Yuku free message boards

Originally posted by seanf2003:

Quote:

---

It's a little different for me as I don't live in America - to me it's the big scary superpower run by a very scary man, and reading Michael Moore's books and watching the standard of the american news on satellite T.V has only served to make it even more scary.

---

I've seen this sentiment expressed a lot, particularly by Europeans. I have to say that I don't understand it, not one little bit. There is a whole lot of rhetoric flying around about how America is so dangerous, such a loose cannon, such an empire, but I don't see one shred of evidence to support any of it.

First of all, look at our history. America has repeatedly won wars in Europe and in Asia - we were the first and only nation to bring the military theocracy of Japan to it's knees - and yet has not ever, not once, remained to rule the territory won. In fact, quite the opposite: When Americans vanquish an enemy, we rebuild their country, give them democracy and capitalism, and then go home! Let these words sink in real good: There has never, in the history of the human race, been a power so dominant yet so benign as the United States of America. History shows quite plainly that America liberates other nations, it does not conquer them; the only territory we ask to keep is a bit of ground on which to bury the Americans who gave their lives so that others might be free.

Secondly, look at our power. For the last five decades America has lived with the knowledge that it could, if it so desired, utterly destroy every last enemy it has. If the enemy happened to be one of the other big boys (Russia or China) the price would be high, but to anyone else we could pretty much dictate whatever terms we liked and simply vaporize those who refused to comply. And yet we never have - never even thought about using our power in such a way, in fact. The vast majority of Americans see our nuclear arsenal as having but one purpose: To deter other nuclear powers from ever considering a first strike. If America was really so callous, so unconcerned, if we really were such big bullies, then every last major Muslim city would have been a glowing cloud of radioactive vapor by September 15th, 2001. No nation in the history of the human race has had so much power yet used it with such restraint.

Lastly, I ask you to picture the ideal world government. I'll name some of the characteristics for you, just to start off: Free. Democratic. Pluralistic. Strong. Pragmatic. Courageous. Charitable. Okay, now think of different nations and how many of those characteristics they can claim as their own: China? 2 or 3. Iran? 1 (maybe). Russia? 3. Brazil? 4. Britain and Australia? Much better at 5 or 6 each. But all 7 belong to one nation alone, and that nation is America. If you wash away all of the jealousy-driven, fear-addled rhetoric you realize that America is, simply and plainly, the closest mankind has ever come to creating a utopia.

Is America perfect? No, of course not. We have our problems and we've made horrible mistakes in the past. So what? Who hasn't? The thing that matters is that our system works, and works well, and that when we go to war we go to liberate people and bring a larger, more lasting peace. I shouldn't have to argue such a point very far because history bears it out (as it does every other point I've made in this post).

The simple fact of the matter is that the political left in this country (which, on social issues, I'm usually quite sympathetic towards) is angry, weak, and leaderless. They're angry that Republicans are winning elections, angry that a Republican president is so popular, and angry that conservative military doctrine has proven to be so effective. The real reason that Al Franken and (gag - I can barely bring myself to type The Repulsive One's name) Michael Moore are having such success is that they're simply tapping into the anger and humiliation of liberal America. Rush Limbaugh (another sneering jerk I despise, BTW) did the exact same thing during the Clinton presidency. Limbaugh, Moore, and Franken are all the same; they thrive on the resentment and bitterness of the party that's out of power.

Well, I'm sure all of that is going to get some of the lefties around here frothing pretty good. I'm prepared to defend the points made above (and a whole heap of others I'm sure most BT denizens are going to hate as well). I would only urge any respondents to read my member introduction before charging in with a bunch of "You fascist jerk!" nonsense.


S

Originally posted by Dom:

Quote:

---

Err... Its exactly that sort of self-righteous preaching that raises the hackles of everyone else. Along with most of Europe we got most of this powermongering out of our system by the start of the century, and mostly wander around being vaguely apologetic for once 'owning' a vaste empire, with the constant reminders of the vaste battlefields (Flanders anyone) that this leads to.

---

Well, I thought my post was pretty clear on at least one point: America is not an empire. We administer no foreign nations, colonize no other continents, and we do not plunder the wealth of other civilizations to fill the coffers of Washington. Every single time we have conquered and occupied another country we've turned around and rebuilt it better than it was before we came, and then we go away. Perhaps "that kind of self-righteous preaching" does raise hackles in Europe, but the preaching only comes as a response the accusations flying our way from across the Atlantic. When you guys knock off the "America the Horrible Empire" crap I guarantee we'll stop reminding you of how much you owe us in money and blood.

As for not being able to see the forest for the trees, I don't quite take your meaning; the metaphor seems inappropriate. It's usually meant to mean "You can't see the big picture because you're too close to the situation". The picture I'm seeing and talking about - American war victories and our ability to avoid the dubious pleasures of Imperialism - is pretty darn big. I don't see how it gets much bigger (unless we start talking about world governments, which we can if you'd like).

And lastly,

Quote:

---

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

---

Indeed. And you're absolutely certain it's me who's refusing to do the seeing, are you?


S

Jeremy says:

Quote:

---

Conservatives and republicans are not univesally bad or wrong; liberals and democrats are not necessarily right, or good. However. The behaviour of the republicans in Congress and the media during the Clinton administration bordered on treason. (This is not a "you are too" to Ann Coulter; I made this assertion as soon as the sex "scandal" was escalated). The President had a country to run, terrorists to capture (Clinton actually captured and persued terrorists, unlike his successor) and the right wing machine did everthing in their power to interfere with his ability to do the things he needed to do for the country, for their own narrow political gain.

---

I agree with this, for the most part. I've stated in another thread that my argument isn't with "liberals" or "democrats" as a group, but rather with those extreme far-leftists who - along with the nations of Arabia and Old Europe - have adopted a Blame America strategy. I have nothing against Bill Clinton and I think he got a raw deal from the press and the Republicans. The former nailed him to the wall because he lied; if he had simply said "I don't talk to the press about my personal life" or something similar the scandal would have been much lessened. The Republicans, in my opinion, were getting revenge for the pummeling that the Democrats handed Nixon in the early 70's (insert joke about an elephant's long memory here). Regardless, both parties are opportunistic and tend to behave poorly when things aren't going their way - just look at the present filibustering in congress over judicial nominees - and I think the vast majority of Americans are sick of it. Speak with your vote.

Quote:

---

Whether an unprovoked attack on a foreign country is empire building... you make a good case that it is not... or not, it has got to be scary for the rest of the world. Since WWII we have been moving toward a world society of laws and cooperation. Now we have a president who chooses to tell a nuclear power that they are "evil", that they are one of an "axis of evil", refuses to talk to that country, then launches a unilateral attack on one of the two other countries he called "evil".

---

We part ways here. My considered opinion is that the Iraq war was not an "unprovoked attack" (nor is it anything close to empire building - if it was gasoline wouldn't cost $.10 / gallon there and $1.60 / gallon here) because the "provocation" was clear and present. When we crossed the Kuwaiti frontier in March of 2003 it was not the initiation of hostilities, but rather the resumption of hostilities. Saddam Hussein started a war in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait; he then signed a term-laden ceasefire agreement after the first coalition handed him his ass. He utterly failed to meet the terms of that ceasefire, so hostilities were resumed in 2003 to enforce the terms and remove a noncompliant dictator from power. Last spring's events in the Persian gulf did not occur in a vacuum, they were preceded by more than a decade of UN resolutions and second chances for Saddam and his regime. By what twist of logic does one assume that yet another set of resolutions would have started him complying with the ceasefire terms he had largely ignored since signing them in 1991?

Saddam was clearly "evil" by even the most generous definition of the word. Kim Jong Il is as well; any leader who willingly starves millions of his own people to save face and retain power cannot be anything but evil. Therefore I have no problem with the President identifying both regimes as such. Because the DPRK has a couple nuclear bombs it does vastly complicate the situation, but I hardly see the logic behind softening our stance based on that fact. How would it be anything less than acquiescing to blackmail? And as to "[refusing] to talk" to them - nonsense. We've invited dialog with the DPRK for over two years now, simply insisting that China, S Korea, and Japan be involved in the talks. It's the DPRK itself that has "refused to talk". It's interesting that the left whines so loudly about Bush's lack of multilateralism in Iraq but condemns him for insisting on it in Asia (where the stakes are arguably much higher because of the nuclear issue).

Quote:

---

Neither France nor Great Britain has any realistic concern that the United States will attack them. But where will they be, how badly will they be hurt if we allow Bush to start a war with North Korea? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? These are the noises he is making, and his previous actions give us no reason to think he will not do these things.

---

A blogger I read quite often uses this analogy (or something close):

Three men live in the woods. A very large and dangerous bear also lives in the woods. Two of the men are armed only with knives, so for them the bear is something to evade in the hopes that they'll never have to fight it; it's a dangerous game, but they are best served by avoiding a confrontation. The third man, however, has a rifle and plenty of ammunition. Why should he tolerate the continuing threat represented by the bear? After all, it might come after him when he is unprepared or sleeping and then his rifle will be of no use. For him, it's a far better strategy to load the rife, hunt down the bear, and kill it. And in the end all three men will be safer because he did so.

Strong nations think differently than weak ones.

The possibility of war with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or the DPRK is an entire thread unto itself so I'll refrain from going into it here to any real depth. Suffice it to say that my opinion is that democratic reform must come to the Arabian peninsula and surrounding regions, that stability is not a desirable goal if said stability belongs to theocracies and dictatorships, and that you can leave the small honey-and-berry eating bears alone but the grizzlies you're going to have to hunt down sooner or later.

Quote:

---

This man, this administration do not represent me, do not represent what is good in America, do not represent anything positive for human kind. There is no reason at all that America cannot be turned around and if we stop our current persistent threats to world peace, no reason why our past and present good cannot again be recognized again. But if America is foolish enough to extend the Bush/Ashcroft anti-american franchise, we may all be in deep, deep shit.

---

I disagree with almost all of this (the exception being the part about Bush and his administration not representing you - they obviously do not - but you should remember that many Americans felt similarly about Clinton). For the reasons stated above - and many others - I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are necessary to win a larger peace, no matter how unpopular in Europe and Arabia. I don't believe that peace comes by erecting pink cardboard "peace tanks" in London or carrying "No Blood for Oil!" signs in Seattle. I think that peace does come from free and stable societies who champion education and pluralism over religion and tribalism, and I believe we're going to have to create such societies in Arabia instead of just waiting for them to happen (because we learned on September 11th, 2001 that waiting was no longer an option).


S





edited to correct a typo

Dissident says:

Quote:

---

In the best Colonial trappings, the wild animals of the darker tribes are menacing threats to the brave hunters of Civilization. Although they may occasionally slip into provoked ugliness, these Great White Hunters are never animals themselves- operating out of the hunger for power, territory and resources for their appetites and lusts.

Etc...

---

As usual, Dissident, you are overthinking my statement and seeing deeper meanings that simply don't exist. The "Bear Story" is not a metaphor for racism and colonialist expansion, but a simple parable that attempts to deliver a simple point: Strong nations approach the problem of external threat differently than weak ones. Remember that even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

And I'm not going to get drawn into another quagmire of semantics and rhetoric with you. I speak plainly and truthfully; all of my statements in this thread (or any other) can be taken at face value. I will not respond to further deconstructionist nonsense.


S