[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 06:15 AM, said:

i looked up 'imperialist' and found

The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor".

america has no emperor and is not an empire... i don't believe that the use of military force, in and of itself, is grounds for labeling the u.s. as imperialistic... doing so is simply subjective... subjectivism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does carry with it preconceptual connotations, and it can call into question ones motives... even though it isn't always possible to be objective, it should be possible to make the attempt...

it somehow seems ingenious to say, "we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire)" while ignoring the fact that this adjective is commonly used when people refer to the 'american empire'... so using the adjective at least implies the noun... and since 'empires' can be viewed historically, it's easy to see that america does not fall into that category

while "imperialism by proxy" has a nice ring to it, there is an inherent contradiction in the terms... since iraq is in the news, use it as an example... america isn't seeking to make iraq the 51st state, we don't want them paying homage to us, or taxes, or anything else... we want a free iraq...

who is it exactly who doesn't want freedom in iraq? is it the majority of its citizens? iow, does this majority long for the old days under saddam, prior to the imperialistic invasion by the usa? or do the majority of iraqis want a free, democratic country?

does america gain with a democratic society in the middle east? absolutely... as a matter of fact, the world gains... the more democracies that exist, the more freedom that exists, the safer and saner the world becomes... in such a world, all profit...

time after time we see and hear evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people in iraq want self-rule.. they do not want a dictator, they want a democratic government... who stands to lose by such an arrangement? the terrorists who are pulling out all the stops to keep the people under their control (yes terrorists... i refuse to use the pc word 'insurgents')... so a minority (the martial terrorists) seek to keep the majority enslaved, a majority that longs for freedom

imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires...

I like to see you feel deep solidarity with your country. I feel the same way for Denmark. But unlike you I think it is my responsibility to help friends to avoid problems. Simply to test the wisdom of proposed actions.

If you want to be helpful to America you ought to pledge for US not to go abroad unless:

a manifest will of those people to support

citizens of US to apply to important international treaties like Geneva convention and international war tribunal

There are at least one good example of interference by US. That is supporting Solidarnosc during whole 1980's. A succesful outcome we are greatful of - tumbling down the Berlin Wall. This was not done by military power but wisely done behind the curtains.

US have failed not to support manifest will of the people:

Hungary in 1956
Czekoslovakia in 1968
Iraq in 1991

US has intervened against a manifest will of the people

Chile 1973


I think US ought to be more reluctant to police outside their borders. Please remember the mandate for an american president is 25% of US citizens now, earlier even smaller. Such will in a european context qualify for nothing else than cancellation of the election due to low turnout.

[pbleighton]

"imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires... "

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom. They were about toppling regimes we didn't like. In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments. In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate. Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed. This is also seen in the history of the other major post WW II imperialistic power, the former Soviet Union. I'm sure that they would have liked to extend their borders in the old-fashioned Roman/British way, but they (like us) realized that it wasn't feasible. They became puppetmasters instead.

So we have some recent company.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom.  They were about toppling regimes we didn't like.  In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments.  In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate.  Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution... in any event, i believe it's simplistic to attach evil motives to the '53 coup without taking into account all that was happening (ussr, the tudeh party, etc) at that time...

vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war

the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though, and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)... this is another case of us involvement based on perceived national interest

nicaragua is no different from the above in that the events of the time have to be factored in... it's easy to look back and say what one would or would not do... it's another thing to take into account the very real threat of coummunist expansion into this hemisphere (where one cuba was thought to be one too many)

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

now it's possible that if you were running the show during any of those moments, your decisions would have been different... it's also possible that your decisions would have resulted in a better, safer, united states... but somehow i doubt it

Quote

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

over troubled waters? i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all? i suppose one could argue whether or not a certain thing (say, for example, foreign oil) *should* be important to us... i wish it wasn't, personally... but the fact is, we are dependent upon commodities outside our own borders.... so yes, the reason for the invasion of iraq was multi-faceted... overthrow hussein, secure a vital commodity, hope to implant a democratic society in that region

i am not smart enough to know the long-range results of either acting or not... i suspect it's barely possible that you aren't either... but i think it's probably wise to set priorities when speaking of decisions made by a country... what would yours be? would decisions concerning america's national security and/or interests be high on your list? i'd think they should be high on any leader's list, else s/he might not be the one for the job

Quote

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed.

perhaps so, but it helps to be discussing the same thing... for that reason, i object to the use of the term 'imperialistic'

i think the saint's posts have been reasoned and sum up a lot of my beliefs... like him, i'm basically optimistic about our future, tho like wayne i do worry that all civilizations carry within themselves the ability to collapse... i just think that one based on freedom, given the power to maintain that freedom, does not have to fall

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

[mike777]

Since this is the "Conspiracy Thread" I hope some of you will check out and post in my "Singularity is Near" thread.

1) A conspiracy of Nanobots?
2) A conspiracy of Strong AI?
3) A conspiracy of clones?
4) A conspiracy of humans with implanted digitial chips and robotic parts?

I think we all can come up with a lot more conspiracy theories .

[luke warm]

csdenmark, on Apr 2 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)

[pbleighton]

"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"

Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.

"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"

Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.

"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"

A plurality is a victory in a democracy.

" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"

The CIA had more than a minor role here.

"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"

No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.

Peter

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 2 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)

Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.

For me danish natural interests are quite different than those assumed to be national interests for my political opponents. Fx. danish involvement in wars in general but especially long from danish borders.

The danish EU involvement is another topic where the arguments goes like yours. That project has a long term perspective to make an end of Denmark as an sovereign nation. Such is a political view shared by our right-wing intellectual elite. Their perspectives for the future I certainly don't share. They are frightening and I am completely unable to see the interests of a nation to make an end of itself.

Sorry Jimmy - the way I understand you I cannot buy your argument. The way I see the world is that a decision benefitting somebody is to disadvantage to others. I think it cannot be in any other way. 1$ can be used for this or that but not for this and that.

[csdenmark]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"

Constitution?  The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.

"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"

Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave.  My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.

"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"

A plurality is a victory in a democracy.

" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"

The CIA had more than a minor role here.

"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"

No.  What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century.  We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country.  We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense.  Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position.  It is also imperialistic.  Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

It is morally wrong.  It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two.  When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind.  This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well.  During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably.  He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant.  In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.

Peter

Peter it looks to me that there are only slight differences in your descriptions of facts compared to Jimmy's.

It would be of very much interest to me if you would be able to get a bit deeper into the decision structures. American political system is very different to what we have here. Lobby-groups, think-tanks, limit public debate, over-political presidential leadership.

I often wonder why it looks like american president acts very strange. It looks like their most quailified decision is the appointment of an often very well-qualified foreign secretary. Is it so that foreign secretary is mostly independent of think-tanks and the political parties and financers but only needs to pay attention to lobby groups?

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

No.  What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century.

"wrong" is a moral judgment, so i'll address that later

Quote

We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country.  We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense.

not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here

Quote

Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position.  It is also imperialistic.  Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views

Quote

It is morally wrong.

now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?

claus said:

Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.

i know there isn't any bad will, claus.. what i meant by my post was that the decisions made by the leaders of this country have spanned ideological views... this can be seen by examining under whose watch certain things were done...

[pbleighton]

"which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views"

I never said that it didn't (to a certain extent) span the political spectrum IN THIS COUNTRY (though there has always been significant dissent, mostly on the left). There may be a consensus regarding a particular issues, or cluster of issues, in a particular country, but that does not make such consensus position non-ideological - it merely says that a substantial majority of people in one particular country during a particular period of time shared a particular ideological position. It seems that you are confusing political consensus with some sort of nonideological "objectivity". What I call imperialism, or puppetmastery, and you call the agressive pursuit of national interest though miltiary and economic force, is an inherently ideological issue. It cannot be otherwise. It is a complex issue with many strrongly held ideas on both sides.

"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"

I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.

"not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here"

Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries. In other words, the importance the quality of life, security, etc. of American people is so much greater than that of other people, that we should ignore the effect on foreigners in our moral calculus. This, by the way, is a profoundly ideological position.

It doesn't take much in the way of historical example to demonstrate how silly this blanket absolution is. Would you like me to do so?

BTW, I may be incommunicado for most of next week - I will respond as I can today, then you will have to wait for my delicious morsels of wisdom

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 04:43 PM, said:

"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"

I said nothing about measurement.  It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself).  It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.

well you did say, "It is morally wrong." ... perhaps that sentiment is merely an opinion, but it's stated as a fact... all i asked was, whose morality are you using to measure this against?

it appears to me that to make an appeal to morality one must take the position that such a thing exists... if that's your position, i agree with you... but then, as c.s. lewis might have said, i have some idea of the appearance of a straight stick, which makes it easier to recognize the crooked one

from a philosophical point of view, i agree that the usa has performed acts of questionable morality... i happen to believe the ends do not justify the means... but my arguments to date haven't been based on my persona beliefs, but on whether or not the usa has acted in what it perceives to be its nat'l interest, and whether such acts could be labeled 'imperialistic'

Quote

Your position appears to boil down to this:  if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries.

no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light ... "for all have sinned..." - nations as well as individuals - "... and fallen short of the glory of God"

i will be gone the entire month of april, myself... not *gone*, but away from home for odd hours, sometimes overnight... it's a busy month for me

[pbleighton]

"no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage......

Peter

[luke warm]

whether or not that's true, i'd still be interested in knowing upon what you base this ethereal concept of 'morality'...

[pbleighton]

As Potter Stewart said of pornography, it is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it...

Why does discussing the moral dimension of foreign policy make you so nervous?

Peter

[luke warm]

it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say

i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject

potter stewart indeed

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say

i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject

potter stewart indeed

Jimmy I don't understand your problems with the term moral. Maybe that's why I still don't understand your meaning of the word national interests.

The way you think is your decent behavior to others - that reflects your moral beliefs. If somebody advocates cruelty I think they are advocating immoral point of views. Agent Orange and death penalty are just 2 examples of immoral behavior.

You may find guidiance for moral in your political books, leaders in newspapers, the bible, UN covenants of human rights etc.

[AceOfHeart]

morals is what you grow up with.

If you grow up in the cannibals tribe, it is moral to eat fellow human beings.

[Codo]

Hi Luke,

you still belive in living in the greatest country?
I think, with this statement, you exactly named the factor, why an awful lot of people hates the US.

They simple hate guys, who think, they are simply the best.
They simply hate guys, who do not respect their ideas and religion.
They simply hate guys, which send their 5. cavalary to get the american way of living into their or other countries.

Your country has the power of a big brother. But maybe your country is not old enough and has it time as a bully right now.

Most people in Western Europe loved the US or at least respected them. But a lot of people lost this feelings due to the cowboy mentality of Mr Bush and his Father and Mr. Reagans politics.

Unfourtunately your nation does not make a lot of democratic moves in foreign affairs.

Most UN_Resolutions are not against Taliban/Communist block/whoever. Most had been send against Israel and the US.

You did not pay your part of UN-fees for several years, because you did not like the way it was spend. (I think, there had been an agreement some years ago, but it happend tillthe 90`s)

The US is one of a few countries, which did not sign the Kyoto protocoll.

The US does not respect the International Court in Den Haag. It is not allowed to get US Soldiers for their war crimes in front of this court.

They did not helped Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam or the Iraq. They did it for their own economical interest.

If you want to be the greatest, you must be ethical ahead all others. To stay the greatest, you must learn to serve and to spend your power, when they are needed and not, when you decide, that they are needed.

But anyway, there had been a lot of big countries in history, which had been able to rule "their" world. Some for some years like Alexander the great, some tried it for thousand years and felt after twelve, some stayed on top for hundred years.

But in two hunderd years, nobody will care much about the states we have now. New "greatest" countries, new leading economics will rule the world, so we just have to sit and wait...

A game of bridge while we are waiting?

[Al_U_Card]

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

"why isn't america the greatest country in the world?"

Because Canada is.