Is the United States Becoming Too Dominant in the World?

duplicate deleted

 

glad y'all think that's so funny

 

HS
I wasn't talking to you really. You are at least thinking a bit about the objections. I was talking to DaDakota, Princess and Cohen. Nobody is saying that Sadam is a swell guy. The debate is on how to approach the problem, Cohen. And 'jealous' DaDakota!? I'm thinking that some people really don't understand the points being made and we need to break them down a bit.

But as long as you're around, I don't think anyone is saying you can't proceed unilaterally if you want to. That's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned because there isn't anybody that could stop you anyway. The question is more about what the right thing to do is.

 

"We only hate you because we're jealous."
My Lai Massacre, 1968.

 

Grizzled,

There are some people that have implied that Saddam is not "such a bad guy." And you can't say that I'm not thinking about the objections. You don't know what I think at all.

I support the US going in, with or without support. I have my reasons and that's all I care about. I understand the objections of others and I hope they understand my opinions. I can't argue too much about it because I really haven't been around too long (just 20 years). And during my time, the US has always been a leader. And Saddam has always been a bad guy that I can remember. That's what I grew up with.

I don't know the situation inside out like treeman and HayesStreet and some others do. But I know what I think and some reasons that I think what I do. And threads like these really do help me understand more, but they don't do much to change my opinion.

There will never be a "right" thing to do. Nobody has the exact same view of what is right and wrong.

 

I think that was my point. I can't figure out what you're thinking. And if you're not prepared to change your mind on the subject, then I suggest that you don't even bother reading the thread.

 

I didn't say I wasn't prepared to change my mind. I said it probably wouldn't be changed.

There are certain things that people grow up with. Most people (not all) will adopt the political views of their parents. It's called political socialization. That's kind of what happened here. It's hard to change something that has been with you since childhood. I don't know how many people will disagree with me on this, but I never know what to expect on here!

I have not said any of these people were wrong (with the exception of Hussein not being evil and dimsie's assertion that the US did not practice self-determination in the Middle East).

You may think that all the people who are for this refuse to listen to the opposition. And that's fine. But you should also realize that if that's the case, then the opposition is just as likely to refuse to listen to us.

I will continue to read this thread to further my understanding of the situation and provide any information that I have on the subject (which is not always a lot, but there are some cases).

 

Just started reading your post...that's not what political socialization is. Will read the rest and get back to you...

 

That's what every political science professor and government teacher I've ever had has said. Political socialization is where you get your political ideas from. In most people's cases, the primary place is their parents.

 

Socialization isn't about hereditary values. In fact, some schools of thought make specific distinction between familial and social constructs. In order to qualify as socialization, something has to be an overwhelming effect brought on by a subject's social experience if not as a whole, at least as a majority. Inherited or acquired family political views would only qualify as political socialization ( still not correct usage, but oh well) if an individual's experience were confined to his family alone, as in the Swiss Family Robinson.

Second point...political views are nowhere near as correlative to families as you'd suggest. In fact, some socialist define an individual's origin of identity as beginning when he/she breaks away from his paternal ( or maternal if she were dominant) values in such areas as social interraction, religion, politics, and behavioural morality. In other words, generations often oppose the values , such as politics, of their parents in order to become their own person.

One area where values DO translate through hereditary values, if supported by some external support or personel trauma, is in the area of prejudices, but that isn't what you are talking about, one assumes.

 

Political socialization does come first from your family. You views on everything are confined to your family for the first few years of your life. And friends have little impact on you until your older to understand. Whether you agree with their views or not, your socialization comes mainly from your parents.


Richard Murray has said several times in class "Whether you knew it or not, if the Presidnet came on television when you were little and your parents turned it off, that sent you a message." And like I said, every single other professor I have ever had that has addressed the subject has agreed that the main source of socialization comes from your parents.

I am not suggesting that everyone is exactly like their parents. I am not even saying that people do not reject the values held by their parents. Political socialization comes from several places. Number one has always been given to me as "Family." The rest are church, school, and friends, as well as others, in no particular order.

 

Very interesting thread, but since it's basically a rehash of "that other thread", I'll be "over there" if anyone needs me...

It's also hard to jump in when you can't figure out who people are responding to... One of the drawbacks of an ignore list.

 

What do you see as the problem, Grizzled?

The person who wrote the article seems more concerned with US dominance that what some radical nations are doing. The debate here centers on WHETHER the US should do anything, not what. Whether we have the right to, whether are self-serving motivations pollute our good intentions, whether we have good intentions at all, etc.

BTW, your jumping to conclusions that several of us are 'not listening' to others is offensive and obnoxious. How exactly, did you ascertain that I, for one, in my simple, singular post, was not considering both sides?

I am further curious...what viewpoint are you so certain that I failed to understand?

Why not show a little more caution before labeling people as close-minded or dense. You might find that your interpretations are more closely correlated to your jumping to conclusions than to other peoples' opinions.

 

Thanks for telling me to 'calm down', HayesStreet. Not at all patronising.

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.

1) What could I say that would prove that the US *isn't* better than the alternative? That's purely speculative - my opinion against yours. You can't prove it to me, and I can't prove it to you. We're at an impasse.

2) So I spent a lot of time giving several referenced examples - which you *asked* for - and you tell me, weirdly, that they're irrelevant to the current situation. I'm at a loss, here. Which historical examples could I give that you would 'allow' to be relevant? Where's the cutoff point - one generation? Two? Nothing beyond last week? I don't get it.

DaDakota:

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

Gah! Again! I don't even know how to *begin* to rebut this. I cannot *wait* to get back to my tiny little irrelevant boondocks of a country. We may be slightly 'backward', but no one there is *deluded* enough to make that kind of statement.

Princess:

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

It may be easier for *you*, but it really ruins my fun.

And how many examples do you have us the US actually trying to help versus the 3 examples you gave us of overthrowing democracies.

Oh, so *three* examples of the US *overthrowing democracies* (I love how you glibly gloss over that!) isn't *enough* to prove my point. Well listen, how about next time you give me some more specific parameters? Then I'll follow them to the letter and you won't be able to weasel out of acknowledging my argument.

And whatever the reason the government has for military action is fine.

This is like Invasion of the f*cking Body Snatchers or something. I give up. You win. Resistance is futile. I will be assimilated. U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

Come on guys, you can't read my sarcasm in the Jealous comment?

Oh, man some of you are so darned serious it is laughable.

I lived in the UK, I TOTALLY understand why they feel the way they do.

I DO think we have to talk to countries and get their opinions about things, and how they THINK we should act.

I DON'T think we have to get their permission to act.

But at least if people are informed and have a chance to speak up, that is better then just acting without consideration for other peoples and countries.

Opinions are like butts everyone has one, and if it ain't yours it's cracked.



DaDakota

 

dimsie-My point wasn't to gloss over those instances. I proved your point, but more often than not, the US has not overthrown democracies. There are numerous cases of the US going into other countires and changing things. You only have three to back up your case. So it proves that more often than not, you're wrong in this case.

And I didn't just mean any reason, but any of the reasons that have been given on here. If the US is acting in self-interest, we'll be better off for it as Americans, right? I'm not so naive that I think we should invade because they stuck their tongue out as us. Come on now.

 

Relax. You're jumping way ahead of yourself. It was an honest question and I was probably a little ticked at DaDakotas seemingly writing off all the concerns and points raised by one side of the argument as 'jealousy.' Perhaps you got lumped in somewhat unfairly.

But to address your post…
In this or any of the other related threads, I don't see anybody disputing the fact that Sadam is a threat. The question is how to best deal with that threat. In this thread numerous people have given examples of US intervention that did not produce the desired result, did great harm to the people and the nations, and generally didn't seem to have been well thought out to begin with. This is a rap sheet, if you will, shows a pattern of behaviour, and is relevant and admissible to this discussion, yet you just brush this off with your first sentence. Next, as discussed mostly in other threads but mentioned specifically in this article, the word evil is very problematic, and harkens back to an era where the US committed some particularly egregious errors with respect to foreign intervention. (see Nicaragua and Iran Contra) Again you brush this off by saying that if we really knew what they did we'd call them evil too. Even if this was true, it's not the point. The point is that the use of that word causes problems. And I'm not suggesting that it is even true. In fact, I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. It seems to me that this is a term designed to obfuscate. "We need to attack because they are evil." My initial response to this is that it is hype designed to try to keep me from thinking about the issues and to simply respond emotionally in some group think kind of way. (treeman gave a good summary of intended and achieved meanings is the axis thread, btw.)

"Proactivity for once"? It seems to me that that has been one of you problems in the past. You have acted before you thought a problem through thoroughly and you have ended up making the wrong moves.

Easier to sit back? In some circumstances this can be true, but in this case I think it's easier to simply wade in rather than to take the time to build a coalition, consider the tertiary issues, as treeman calls them, and devise ways to address them. In almost any project that you can think of that experiences problems, one of the major causes is insufficient planning, problem solving, and risk identification and mitigation in advance. Fast-tracking a project is risky business, and fast-tracking when it's not necessary is simply foolish.

The article…
What the author sees in the US's methods causes him to question the motives. I haven't reread the article, but I don't think he is saying that Sadam is not a problem, he is suggesting that the US is taking this opportunity to extend its world power. Incidentally, this is a position that I don't necessarily agree with. The US's track record and methods, however, I do have concerns about.

DaDakota:
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if you were joking or not.