. And whatever the reason the government has for military action is fine. If you want to compare Hussein to Stalin instead of Hitler, that's fine. Stalin wasn't exactly perfect either. He's only a "meglomaniac thud." Well, then, he seems harmless. No one in the US, no matter how powerful we are wants to tries to obtain control over the world. While Hussein is trying to get and maintain world power, the US is not. We might be a world power and a world leader, but we do not rule over the whole world

Why should be think Hussein has the weapons? Because he won't let weapons inspectors in. Why should we think he'd use them? Because he has said he would. If he would gas his own men, who knows what he could do to enemies? If he would sit down and talk to us, we might be able to figure out exaclt what he wants and how to fix it. But he won't. He won't talk or listen.

What has changed since the Gulf War? Everything. A handful of men crashed planes into our buildings and killed thousands of people. We were not warned and it was peacetime. That is wrong. If these guys have the power to do what they did, who is stopping bigger men with bigger guns from doing something too?

.

 

How relevant is this to a discussion of current US foreign policy. The US has not supplanted a democratically elected government in quite some time that I know of. I have seen a lot of examples named but none that are relevant that I can see.

This is arguable. For instance, a regime aligned with the Soviets in Persia in itself would have been a security concern for the West.

Sounds like a good argument to stop the spread of nukes, which we'd be doing if we took out Saddam. At the same time, you contend we risk Islamic extremists grabbing Pakistani nukes if we attack a Muslim state. Didn't we just do that in Afghanistan? I'd say the risk is worse if we wait until Saddam has nukes than a possible destabilization of Pakistan.

Really you've answered your own question. What if Hussein is about to be toppled from internal pressure? Might he use nukes on Israel to garner internal support? Let's say his northern military command defects. Is it possible he could use nukes on them? Why not?

A regime about to implode upon itself could take desperate measures to attempt to survive. For example, you clearly believe a government can create a foreign crisis to quell internal dissent. The same could happen in N Korea. They could invade S Korea. Would their possession of nukes change our response? You can be sure of it. Could they blackmail S Korea and Japan if they had nukes? For sure. The famine could only accelerate an internal crisis.

Well there is no doubt Bush can handle this better. Iran seems to both have helped (offering haven for downed pilots) and hurt (allowing Al Queda to pass through Iran, shipping arms into southern Afghanistan tribes) in this effort. And we are forgetting they ALSO undoubtably sponser terrorists groups like Hezbollah. It seemingly is easier to make a case for Iran being in the 'War on Terrorism' than Iraq.

??? That's been his agenda since he got in office. What is the relevance of this?

True, but there is a difference between selling F-16s to the Shah and letting him obtain nukes.

Uh, the CIA killed Allende. I think you mean Pinochet. And there were no nukes involved. Athough it wasn't all peaches and free bread at that time, as inflation had skyrocketed by thousands of percent with the accompanying woes. There was large national interest involved, however, besides the interests of ITT that are so readily mentioned in this case. The Straits of Magellan, which were important for NATO reenforcement in case of Soviet conventional attack in Europe, could have been shut down by a Soviet influenced Chile. The assumption being that the Panama Canal would have been taken out of action.

And its important to remember that Carter reversed our endorsement of Pinochet and pressured him to sign the National Accords, and transfer power back to a civilian government, which he eventually did during the Reagan years.

Bush is not claiming this is he? I believe he is justifying a move on Iraq because it is attempting to acquire WMD.

Since China is a nuclear state, I'm assuming you're not proposing a US invasion. A simultaneous policy of engagement and containment is really the only realistic option. We can engage and hope that economic liberalisation will be followed by political liberalisation as we witnessed in other places (Taiwan/S Korea/the former USSR), while confronting them militarily when the grow adventurous outside their borders (Taiwan).

 

OK, calm down. I asked WHAT countries you were specifically talking about. You have, so now I know and I'll address. Relax. And please don't lump me in with Princess.

Iran & Guatemala: ok. True. Throw in Allende in Chile. What relevance does that have on current US policy? The US has undoubtably overthrown government (or helped overthrow) in the past. If you'd like to argue whether it was justified in the context of the Cold War, I can do that. Will do that. If you want me to justify that in the context of today's world, I don't think I have to because we haven't done it to my knowledge in quite awhile.

The bombing of Cambodia was justified. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, while actively engaged in combat operations against US troops were using Cambodia as a safe haven. I've got no problem with attacking an enemy where they hide. The way it was done, and the subsequent rise of Pol Pot were clear mistakes and mistakes I hope we don't repeat.

Please spare me. Tacoma asserted a number I assumed was random (still appears to be since that quote does not validate the statement that US troops killed 300,000 Filipinos) as opposed to accurate. He gave no source so I have no problem challenging the number. You've provided a source. Thank you. Calm down. That does suck. It doesn't disprove my argument that the US was better than the alternative. And I'm not sure of the relevance to our current foreign policy.

Sure but is it realistic? A pure balance of power system may not be the panacea you think it will be.

Absolutely, and I freely admit that the US has done things in the past that were wrong wrong wrong. Some of the things you would term wrong I might not. But I don't pretend every decision was the correct one. So I believe you fundamentally attach an opinion to me that I don't hold: mainly that the US has never done anything wrong.

Its not that we won't listen to your council. Its that you cannot expect us to adopt your position merely because YOU think its the correct one. If we decide to do something different than what YOU want to do, then that is our right. If you don't want to support a particular action (and I using YOU to mean allies or other countries) then you have a right to abstain from participation, or even to oppose the decision if you feel that is the thing to do. That attitude doesn't seem crazy or dogmatic to me.

 

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/eems/cultimp.387._.html

 

Did I miss something? The point is.......that claims of US imperialism are a joke?

 

People always hate their boss, and they are always jealous of more successful people.

I wonder if the true root of other nations concerns is not buried in jealousy.

DaDakota

 

I like that one!

 

Retrospection is certainly a positive trait; we don't want to repeat past errors. But let's not let the US from 25, 50 or 100 years ago obfuscate.

Our leaders believe that action against Iran, Iraq and North Korea is warranted because:
1) They oppose our 'power';
2) There is impeccable evidence that they are a threat to global security and peace.

Call me gullable, but I buy #2 over number #1. I bet if each of you actually saw intel reports on these country's covert activity, month-in and month-out, you would come to accept the brand 'evil'.

As far as whether the Europeans 'buy-in' to the concept, I certainly understand the importance of it, but I discount its ability to grade the 'correctness' of our policy. Remember, this is the Europe that drags its feet into any kind of conflict, whether right or wrong, and seemingly never w/o US assistance anymore (e.g. Bosnia)

A little proactivity is good for once. The Israelis used it (bombed)when Iraq was building a reactor and was soundly condemned for it. We should have used foresight with al queda and did not. Now we'll use it for other threats to the World.

Of course it's much easier to sit back and wait for something to happen.

 

Are you people honestly saying that you don't understand the points the other side is raising, at all? I find that quite amazing.

 

LOL.

 

What does this mean? Do we have to say 'oh yeah, you're right,' the US is in too dominant a position and that is bad?' We understand there are concerns about a US with unbridled power. That doesn't translate into accepting the US should not act when it feels it is justified in doing so.