Stupid patriotic Americans

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I didn't change the subject, I changed the players.

As did I. All great nations go through an expansionist phase so all of them are guilty. Still doesn't make it wrong to criticise it.

What I am getting at is that I find it hipocritical that you say the US should have acted out more firmly against Japan's expansionism, when the US itself was guilty of the same crimes just a few decades before.

So we got over our imperialist leanings and wanted to help others see the error of their ways. I'm still not seeing anything terrible here. What I see today is heavy criticism any time the US acts anywhere today. Yet, in the 1930's through 1941, the US hardly acted at all on the world scene - as if there's something uniquely repugnant about America acting in world compared to other nations. I see heaps of criticism from you about America but not a peep against expansionst Japan or Iraq (a clearly expansionist nation under Saddam) or against France propping up a dictator so that rich French corporations can rake in the cash.

Look, I'm no Bush supporter and I didn't support his stupid war. But American uber-patriots are no worse than French or Russian ones.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned, we "stuck our nose" into Japan's actions in the Pacific pre-Pearl Harbor because we saw ourselves as the big dog in the Pacific, and Japan was trying to rival us. We weren't pleased to have a strategic rival, and I'm sure on some level there was concern about the aggressive militarism Japan was displaying. So we embargoed them.

Principled? No. Power politics.

-Arrian

Actually, I did my on analyis of the diplomatic traffic in this time frame. Until Japan joined the Axis, Roosevelt was more interested in settling the conflict than forcing Japan out of China. Roosevelt assumed the stance of a neutral third party the mode of Teddy Roosevelt who helped settle that Russo-Japanese conflict in 1905/6. After Japan joined the Axis, Roosevelt's demands became almost unreasonable, and he backed them up with an oil embargo so severe as to be an act of war.

No, our hostile stance against Japan was related almost entirely to their relationship with Nazi Germany.

[Arrian]

I am arguing somewhat for Jimmy Carter's foreign policy

If I were the "use OT quotes as sig material" type of guy...

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ming


You can find morons and idiots sprouting nonsense in every country... why should America be any different

Because the morons and idiots in the other countries usually don't start wars of aggression just because they feel the urge to kick some ass to increase their national confidence. Not very recently at least.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The US only imposed an embargo on japan after their moes into french Indochina in 1941, not when they were invading China, and we only went to war when the happened to bomb US installations and invade overseas US holdings. One did not hear many cries in the US to stop the rampaging Japanese before dec 7.

Correct. The invasion of Indochina coincided with Japan joining the Axis. They said they did this in order to cut off military supplies flowing into China from Indochina. But when they moved forces south to threaten Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the British the Dutch and United States all demanded that Japan withdraw from Indochina. In fact, apparently Japan had agreed to withdraw from Indochina in its last proposal to United States in an effort end the embargo. But by then we were also demanding that they pull out of China.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by gunkulator
... or against France propping up a dictator so that rich French corporations can rake in the cash.

Look, I'm no Bush supporter and I didn't support his stupid war. But American uber-patriots are no worse than French or Russian ones.

Well how many french uber-patriots do we have here? When I called Chirac a moronic pompous *******, nobody disagreed. And afaik no one has claimed any idealism on the side of Chirac, that would be just too funny.

[Q Classic]

ok, seriously ted? britney spears offends me because she really isn't that bright....

and i'd rather have america be known as an intellectual nation rather than a place filled with bimbos...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Ned has been brainwashed

He actually believe countries do things for noble idealistic reasons!!!

I find it interesting that the left criticizes the United States for having a foreign policy that only protects its economic and perhaps security interests, and is willing to prop up corrupt dictators who happen to be pro American. The implicit argument is that the United States foreign policy should be more interested in advancing democracy and human rights.

Now I would agree that our foreign policy in the past has not entirely been solely based upon democratic ideals. During the Cold War, for example, security issues became paramount so that we would often, it appears, look the other way when a dictator abused his people, provided that that same dictator was pro American or against a common enemy (Saddam vs. Iran in the '80s.)

But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead. The implicit argument is that American foreing policy should only be based upon interests and national security and should not involve idealism. But this realpolitik foreign policy is the very thing for which they so strongly criticize America.

There appears to be nothing Americans can do to satisfy the left. We should, according to the left, understand that the world does not want us involved in advancing democracy and that we should simply bug out out and let the dictator's and Communists do their thing. I believe this is your argument, isn't it, Master Zen?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Stopping History (or at least fundamentally changing the way nations interact) is pretty attractive to the countries at the top.

Hell, look at the "Security Council" and its approach to nukes. Hmm, we have them. They're terrible weapons which also provide almost total security against conventional attack. But they're terrible weapons... Oh, I've got it: no one else can have them! Yeah, that's the ticket. We get to keep ours, though, in case space monkeys attack us."

-Arrian

p.s. Gold Star for anyone who picks up the Eddie Izzard reference.

We have an obligation to negotiate our way to zero with other nuclear nations. We have been doing this.

[HershOstropoler]

"But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead."

That's beside the issue. But apparantly, you believe the Iraq war was really about liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq.

[Arrian]

We have? News to me, Ned. We, and the other major nuclear powers, still have enough collective nuclear firepower to obliterate humanity several times over. Not good progress.

Having said that, I do seem to recall Bush talking about unilateral reduction. Has he done that yet? If so, by how much? If not, why?

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead."

That's beside the issue. But apparantly, you believe the Iraq war was really about liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq.

Clearly, HO, that was a significant part of it. American security and economic interest were also aligned with getting rid of the Saddam regime.

But while we were forced to act because of the regional threat Saddam posed that could mushroom into a world threat if he took over all the Gulf Oil deposits, we are still most proud of having liberated an oppressed people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
We have? News to me, Ned. We, and the other major nuclear powers, still have enough collective nuclear firepower to obliterate humanity several times over. Not good progress.

Having said that, I do seem to recall Bush talking about unilateral reduction. Has he done that yet? If so, by how much? If not, why?

-Arrian

I think the most recent deal with the Russians cut our stockpile by two-thirds. Clearly we have to continue to lead the world in reducing and eliminate nukes. Otherwise the arguments of many that it is hypocritical for us to argue non proliferation would be valid.

[Arrian]

Ned, the liberation of Iraq is only something to be proud of it down the road, Iraq is a better place for its people. As of this writing, it is unclear whether or not that will happen. If it ends up under another dictator, or a Theocracy such as Iran (or worse), I don't think it will go down as a "liberation" at all.

Aw, ****it. I feel like I'm talking to a wall anyway. edit: we can lead the world in eliminating nukes because we have one of the largest (and most high-tech) stockpiles. So a massive reduction still means we can turn large countries into radioactive heaps of rubble.

-Arrian

[HershOstropoler]

"American security and economic interest were also aligned with getting rid of the Saddam regime."

Security has about zero to do with it. Saddam 2003 was no threat even to his neighbours. and neither would Saddam 2010 be.

Economic, there we're getting closer.

Liberation - as Arrian says, that remains to be seen. The current approach would form a perfect excuse to establish a gaspump colony there.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Well how many french uber-patriots do we have here? When I called Chirac a moronic pompous *******, nobody disagreed. And afaik no one has claimed any idealism on the side of Chirac, that would be just too funny.

Yes, you are right of course. I, and I'm guessing most Americans here, are just tired of seeing a large number of threads with the words "stupid Americans" in the title. It gets to be irksome.

I agree 100% with Arrian about the whole Iraq thing. Unfortunate that it happened, but now that we're there, we have an obligation to keep the peace and help them with democratic reforms. Anything less is criminal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"American security and economic interest were also aligned with getting rid of the Saddam regime."

Security has about zero to do with it. Saddam 2003 was no threat even to his neighbours. and neither would Saddam 2010 be.

Economic, there we're getting closer.

Liberation - as Arrian says, that remains to be seen. The current approach would form a perfect excuse to establish a gaspump colony there.

HO, I think you forget that we had no-fly zones and troops in Kuwait. We could not go on with this forever, could we? We need a way to get out without leaving a hostile regime in place.

On could argue that we should never have gotten involved in 1990. That was the year where our security interests in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait were really unclear. In order to justify our intervention, we had to include Saudi Arbia in the calculus. But, even then, one could still argue that our security interests were not involved because Saddam could still not launch an attack on the US and he still could not effectively cut us off from oil - because if he did so his own economy would collapse.

1990 was not clearly about security or economic interests. That was more about idealism. But in hindsight, it probably was a mistake.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Ned

1990 was clearly about security or economic interests. That was more about idealism. But in hindsight, it probably was a mistake.

Ned, this is a pretty big admission from you.

[HershOstropoler]

Ned:

"HO, I think you forget that we had no-fly zones and troops in Kuwait. We could not go on with this forever, could we?"

No fly-zones to protect the Shia and Kurds after Bush I sold them out. "Getting out" is a funny argument - you've been in Korea for 50+ years, and if you don't take the easy route of installing a puppet dictator, you'll be in Iraq for a long time, with a lot of troops.

"In order to justify our intervention, we had to include Saudi Arbia in the calculus."

The threat to Saudi Arabia was mostly cooked up. But kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was still the right thing to do, and it had big international support. Just this time, you faced overwhelming international opposition. If you thin that was caused by the purity of US motives... well..

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, you are right of course. I, and I'm guessing most Americans here, are just tired of seeing a large number of threads with the words "stupid Americans" in the title. It gets to be irksome.

Sure, and you are not responsible for them, but there is a problem with your ultranationalists, and they are increasingly shaping the world's perception of America and Americans. This is not good, for you or for us. But it is happening. That there is virtually zilch effective opposition to Bush is making that impression even worse.

[Japher]

Sure, and you are not responsible for them, but there is a problem with your ultranationalists, and they are increasingly shaping the world's perception of America and Americans. This is not good, for you or for us. But it is happening. That there is virtually zilch effective opposition to Bush is making that impression even worse.

This suks. You liberate a country from a murdering slime bag, but because you yourself were somewhat increduable about the execution you get labeled as Stupid Americans.

Yet, thanks for your opinion Hersh.

Stupid Europeans

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ned:

"HO, I think you forget that we had no-fly zones and troops in Kuwait. We could not go on with this forever, could we?"

No fly-zones to protect the Shia and Kurds after Bush I sold them out. "Getting out" is a funny argument - you've been in Korea for 50+ years, and if you don't take the easy route of installing a puppet dictator, you'll be in Iraq for a long time, with a lot of troops.

"In order to justify our intervention, we had to include Saudi Arbia in the calculus."

The threat to Saudi Arabia was mostly cooked up. But kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was still the right thing to do, and it had big international support. Just this time, you faced overwhelming international opposition. If you thin that was caused by the purity of US motives... well..

HO, I also think we need an exit strategy for Korea. Placing international peacekeeping troops on the border really is a UN matter. However, we already know why the UN is no longer involved in policing NK.

But back to the no-fly zones. Stating the reason for them does not create a case that we should be there indefinitely. We were daily involved in combat operations against the Saddam regime. This simply had to end.

We were doing this primarily because Saddam would butcher the Kurds if we withdrew. I don't think the Southern NF zone protected the Shi'ites. Saddam had reasserted control there shortly after the war ended.

But we could not withdraw without the WMD issue being resolved. This forced us to press for a final determnation or war. We litterally had no choice if we wanted to get out.

But now that Iraq is ours, I am of two minds. The first mind is that we should leave ASAP - that means, as soon as the new Iraqi government is formed and it has a military that can take over. The other mind is that we should stay awhile. History has shown us that if we leave too soon, democracy soon vanishes to a dictator. I am contrasting Cuba with Puerto Rico. I think any democracy in Iraq will be unstable for a very long time. I am particularly concerned with the radical ayatollahs.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Sure, and you are not responsible for them, but there is a problem with your ultranationalists, and they are increasingly shaping the world's perception of America and Americans. This is not good, for you or for us. But it is happening. That there is virtually zilch effective opposition to Bush is making that impression even worse.

Bush looks like an idiot, no question. But I don't see nearly as much criticism of Chirac or Saddam as I believe is warranted. Yes Bush is responsible for bullets and bombs flying in Iraq, however Chirac is responsible for helping to keep Saddam in power while his people lived in fear and poverty for years.

The news media only wants to point cameras at the bomb holes and wounded children and say "bad Americans", however there was real human suffering under Saddam too yet Al Jazeera and the rest of the world news agencies were silent. America is a convenient target because it acts overtly. The backroom deals that kept the Iraqis oppressed for years are, IMHO, even more cowardly and shameful and therefore more deserving of world criticism.

That being said, I don't see how Bush could be so naive about the ultimate costs of his invasion of Iraq: world hate, loss of innocent life, enormous expense, plus the burden on future generations to kick start a new Iraqi government and also retool Iraqi infrastructure and institutions. Yes, it is good that Saddam is gone, but the cure may be worse than the disease and frankly, I'd rather we hadn't made this gamble at all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gunkulator

That being said, I don't see how Bush could be so naive about the ultimate costs of his invasion of Iraq: world hate, loss of innocent life, enormous expense, plus the burden on future generations to kick start a new Iraqi government and also retool Iraqi infrastructure and institutions. Yes, it is good that Saddam is gone, but the cure may be worse than the disease and frankly, I'd rather we hadn't made this gamble at all.

gunkulator, world opinion has been softening as evidence of Saddam's cruelty has become known. I think any new Iraqi government will also be grateful that we intervened. The question is, what will the rest of the Arab would think of a democratic, pro-American government? Will they be hostile?

Moreover, what will be the attitude of France, Germany and Russia to any such new government? They cannot seriously continue to condemn the US for liberating Iraq without also offending such a government.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Ned


gunkulator, world opinion has been softening as evidence of Saddam's cruelty has become known. I think any new Iraqi government will also be grateful that we intervened.

They may be grateful initially or they may not. Every time they see an armed American soldier on the street, it will remind them of who is really in charge of Iraq.

The question is, what will the rest of the Arab would think of a democratic, pro-American government? Will they be hostile?

There isn't any particular reason to be believe that even a democratic Iraq would be pro-American. The fundamentalists will always be a major force in Iraq and I can't imagine them ever supporting America.

Moreover, what will be the attitude of France, Germany and Russia to any such new government? They cannot seriously continue to condemn the US for liberating Iraq without also offending such a government.

Chirac has staked his whole reputation on standing up to the American, so he won't budge. He will continue to push France and the EU towards weaker relationships with the US. The Germans will play the middle and be pragmatists. Russia will bluster for a while and then go back to bombing Chechynians. All will kiss up to any new Iraqi gov't once the US leaves the scene.

[Senor Llera]

Originally posted by Ned

Master Zen, on the issue of Latin America not wanting us, I bet they do want us when law and order completely breaks down and mobs are wandering the streets.

But Ned the mobs have been and are already wandering the streets: the mobs of the fascist governments and sadistic death squads installed/supported by the US government.

And here's something interesting, when it comes to the people of Iraq you say -

I only wish these Bush bashers, like Sean Penn, would visit Iraq now and see how long they even survive. I bet angry mobs will tear them limb for limb because they supported a brutal dictator.

OK, well lets ignore how the angry mobs would somehow not 'tear the limbs' off Americans for the many years of their own government's support of this vicious dictator........

But what about the people of Latin America? Who have suffered many a brutal dictator at the hands of the US government, will they "tear our limbs off"??? Oh no! Of course not! As Ned explains:

The people who want us are the avearage folk who simply want good government that will protect them and their property.

(Good gov = Duharte, Peron, Trujillo, Batista, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Pinochet, Fujimori, Somoza, Stroessner, etc etc etc)

Oh I see now! Dictators are political cannon fodder! When the US gov. says they're "one of our boys", we support/ignore their atrocities.........when the US gov. says they're now "one of the bad guys" we get filled up with moral outrage at the world for letting this happen!

The people of Latin American who do not want us are the communists and their allies who want to impose an egalitarian dark age on Latin America in the mold of Castro's medieval nightmare of abuse.

Propaganda, gotta love it! Castro's regime is a PUSSYCAT compared to some of the regimes that we have openly backed and supported! Not even the mafiosos in Miami accuse Castro of the things that "our boys" did on a regular basis. And unlike the fascistic regimes that we have supported, Cuba has spent billions for the public good - which is why Cubans have the longest life expectancy in Lat. Am. which matches that of the US, lowest infant mortality rate, universal healthcare, free education right through college, free housing, the only Lat. Am. nation where you will not see little children sleeping on the streets, and where illiteracy and malnutrition are almost nonexistant.

Better visit the favelass in Brazil, El Mozote in Nicaragua, Rio Sumpul in El Salvador, just about anywhere in Haiti, and the millions of starving pot bellied children who occupy Latin America's streets if you really want to know what a "medieval nightmare" looks like.

And just for the record, yes, Cuba is a one-party repressive, bureacratic dictatorship. (In all fairness however, just how repressive they would be if the US gov were not constantly harrassing it for 40+ years, if the CIA did not commit economic sabatoge, if assasinations on Castro and other leaders were not constantly attempted, and if CIA-backed Miami exile violence were brought to justice, remains to be seen)

We may never know....... which of course, was the idea.


But no pro US gov. parrot can sincerely critisize Castro's "abuses" while not looking like an extreme hypocrite for supporting FAR worse.

[Ned]

Senor, name me one country in Latin America that has a "good" government, a government that is truly democratic, a government that protects property and also provides a social safety-net?

Puerto Rico is the only example that I can think of. Can you think of another?

[HershOstropoler]

Costa Rica.

[Colon™]

Chili?

[Senor Llera]

This suks. You liberate a country from a murdering slime bag, but because you yourself were somewhat increduable about the execution you get labeled as Stupid Americans

Unt Ya! Tell me about it! 1939 unt 1940 were very good years for liberatin' countries! Ya!

But I have YET to receive a thank you card from any Pole after all these years!