Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nakura on January 23, 2014, 09:37:29 pm
-
Not sure if I'm trolling my Facebook friends, or merely expressing a valid opinion. Either way, I wasn't hesitant to post this on my wall:
What people, our government especially, fail to understand is that the "drug cartel problem," isn't a problem at all. It's an opportunity, a perfect opportunity. An opportunity to bolster pro-American sentiments in Latin America. We are absolutely more than capable of eliminating every drug cartel in Mexico with minimal American casualties; drones and air strikes (though this would be coupled with a ground component.).
Additionally, we would legalization the drugs that the cartels profit from and focus on rebuilding of Mexico's economy. We could also take this opportunity to purge their government of "corruption" (read: anti-America sympathizers). What do you say we take the fight to them and destroy the cartels once and for all?
Look, our immigration problem is solved as well. Plus we can annex Mexico, which we should have done centuries ago. *Grabs popcorn.*
Edit: C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
-
You probably should've been, your first paragraph is a lie, your second isn't that wrong, your third is dumb.
-
You probably should've been, your first paragraph is a lie, your second isn't that wrong, your third is dumb.
The American intelligence community has access to all the information in the world, all they have to do is get their act together and rid themselves of incompetence.
-
If only. You have a naive faith in the structural and operational capabilities of American strategic ISR and (more importantly) our capability to integrate that information into effective policy that's belied by more than a century of foreign policy history.
-
If only. You have a naive faith in the structural and operational capabilities of American strategic ISR and (more importantly) our capability to integrate that information into effective policy that's belied by more than a century of foreign policy history.
I am supremely disappointed that we don't have regime change and covert operations down to a science these days. I'm fairly naive, General Battuta, no offensive taken. Most of what I say comes from a philosophical perspective, rather than a practical one. The human element always messes things up, as humans are incompetent, unreliable and prone to error by nature.
-
If only. You have a naive faith in the structural and operational capabilities of American strategic ISR and (more importantly) our capability to integrate that information into effective policy that's belied by more than a century of foreign policy history.
I am supremely disappointed that we don't have regime change and covert operations down to a science these days. I'm fairly naive, General Battuta, no offensive taken. Most of what I say comes from a philosophical perspective, rather than a practical one. The human element always messes things up, as humans are incompetent, unreliable and prone to error by nature.
A lot of the problem is that we do have regime change and covert operations down to a science. The problem, from both a foreign policy and an "Oh God we ****ed it up" standpoint is that we keep using those particular skillsets.
-
You seem to also be forgetting the global repercussions that can spark from such an action...
-
I am supremely disappointed that we don't have
I am supremely disappointed that you're still allowed to post in Gen Disc.
-
What people, our government especially, fail to understand is that the "drug cartel problem," isn't a problem at all. It's an opportunity, a perfect opportunity. An opportunity to bolster pro-American sentiments in Latin America. We are absolutely more than capable of eliminating every drug cartel in Mexico with minimal American casualties; drones and air strikes (though this would be coupled with a ground component.).
Additionally, we would legalization the drugs that the cartels profit from and focus on rebuilding of Mexico's economy. We could also take this opportunity to purge their government of "corruption" (read: anti-America sympathizers). What do you say we take the fight to them and destroy the cartels once and for all?
Ehrm. Hasn't this been going on for the last 10 years or so? Something called a "War on Drugs" which involved drone intelligence gatheirng, ground strikes, and arresting 14 year old teenage girls for prostitution?
Also, I do recall something similar being pulled of a few years back. The Vietnam War?
And something called Iraq? Which descended into Civil war?
And Afghanistan?
---
What makes you believe it will actually work this time?
-
What people, our government especially, fail to understand is that the "drug cartel problem," isn't a problem at all. It's an opportunity, a perfect opportunity. An opportunity to bolster pro-American sentiments in Latin America. We are absolutely more than capable of eliminating every drug cartel in Mexico with minimal American casualties; drones and air strikes (though this would be coupled with a ground component.).
Additionally, we would legalization the drugs that the cartels profit from and focus on rebuilding of Mexico's economy. We could also take this opportunity to purge their government of "corruption" (read: anti-America sympathizers). What do you say we take the fight to them and destroy the cartels once and for all?
Ehrm. Hasn't this been going on for the last 10 years or so? Something called a "War on Drugs" which involved drone intelligence gatheirng, ground strikes, and arresting 14 year old teenage girls for prostitution?
No. That's about arresting black people to use prisoners as a de facto slave class.
-
What people, our government especially, fail to understand is that the "drug cartel problem," isn't a problem at all. It's an opportunity, a perfect opportunity. An opportunity to bolster pro-American sentiments in Latin America. We are absolutely more than capable of eliminating every drug cartel in Mexico with minimal American casualties; drones and air strikes (though this would be coupled with a ground component.).
Additionally, we would legalization the drugs that the cartels profit from and focus on rebuilding of Mexico's economy. We could also take this opportunity to purge their government of "corruption" (read: anti-America sympathizers). What do you say we take the fight to them and destroy the cartels once and for all?
Ehrm. Hasn't this been going on for the last 10 years or so? Something called a "War on Drugs" which involved drone intelligence gatheirng, ground strikes, and arresting 14 year old teenage girls for prostitution?
No. That's about arresting black people to use prisoners as a de facto slave class.
Oooooh.
-
If only. You have a naive faith in the structural and operational capabilities of American strategic ISR and (more importantly) our capability to integrate that information into effective policy that's belied by more than a century of foreign policy history.
I am supremely disappointed that we don't have regime change and covert operations down to a science these days. I'm fairly naive, General Battuta, no offensive taken. Most of what I say comes from a philosophical perspective, rather than a practical one. The human element always messes things up, as humans are incompetent, unreliable and prone to error by nature.
Jesus Christ, are you oblivious to the fact that the majority of the anti American sentiment in the Middle East and South America stems from the fact that we actively practiced regime change in those regions during the Cold War? That we put in charge whatever tin god asshat we could in so long as he wasn't a fricken Commie? Seriously look up the Shah of Iran, then look at our relationship today with Iran today.
And if history isn't enough to make this abundantly clear, do you think you would like it if China or the EU decided to do the same thing to the United States? You think that would engender peaceful warm fuzzy feeling for the foreign power responsible?
-
Yeah, I'm not sure he's aware of where bin Laden and al-Qaeda came from or who trained them, nor of our history of sponsoring out and out slaughter of political opponents (don't watch The Act of Killing if you ever want to feel good about being an American again).
No American program of massive top-down force against a social problem has ever succeeded, because we don't have good maps of how to convert coercive force into successful outcomes. There might not be any effective routes to map at all.
-
I am supremely disappointed that we don't have
I am supremely disappointed that you're still allowed to post in Gen Disc.
To elaborate:
Your premise is some of the worst kind of short sighted nationalistic thinking. This comes down to more than just a differences of opinion and belief, because as others have already pointed out we have a great many historical examples of how the US taking such actions has been objectively bad, and in the case of Al Qaeda/bin Laden, directly led to Americans being killed!
But whatever, let's not allow reality and history to stand in the way of your martial fantasies. Please for the love of god, start a war right next door to my state.
-
One of the most striking parts of Dirty Wars occurs on the eve of the war in Afghanistan. The director of the CIA gives a big speech to remind his subordinates of what's important: this is the CIA's chance to secure its place as a cornerstone of American policy and overseas capabilities for the next century. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif)
Of course, maybe his concerns about securing bureaucratic turf were justified. When the CIA kept reporting that Iraq had no WMDs, Rumsfeld froze them out and invented his own intelligence agency within the Pentagon to give him politically useful information. When the CIA was reluctant to carry out assassinations, the Bush and Obama administrations froze them out and moved to create a direct pipeline from the President to JSOC to kill people with less bureaucratic overhead.
-
So . . . the CIA is to ethical for the CIC? That's kinda ****in scary.
-
Yeah, like, why would you want to make it harder to start wars and assassinate people?
(http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-suicide.gif)
-
Yeah, I'm not sure he's aware of where bin Laden and al-Qaeda came from or who trained them, nor of our history of sponsoring out and out slaughter of political opponents (don't watch The Act of Killing if you ever want to feel good about being an American again).
No American program of massive top-down force against a social problem has ever succeeded, because we don't have good maps of how to convert coercive force into successful outcomes. There might not be any effective routes to map at all.
I hope you're joking, Battuta. I'm an international relations major and have taken four college courses on the subject, not to mention have read countless scholarly journals and books about American foreign policy in the 20th century. I know almost every technical detail in the lead-up and execution of both Operation Ajax and the Vietnam War. Are you really so opposed to anyone who dares disagree with you, even slightly (which I haven't even done), that you must instantly jump on a bandwagon on make condescending statements about how I don't know about the coup in Iran or our Vietnam policy?
I'm well aware that a good deal of the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East (and to a lesser extent Latin America, though that is another topic entirely) is caused by Operation Ajax. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the Islamist movement wouldn't have occurred regardless of whether or not we overthrew the government of Iran. Islamic extremism was on the rise well before we overthrew Mossadegh.
The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups started gaining momentum in the early 20th century. These groups spawned the masterminds like Sayyid Qutb, who vehemently opposed the United States and secularism well before any American regime change in the Middle East. This is to say nothing of America's support of Israel, or the fact that the Soviet Union was playing the same game we were, backing anti-American dictators in the region, like Yasser Arafat and Gamal Nasser.
Have I argued in favor of Operation Ajax or even our Vietnam policy? No, in fact, I have long argued the opposite. I was a strong proponent of forcing a peaceful settlement between the French and Viet Minh immediately following World War II, coupled with economic and political assistance to the newly independent Vietnamese state. I even wrote essays arguing against American intervention in both conflicts for my class and received a 100% on both essays. So where exactly does this theory of yours that I supported regime change in Iran or Vietnam come from?
-
I agree that Islamism probably would've happened no matter what - the seeds were there very early in the 20th. I don't think America would be a target for those groups if not for our own foreign policy.
You've advocated for interventionism on tactical grounds which, I think, is an argument that's undone by the history of our attempted interventions in the past 100 years. I'm not sure why you're bringing Vietnam into this (The Act of Killing covers the slaughter of dissidents in Sumatra, which occurred under a US-backed regime).
Twilight Struggle is a really good board game though.
-
Right, okay, as nice as the fact that you know the names and dates is, please get back to the topic, or to be more precise, this point Battuta made:
No American program of massive top-down force against a social problem has ever succeeded, because we don't have good maps of how to convert coercive force into successful outcomes. There might not be any effective routes to map at all.
You were arguing for intervening in another country's politics, despite a noted lack of a positive track record for american politics. You were also saying that you were arguing from a non-practical philosophical standpoint (Which leads me to ask whether there's some disconnect between the part of your brain that studied history, and the part of your brain that comes up with these ideas of yours).
Also, please recall the circumstances surrounding your previous instances of trolling these boards. You were doing very well there for a few months, being a normal member of this board and all. Do not backslide into your previous habits, even if it is in this circuitous "I posted this on facebook" way.
-
I agree that Islamism probably would've happened no matter what - the seeds were there very early in the 20th. I don't think America would be a target for those groups if not for our own foreign policy.
You've advocated for interventionism on tactical grounds which, I think, is an argument that's undone by the history of our attempted interventions in the past 100 years. I'm not sure why you're bringing Vietnam into this (The Act of Killing covers the slaughter of dissidents in Sumatra, which occurred under a US-backed regime).
The Islamist movement likely wouldn't have grown as big without Operation Ajax, and the anti-American sentiment wouldn't be as strong, but I think it would still be there. Qutb and others have long written of the horrors of secularism in America and Europe, and how they go against fundamental "Islamic values." A confrontation between Islamists and the West would seem to be inevitable.
There is also the case of Israel, which America (and to a lesser extent Europe) has long defended, and even established. Even if the United States hadn't provided support for the Israelis in Six-Day War (though we had been supporting them beforehand, albeit to a lesser extent), the fact that the United States and Western world established Israel in the first-place was a cause of some contention. Though technically the British were initially opposed to the idea, and the Jewish/secular settlers had to fight a bloody war for their own independence from the British and Islamists.
By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail. I, on the other hand, believe that in a select few cases, intervention is justified and that the end will outweigh the means. We have plenty of examples of successful nation-building, such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.
I just feel that dismissing interventionism and regime change completely out of hand would be foolish. Just as dismissing peaceful cooperation and negotation out of hand would be foolish. There is no simple fix to every problem in the world, a strategy that works in one situation, may not necessarily work in another; and vice-versa.
I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86659.msg1731716#msg1731716).
Twilight Struggle is a really good board game though.
Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.
-
It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.
I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post.
With the risk of sounding harsh, I would find it convenient if you'd recognize me and GB as completely seperate persons and tune your responses with that in mind.
-
It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.
Yes. There really is no topic. This thread is just happening on it's own, so I don't think The E should be telling Nakura what the topic is "supposed to be". And when has there ever been something like that, topics change into new things from the original discussion all the time. It's not like Nakura started it with the topic title it now has. I think it was just your typical lighthearted WHIYL post.
-
By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail.
I think interventions targeting social problems without good causal maps are doomed to fail. Your list of successful nation-building tactics is, uh, really questionable. Hawaii? The Philippines? Grenada? Panama? Many of these were debacles; others we can't take credit for.
There is no simple fix to every problem in the world, a strategy that works in one situation, may not necessarily work in another; and vice-versa.
I can get behind that.
Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.
You know what else is a good game?
-
It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.
I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post.
With the risk of sounding harsh, I would find it convenient if you'd recognize me and GB as completely seperate persons and tune your responses with that in mind.
Yes, yes of course. My apologies, Joshua, I suppose I got caught up in my post and forgot to address you separately, or at the very least quote your post and start a new paragraph. You aren't sounding harsh at all, my friend, your concern is indeed a valid one.
-
such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.
Hmm. In the case of WW2, the conflict was already ongoing, and the US intervention mainly involved pumping massive amounts of money into already existing nations at that point in time.
The reason I brought up Vietnam and Afghanistan is because you mention "Drug Cartels", which seem to operate in a similar manner as the Vietcong and the Taliban (heck, the Taliban IS a drug cartel at this point). If you are so heavily opposed to Vietnam, why would you then suggest intervention against these drug cartels?
-
By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail.
I think interventions targeting social problems without good causal maps are doomed to fail. Your list of successful nation-building tactics is, uh, really questionable. Hawaii? The Philippines? Grenada? Panama? Many of these were debacles; others we can't take credit for.
A social problem, as in the one I mentioned in the OP? I believe I mentioned in my OP that combatting the drug cartels with force is only a small part of the intervention. We would help rebuild Mexico's political system and rebuild their economy. Social problems generally arise from economic problems. Not to mention drug liberalization would cut the cartels off from their primary income source.
Hawaii is now a first world, democratic state, and a proud member of the Union. The Philippines are one of our closest allies in the Pacific and hold the United States in high esteem; though the transition to independence could have gone a little smoother. Post-invasion Grenada and Panama have both ranked fairly high in most international indexes, such as the Democracy Index, Human Development Index and Freedom in the World.
Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.
You know what else is a good game?
Paths of Glory, or so I hear. I've been meaning to pick that one up as well. However, I get the feeling you were about to say something else, so by all means, enlighten me.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
-
such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.
Hmm. In the case of WW2, the conflict was already ongoing, and the US intervention mainly involved pumping massive amounts of money into already existing nations at that point in time.
The reason I brought up Vietnam and Afghanistan is because you mention "Drug Cartels", which seem to operate in a similar manner as the Vietcong and the Taliban (heck, the Taliban IS a drug cartel at this point). If you are so heavily opposed to Vietnam, why would you then suggest intervention against these drug cartels?
The Vietnam situation was an entirely different one, or at least, I view it that way. Here was a clear-cut case of newly formed (though largely unrecognized) government that was wholly willing to work with and ally themselves with the United States. The Vietminh went to great lengths to appease the United States and President Truman (not to mention his predecessors), but we refused to listen to them, due to a failure in intelligence. We thought that the Vietminh were under the control of Joseph Stalin and that they were just a minor organization that didn't have the support of the people. On the contrary, Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh broke off relations with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, and had the support of the majority of the population. Socialism aside, many of the values expressed by the Vietminh, such as self-determination and political freedom, were in-line with American values; the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence even directly quotes and references the American Declaration of Independence.
The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States. There isn't any indicator that they would be any different from the countless other pacific islands. And if the United States hadn't liberated them, even if it was for our own interests, another power likely would have.
As for the Philippines, I do admit that thing scould have been handled better early on. In fact, things might have even been better off if we assisted the First Philippine Republic. However, we have no idea what would have happened. If we never liberated the Phillippines in the first place, they would have remained in the hands of the brutal Spanish for countless decades (until the Spanish Civil War, at least, and likely past that). If we recognized the First Republic, there is a good chance that the Philippines would have descended into chaos, as the First Republic arguably lacked the stability to control a country as large and divided (religiously and politically) as the Philippines. And this doesn't even take into account Japanese imperial ambitions to annex the Philippines, plans that likely would have come to fruition much sooner if the Philippines was unde Spanish or First Republican control.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States.
Being an US state is not necessarily a good thing, or at the least not something that should be considered on the same level as the other two things you have mentoined there.
Also, I think it's completely fair to consider the possibility of Hawaii being a popular tourist destination regardless of it being or not being an US state. Same with it's first world status.
The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.
Alright, very well put!
How do they differ from the Taliban?
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States.
Being an US state is not necessarily a good thing, or at the least not something that should be considered on the same level as the other two things you have mentoined there.
That's your opinion, but in terms of standards of living and personal freedom, they are certainly better off as an American state, as opposed to say, Fiji (or most other pacific islands for that matter).
The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.
Alright, very well put!
How do they differ from the Taliban?
There isn't really much difference. Their methods and tactics are identical, but their aims are different; one wants to install an Islamic theocracy, whereas the other wants to make money and enslave women/children.
I don't ask this to be disrespectful, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here?
-
I edited that post a fair bit Nakura, sorry about that, but how about the other points?
-
I edited that post a fair bit Nakura, sorry about that, but how about the other points?
No need to apologize.
I'd wager that the only reason Hawaii is a first world state, is because America annexed them. Most scholars would argue that they wouldn't even be a popular tourist destination, certainly not on the scale that they are, if not for being a state. Being a state, they open themselves up to being a major tourist destination for most Americans, it also makes traveling to Hawaii much easier than traveling to most other pacific islands, as passports and other information isn't required. Being an American state, most people around the world are reassured that Hawaii is stable and not prone to crime or civil unrest, which makes people think that the island chain is safe.
I'd even go so far as to say that most people wouldn't even be aware of Hawaii's existence, if not for it being a state; it would likely share the same status as Kirbiti. Without having the tourist industry, massive amounts of aid from the American government and the trading opportunities that being a state grants it, I see no reason why the island chain would be a developed, first world country if not for American aid. The atoll has no natural resources to speak of, and what sugar they did have would have been pillaged by Europeans and/or the Japanese, just like they were prior to American liberation.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.
I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.
Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.
This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)
e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.
-
Just colonialist.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.
I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.
Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.
This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)
e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.
Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.
We could sit here and argue all day about what might have happened if the United States never expanded beyond the Thirteen Colonies. What would the World Wars have been like if America didn't exist? If the Allies still won both wars, then what would have stopped Stalin and the Soviets? Would the liberal revolutions in France, Latin America and Europe have come to fruition? Would the new world order (NATO, UN, EU, WTO, free trade, etc.) that the United States created have still been formed? Would humans have invested so heavily in space exploration, if not for the United States?
We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you, but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.
I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.
Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.
This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)
e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.
Really this whole discussion is little different from the whole "was Manifest Destiny good?" It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective.
It's only "subjective" because one side made off like bandits (the United States) and the other side died of disease (everyone in the way).
-
Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.
No - profoundly no. This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Look, I can do it too: If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is subjugation and territoriality in the name of self-interest, that the only law is the hegemony of force, then you will probably argue it was good. If you think that the hallmark of civilization involves bettering the human condition so that we can reach the stars as an intergalactic 'great power' (and God help us if that comes to pass on your terms) then you probably think it was an awful idea.
We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you, but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.
I'm with you until your final sentence, which is a profound act of moral abjection, a sweeping, high-handed dismissal of the mere possibility of any contrition or regret in the name of a self-justifying utilitarian calculus that cannot even be falsified. If you want to recognize the good America's done without engaging in myopic triumphalism, you need to attend to the damage we've done, listen to the people we've hurt, and consider how to avoid those same mistakes in the future.
In your retreat from your original claims you've passed through a brief and hopeful territory of nuance, but this latest argument just advocates slapping a padlock on the ship's wheel and holding course through a sea of corpses. Certainly, the US has done good. That good is not inextricably tied to our historical evils in a zero-sum calculus. We could have done better. Abandon that and you turn into some kind of strategic Buckaroo Banzai: however well we're doing, well, there we shall remain.
We began this discussion talking about how intervention requires better causal maps. This is exactly what I'm talking about: we must avoid the decision to believe that 'that's all that matters', to decide that figuring out how to deploy our tools better is not worthwhile and that we have no responsibility to our own past mistakes.
-
Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.
No the good game is FreeSpace 2.
I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.
I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.
Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.
This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)
e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.
Really this whole discussion is little different from the whole "was Manifest Destiny good?" It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective.
It's only "subjective" because one side made off like bandits (the United States) and the other side died of disease (everyone in the way).
Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.
-
Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.
No - profoundly no. This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Look, I can do it too: If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is subjugation and territoriality in the name of self-interest, that the only law is the hegemony of force, then you will probably argue it was good. If you think that the hallmark of civilization involves bettering the human condition so that we can reach the stars as an intergalactic 'great power' (and God help us if that comes to pass on your terms) then you probably think it was an awful idea.
We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you, but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.
I'm with you until your final sentence, which is a profound act of moral abjection, a sweeping, high-handed dismissal of the mere possibility of any contrition or regret in the name of a self-justifying utilitarian calculus that cannot even be falsified. If you want to recognize the good America's done without engaging in myopic triumphalism, you need to attend to the damage we've done, listen to the people we've hurt, and consider how to avoid those same mistakes in the future.
In your retreat from your original claims you've passed through a brief and hopeful territory of nuance, but this latest argument just advocates slapping a padlock on the ship's wheel and holding course through a sea of corpses. Certainly, the US has done good. That good is not inextricably tied to our historical evils in a zero-sum calculus. We could have done better. Abandon that and you turn into some kind of strategic Buckaroo Banzai: however well we're doing, well, there we shall remain.
We began this discussion talking about how intervention requires better causal maps. This is exactly what I'm talking about: we must avoid the decision to believe that 'that's all that matters', to decide that figuring out how to deploy our tools better is not worthwhile and that we have no responsibility to our own past mistakes.
Please, General Battuta, do not mistake my being content with historical events as advocating that we ignore our mistakes. I did word that last sentence poorly, you're right. It's not enough that the ends justified the means, but we also have to learn from any hardships that we may have encountered along the way. I merely wished to express the idea that we all must look into our hearts, and more importantly, into our minds, and discover just how content we are with historical events. The past is the past, there is nothing we can do about it. A lot of great things have happened, and a lot of terrible things, but what's important is that we use what we have learned from the past to build a better future.
-
And play FreeSpace. Don't forget that.
-
Nakura, the easy way to decide if you think 'manifest destiny' is a good thing or not, is this;
The islamic followers of the world unite and adopt this mentality (..well, enough of them have already, but still, and that's another debate), they take over america and decide just how many rights and freedoms you're allowed because of some book that was written thousands of years ago.
Alternatively, you can fast-forward a couple thousand years with people with your mentality in power and I can guaran-gorram-tee someone will end up saying;
Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Somewhere along the line. :P Battuta has been managing to make this look like an actual debate but your ideas - from a non-american perspective are outright scary.
I hope you never gain any position of importance while you have opinions like these.
Playing FS1 and paying close attention to the "plight" of the ancients is also not a bad idea to watching the film Battuta referenced or the Film I referenced.
-
Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.
Do you really think moving the goalposts is going to make me respect your use of an almost hilariously bad supposition? I never said it was different, I never said it was better or worse than anywhere else in the world (though, arguably, the fashion in which it was accomplished was barbaric and decidedly sub-optimal with regards to future relations with surviving native groups - something that you can still see today in the reservation system).
Your interpretation of "subjective" results was downright farcical, comparing hunter-gathering with interstellar flight as if the idea of Manifest Destiny was the catalyst for the latter. I'd wager that there's little to no causal link beyond the fact that both situations actually happened to connect the idea that the United States was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific to man's first extra-terrestrial excursion.
The view of history you're trying to present is canted just slightly to the side of self-justifying, and it does you no favors. It reminds me very strongly of Leibniz, if you'll pardon reaching back to 18th Century philosophy. "This is the best of all possible worlds" indeed, completely ignoring just how badly we've ****ed up along the way.
-
Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.
Indeed it does not. It's universally a bad thing to do :blah:.
I can't answer that question for you, for any of you, but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take
The forefathers also decided to take actions such as limiting, by law, the interventionist capabilities of the USA. This policy seems to have been dropped during the Cold War (and critically, has not been restored after the cold war) which has, over the past 20 years, greatly affected the public perception of the USA in Western Europe. In a bad way.
-
Do you really think moving the goalposts is going to make me respect your use of an almost hilariously bad supposition? I never said it was different, I never said it was better or worse than anywhere else in the world (though, arguably, the fashion in which it was accomplished was barbaric and decidedly sub-optimal with regards to future relations with surviving native groups - something that you can still see today in the reservation system).
Your interpretation of "subjective" results was downright farcical, comparing hunter-gathering with interstellar flight as if the idea of Manifest Destiny was the catalyst for the latter. I'd wager that there's little to no causal link beyond the fact that both situations actually happened to connect the idea that the United States was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific to man's first extra-terrestrial excursion.
The view of history you're trying to present is canted just slightly to the side of self-justifying, and it does you no favors. It reminds me very strongly of Leibniz, if you'll pardon reaching back to 18th Century philosophy. "This is the best of all possible worlds" indeed, completely ignoring just how badly we've ****ed up along the way.
Most historians would argue that we handled things much better than our European or Asian counterparts. European empires enslaved and exploited Africans and Asians for the sole purpose building a war machine so that they could kill their neighbors. These peoples were not considered French or given the same rights and privileges as French citizens. Though I would like to point out there were some notable exceptions to this, such as the French granting voting rights to some locals in Senegal and other "developed colonies;" though this practice was short-lived.
The United States, on the other hand, took a more Roman approach. Rather than simply enslaving foreigners and stealing their resources, we annexed that land as American land. It wasn't a backwater colony to steal resources from and then abandon, it was now an integral part of our country. We gave the people there the same rights and privileges as any other American, granting them full citizenship and the right to vote. In fact, there are documented cases of Native American tribes obtaining full citizenship as early as 1817. They weren't slaves to be sold off, they were just as American as Thomas Jefferson.
The forefathers also decided to take actions such as limiting, by law, the interventionist capabilities of the USA. This policy seems to have been dropped during the Cold War (and critically, has not been restored after the cold war) which has, over the past 20 years, greatly affected the public perception of the USA in Western Europe. In a bad way.
Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.
-
We were as vile as any other colonialist power, and no historian worth respect would debate that. Our nation was built on genocide (accidental, in some respects, but in others very much intended) and we made no special or commendable effort to treat our colonial holdings as citizen.
Resentment of American behavior isn't some preoccupation of juvenile Europeans - it's a rational response to a basic knowledge of history.
-
The United States, on the other hand, took a more Roman approach. Rather than simply enslaving foreigners and stealing their resources, we annexed that land as American land. It wasn't a backwater colony to steal resources from and then abandon, it was now an integral part of our country. We gave the people there the same rights and privileges as any other American, granting them full citizenship and the right to vote. In fact, there are documented cases of Native American tribes obtaining full citizenship as early as 1817. They weren't slaves to be sold off, they were just as American as Thomas Jefferson.
So much about this thread is just comedic crickets, but I couldn't resist this one:
Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marianas... or hell, Hawaii circa 1898 through 1959.
I won't even bother going into the details of how the United States virtually wiped out entire cultures through genocide and murder as it expanded from the east coast of North America.
-
We were as vile as any other colonialist power, and no historian worth respect would debate that. Our nation was built on genocide (accidental, in some respects, but in others very much intended) and we made no special or commendable effort to treat our colonial holdings as citizen.
Resentment of American behavior isn't some preoccupation of juvenile Europeans - it's a rational response to a basic knowledge of history.
You cannot compare atrocities such as what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo, to say, the Louisiana Purchase. Though this whole bleeding heart nonsense has gone on long enough. The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.
Not really. There's a difference between recognizing that mistakes have been made (i.e. Vietnam) and blind anti-Americanism, which is a good deal of what we see here. Once you build connections with actual European leaders and patriots, such as the good people over at the German BND, British SIS, etc., you'll see that Europeans and Americans aren't all that different.
-
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel; 1491; find a real, fairly objective book about Veitnam, the Civil War, and the Mexican American War; research the history of Chiquita.
-
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel; 1491; find a real, fairly objective book about Veitnam, the Civil War, and the Mexican American War; research the history of Chiquita.
Saw most of the documentary, it was fairly interesting. If I recall, it focused on the theory that cultures and civilizations develop based on their natural resources. It's a fairly common sense theory, one that I doubt few would disagree with. I've read and own a number of objective books on Vietnam, not to mention studied the subject in great detail, as this is my second year majoring in International Relations.
Please don't take any offense by my asking this, but do you make these "recommendations," as a means to imply that I am stupid and/or ignorant?
-
We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.
-
We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.
You're not saying anything that I, and most intelligent people for that matter, didn't already know. What does any of this have to do with our discussion, however?
-
Stupid? Probably not, given that you're holding at least competent conversation. Ignorant? Absolutely. I can and will compare what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo to the Trail of Tears, Bad Axe, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Bear River, Wa****a, Marias, and the Indian Wars across the entire North American continent that raged for literally 300 years (spurred in large part by Manifest Destiny) and killed up to 90% of the Native American population.
In addition to your harkening to Leibniz, I'm sensing a strong vein of American Exceptionalism in you.
-
We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.
You're not saying anything that I, and most intelligent people for that matter, didn't already know. What does any of this have to do with our discussion, however?
I don't think you're being serious.
You cannot compare atrocities such as what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo, to say, the Louisiana Purchase. Though this whole bleeding heart nonsense has gone on long enough. The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.
Yes you can, you easily can. Not the Louisiana purchase not so much, but ANY of the things I mentioned. Landing in America caused more deaths, conservatively than Leopold II ever did. Vietnam killed about a million (granted only 1/15th of your lovely Belgium dictator). I know of no objective number of people killed by US fruit interests, but they managed to effectively keep a huge number of people in political turmoil for quite a long time, any number would be high. Slavery is similarly difficult to calculate, but the level of brutality is up there with Ghangis Khan. The Mexican American war only killed tens of thousands, but it certainly didn't help Mexico's economy, now did it? How many people have died as a result of that ?
Stop trolling, tell me you're kidding. Do you honestly think that any of these things are less revolting than taking over an African country and brutally killing 15 million people?
-
Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.
You have no idea how, say, the Iraq war, Vietnam war, NSA spying scandal, Bush being elected, etc. was percieved around here, do you?
-
Not really. There's a difference between recognizing that mistakes have been made (i.e. Vietnam) and blind anti-Americanism, which is a good deal of what we see here. Once you build connections with actual European leaders and patriots, such as the good people over at the German BND, British SIS, etc., you'll see that Europeans and Americans aren't all that different.
The closer you get to systems of power the more you'll understand how disruptive and deleterious America's self-centered foreign policy has been. From a policy standpoint, we (rightly) have a reputation as an erratic and demanding ally. Even Britain, our partner in the Special Relationship, has been badly burned. From NSA spying to the Iraq War to the embargo against China to the Kyoto Protocol, we differ sharply from some or all of the EU nations - and that's only recent issues in the context of relative peacetime. In the long run, the gaps only widen.
After the last twelve years, criticism of American foreign policy is hardly blind anti-Americanism. After the past two hundred, criticism of American history is common sense.
Saw most of the documentary, it was fairly interesting. If I recall, it focused on the theory that cultures and civilizations develop based on their natural resources. It's a fairly common sense theory, one that I doubt few would disagree with.
Far from 'common sense', Diamond's book is spectacularly controversial and arguably massively reductionist. It pushes a theory of geographic determinism which (many contend) doesn't capture important factors in how civilizations develop.
I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you've fallen victim to a cozy exceptionalist narrative. America's history, like all history, is full of barbarism. We participated in the slave trade right up until the end, we played the colonialist game, we overthrew foreign governments to take their territory and kept it, and we demolished Native American civilization in an act of systematic genocide. And whenever you're pressed on these points you retreat to an untenable ends justify the means position in which - let me quote you -
The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.
you try to use an untestable hypothetical to hide from historical fact.
Let me remind you that all this began with your assertion that we could boost public opinion of the US in Latin America through massive military intervention against drug cartels, purge anti-American sympathizers, and prevent those damn Mexicans from even wanting to immigrate. Those are quotes from you, and they speak to your beliefs about the exercise of hard power. Those beliefs are not sustainable in the face of empirical evidence.
-
Let me remind you that all this began with your assertion that we could boost public opinion of the US in Latin America through massive military intervention against drug cartels, purge anti-American sympathizers, and prevent those damn Mexicans from even wanting to immigrate. Those are quotes from you, and they speak to your beliefs about the exercise of hard power. Those beliefs are not sustainable in the face of empirical evidence.
Not to mention completely at odds with the libertarian views you were espousing in previous topics (Why is force bad if it is directed against your liberties, but good if it is directed against the liberties of people you think of as enemies?)
-
Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.
You have no idea how, say, the Iraq war, Vietnam war, NSA spying scandal, Bush being elected, etc. was percieved around here, do you?
Again, perceived ungratefulness.
Let's look at each of your examples, shall we:
Iraq: A proving ground for early NATO members. This was their chance to show just how dedicated they were to NATO; i.e. Poland. Let's not forget that the French, the ones who were the most critical of the Iraq War, subsequently got themselves involved several wars following the invasion of Iraq (Libya, Mali, Syria, etc.).
Vietnam: The French begged us to help them and we ended up funding the majority of their war for them. The British were doing the same thing in Malayasia.
NSA Spying: Because no European country spies on us, right? And this is more of a "meh" event. The only reason you mention it is because it was on the news recently, it's not a major historical event.
Bush being elected: This just shows how ignorant you are. I never liked Bush, but painting him as an extremist is pretty disingenuous, even for a foreigner. Especially when you've got people like Jean-Marie Le Pen being a frontrunner in the French presidential election, the Fidesz implementing some pretty controversial policies in Hungary, etc. Hell, Bush did some pretty left-wing things that even European social democrats would approve of, such as expanding Medicare. While some European kids on the internet might whine about how Bush is the anti-christ, intelligent Europeans are generally glad when Republicans are elected. Take for example the Lithuanian president's reaction to the 2012 election:
The election results do not make much difference for Lithuania, as – we have to put it very clearly – the Obama administration did a lot over the past four years to provide our region with certain important dimensions in terms of geopolitical safety. I mean NATO defense plans and the participation of US Armed Forces in various international maneuvers. As a conservative, I am always for the Republicans in my heart, but we have no complaints about this president whatsoever.
-
Okay, since this has become a rehash of ye olde "Nakura against the world" threads of before, I'm gonna close it.