Seeing hfb & pudge go at it was pretty entertaining, until it prompted hfb to leave this site altogether... that's not cool. I don't know them personally, but I imagine they're both pretty hard-headed with opposite polarity of perspectives. Kinda like oil & vinegar ... or matter & anti-matter.
Patriotism is a funny thing, as well as a personal thing. Personally, I believe the good ol' USA is a great place to live and I daresay better than most countries out there. I agree that there are problems in the US (education, taxes, social security, health care, sporting leagues ... the list goes on), but as someone who's raised American, those are familiar problems that I'm just used to. Often I look at picturesque vistas from far-away places and imagine myself there (much like the grass is greener on the other side), but every time I travel abroad, I look forward to coming home ... because it's familiar footing and I'm the type of person that doesn't like strange environments.
So ... does that make me uninteresting? Ignorant? Perhaps so ... I'm just happy to be in my (small & comfortable) world.
Jason
Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-22T23:04:09
I am not going to argue, but I would like to point out that I know a great many "colored" people in this country who think it is a great country. That includes the many in the inner cities that I've known.
I'm done with trying to convince people, not that I am right, but that there are other ways to see things, and that I am not stupid or uncaring for my opinions. Let them assume I am ignorant and evil just because I disagree. I'll just ship up; then we can ALL be the proverbial Happy Idiot!
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T05:41:30
First, "colored" is a rather offensive term these days.
Second, I never said that there aren't people of color who like this country. There are many places that are worse for people of color around the world. For example, most of Africa is pretty bad. Of course, it's well worth remembering why Africa is such a mess right now, largely due to Western influence.
On the other hand, there are places where certain things are better for people of color. Cuba, for example, has done a much better job of addressing historical racism than the US or any European country. Which isn't to say that Cuba on the whole is a better place to live, just that it has different problems.
Second, I didn't say squat about you. You and hfb can argue you all you want but please don't put her words into my mouth. I agree with some things she has said, but certainly not all.
My original point was aimed at getting people like Purdy (who I presume to be a middle class white male because programmers are mostly middle class white males) to realize that most people don't have access to all the goodies he has (or I have, or you have) in this country.Re:Well...
Purdy on 2002-02-23T06:41:22
Point taken - I do live a comfortable life and thus find myself not wanting to "rock the boat". I'm a great empathizer, though and take responsibility for the benefits I've received: tithing (sp?) at church in addition to giving to other charities. I plan on doing more, too - just haven't gone that extra step of volunteering my time to worthy causes, such as Habitat for Humanity, Special Olympics, Mentoring... on my list! :) Jason
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T15:03:18
I was not trying to say you are a bad person. I was just trying to put your words into perspective. As middle class white people, we basically live in a bubble of our own making. We don't really see racism (and other problems) because, well, we just don't have to if we don't want to. They don't really affect us.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-23T13:23:17
If "colored" is offensive, the NAACP should change its name, and you shouldn't use "persons of color."
If you didn't mean to say thay America is not such a great place to live in for some people who are poor and non-white, you shouldn't have lumped them all together. I find it offensive that you would lump all "persons of color" together and tell them that this country is not a great place for them to live. That is what you did, and that's my point.
And no, I wasn't putting anyone's words in your mouth. You've before expressed the opinion that because I disagree with you on issues of race, that I haven't looked closely enough at the issues, or looked at them from the proper perspective. Those were your words that I was speaking to. Even in your very reply to me, you say you are trying to get people to "realize" things, as though the fact that people disagree with you means they don't understand something that you do.
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T16:04:36
The NAACP is an organization created by black people for black people. I do not presume to tell black people what to name their organizations. Doing so would be extremely racist, but well in line with a very long history of white people telling black people what they should and should not do.
My point was not that the US is or is not a great place for poor people of people of color. My point was simply that Purdy's statement that the US is a great place to live is very much a product of his being a middle class white male. These are the people with the most advantages in this society (except for rich white males, of course) and so it looks pretty damn great from their (our) viewpoint.
As to you personally, I do indeed think you don't understand something I do. FWIW, I used to share many of your opinions, so I think I have a good idea of your thought processes. But I think your opinions are largely based on fear and ignorance.
But I would assume you might feel the same way, that I must not understand some things that you understand so clearly. That's pretty much human nature, IME.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-23T18:20:22
The NAACP is an organization created by black people for black people.
This is incorrect. It is for colored people, not black people. This includes any non-white people.
My point was not that the US is or is not a great place for poor people of people of color.
Then you shouldn't have said that.
As to you personally, I do indeed think you don't understand something I do.
That is arrogant, as well as incorrect.
FWIW, I used to share many of your opinions, so I think I have a good idea of your thought processes.
You don't.
But I think your opinions are largely based on fear and ignorance.
They aren't.
But I would assume you might feel the same way, that I must not understand some things that you understand so clearly.
Not at all. I think you have different opinions. I would never presume to know what you do and don't understand unless I knew you very well. You do not know me well at all, so it is nonsense for you to presume that you can have anything resembling a good idea of what my thought processes are.
Re:Well...
ziggy on 2002-02-22T23:45:09
It's also a great country to live in if you're non-white or non-middle class. The US is a large enough place that practically anything you say about it is going to be true to some non-trivial degree.It's a great country to live in if you are a white person. It's a great country to live in if you are middle class (or better).I don't want to get into a[nother] heated debate about what's great or horrid about these 50 states. The US has a lot of good points going for it. There are also a lot of things that really stink when you stop to think about them. Perhaps your own personal moral calculus leads you to believe that there are more positives than negatives. Perhaps the opposite is true. But there is no one single objective way to perceive the US such that it is a great place to live, a terrible place to live or a reprehensible nation to defend.
In my estimation, anyone who would judge a nation of 285,000,000 based on the actions of one person, or a hundred people is an utter fool. Focusing on the minutiae obscures the larger picture, whether it be the greatest accumulation of wealth since the invention of the Shekel, a murder trial with a questionable outcome, a vibrant alternative/sustainable energy industry, or a healthy organic food movement. Focusing on some of the bigger issues is more worthy of discussion, whether it be about the largest donor of foreign aid, funding the basis of information economy, encouraging human rights abuses in China, or miserable turnouts at the ballot box.
But I'm not particularly interested in discussing that. There's some Perl code here calling my name.
:-) Re:Well...
djberg96 on 2002-02-23T05:39:52
I wouldn't want to be a poor peasant living Afghanistan right now, or Colombia, or Cuba, or anywhere in most of Africa, or Russia, or any of a dozen other places where US foreign policy is making an already difficult life nearly unbearableWhat are you talking about? Is it your opinion that the US is holding these countries down? Let's look at two of your examples:
1) Africa. Not a single great nation has come out of Africa since Hannibal & Cleopatra. I'm sure Africa's "demise" had much more to do with European colonialism (all the way through WW2) than anything the US did. Personally, I blame that bastard Scipio Africanus - it's all his fault! Let's attack Italy!
2) Russia. Hmmm...let's see. Crushing rule by Czar, followed by Bolshevism, followed by the crushing rule and downright imperialism of Stalin, followed by 40 more years of Communism, virtual (if not literal) occupation of Eastern Europe followed by eventual collapse. Ummm...where did we fit in again? Oh, yeah. We "tricked" them into trying to keep up with us militarily, thereby causing their economic collapse. Whatever.
As for the "dozen other places", I'm curious as to which countries you feel we're making life miserable for (besides Iraq).
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T05:55:59
Well, the American slave trade didn't exactly do any good for Africa. Nor did US support of the South African apartheid regime.
Russia, yes, had internal problems. The cold war, explicitly designed to destroy the Russian economy, also didn't help.
But here are a few others:
- Iran, where we installed a dictator that served our (oil) interests. That dictator's oppression was so severe that he was overthrown by a fundamentalist Islamic regime, which has been making Iran miserable ever since. Remember, at one point Iran had a popularly supported government in the early 50s.
- Support to Israel (#1 recipient of foreign aid) in killing huge numbers of Palestinians.
- Argentina, where the US supported Augusto Pinochet for many years.
- Honduras & Guatamela, more US supported right wing death-squad using dictators.
- Nicaragua, where US support of the contras led to thousands of murders.
- Taiwan, where the US supported a government (the Nationalists) that killed approximate 18-28 native Taiwanese people when they first arrived and ran the country via martial law until 1988.
- Saudia Arabia, where we support an autocratic monarchy hated by almost all of the people in the country.
- Turkey, where the US supported government has massacred huge numbers of Kurds.
- Vietnam (& Cambodia & Laos), where hundreds of thousands of peasants were murdered in a US led terror campaign.
- Colombia, where we are supporting yet another death squad employing government, this time in the name of the drug war.
- Cambodia, where the US support Khmer Rouge killed over one million people!
That's not quite a dozen, but it sure is a lot. These are places where either past or current US actions have led to massacres, starvation, state-sponsored terrorism, and unheard of human rights abuses, as well as the continued impovershment of people all over the world.Re:Well...
djberg96 on 2002-02-23T06:52:24
Well, the American slave trade didn't exactly do any good for AfricaTrue, but then let's keep in mind that we were still Europeans when we were first dealing in the slave trade. In other words, we have plenty of company in that area.
Nor did US support of the South African apartheid regime
True, but then it was partially US pressure that ended it as well. I can also tell you that the American public despised the South African regime. And where does the South African government have its origins, hmmm? Oh, yeah - The Netherlands.
The cold war, explicitly designed to destroy the Russian economy, also didn't help.
You know, I'm not really sure I buy the "let's outspend them" theory. It's one of the theories that fits the facts in hindsight, but it sure didn't feel like it was the goal at the time. In the meantime we were generating our own insane debt. I'd call it a Pyrhhic victory.
Iran - Yep, I'd say we screwed up royally there. But I'd also say that an 8 year war with Iraq was much, much more devastating to Iran than the Shah.
Support to Israel (#1 recipient of foreign aid) in killing huge numbers of Palestinians.
I could just as well transpose "Israel" with "Palestinians" in this sentence and it would be just as accurate. A virtual no-win situation in my opinion, but the fact remains that the odds of us breaking ties with Israel are about as great as the odds of us breaking ties with England. I heard on the news today that Saudi Arabia (of all countries) had a good proposal on the table. I think it's safe to say that the world would like to see this one end the best way for both sides for all time.
Argentina, Honduras, Guatemala
Have to agree with you there.
Nicaragua, where US support of the contras led to thousands of murders
Replace "US" with "Russian" and "contras" with "Sandinistas" and you would have an equally accurate statement.
Taiwan, where the US supported a government (the Nationalists) that killed approximate 18-28 native Taiwanese people when they first arrived and ran the country via martial law until 1988
Would you care to tally the murder count by the Communist/Mao regime? From dubious beginnings has emerged a strong little, uh, pseudo-nation. I'm not sure how you think it is we're making life difficult for them. By not forcing reassimilation into China? Sorry, bud, but even Clinton all but said it would be World War 3 if China invaded Taiwan.
Saudia Arabia, where we support an autocratic monarchy hated by almost all of the people in the country
I hate these bastards as well, though I also include the harboring of Idi Amin, the worst mother fucker since Hitler, within their territory as a reason for hating them.
Turkey, where the US supported government has massacred huge numbers of Kurds
Old, old conflict, started long before US support ever rolled around. Our relationship with Turkey has always been a little odd, especially when you factor in Greece. Mainly, we started that relationship because of it's geographical importance (straits, border with ex-Soviet Union).
Colombia, where we are supporting yet another death squad employing government, this time in the name of the drug war
A hopeless situation. Should we support death-squad-employing-government X, drug-money-mobster-government Y, or withdraw any and all involvement and let anarchy reign so we can be attacked by the world for doing nothing?
Cambodia, where the US support Khmer Rouge killed over one million people!
Don't know enough to comment. Actually, I thought they were our enemies, so that shows you what I know, other than the fact that they were total bastards.
These are places where either past or current US actions have led to massacres, starvation, state-sponsored terrorism, and unheard of human rights abuses, as well as the continued impovershment of people all over the world
This is part of a disturbing trend I'm seeing in world opinion. It seems *everything* is our fault. It's either too much, not enough, or the wrong way. We just can't do *anything* right, no matter how hard we try.
Well, autarch, which country are *you* from so I can tally up how *your* country has screwed up the world?
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T15:00:06
Nicaragua, where US support of the contras led to thousands of murders
Replace "US" with "Russian" and "contras" with "Sandinistas" and you would have an equally accurate statement.
No, that's not true. The Sandinastas received basically no foreign aid from Russia. What they did do, because they were cut off from all trade with the US and Europe (by the US), was trade with Russia. Nothing wrong with that. The US did that through the entire cold war too.
As to Turkey, I know why the US supports them, but that doesn't make it ok.
Colombia - what you propose is a false dilemna. There are groups who are working for democratic change in Colombia who could use our support.
In Cambodia, the US supported the Khmer Rouge because they (the Khmer Rouge) were fighting the Vietnamese. In fact, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was what finally ending the Khmer Rouge terror in Cambodia.
This is part of a disturbing trend I'm seeing in world opinion. It seems *everything* is our fault. It's either too much, not enough, or the wrong way. We just can't do *anything* right, no matter how hard we try.
Well, the US is not really trying to do anything right. It is trying to make sure that conditions are suitable for making lots of money from other countries' labor and natural resources. And in that sense, it has succeeded admirably.
Well, autarch, which country are *you* from so I can tally up how *your* country has screwed up the world?
I've lived in the US my entire life. Tally away!
Re:Well...
djberg96 on 2002-02-24T03:46:34
Argentina, where the US supported Augusto Pinochet for many years.Actually, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile, wasn't he?
As to Turkey, I know why the US supports them, but that doesn't make it ok
They *are* part of NATO. You can lump most of Europe (i.e. NATO) in there right with us if we're *evil* for supporting the Turkish government.
Colombia - what you propose is a false dilemna. There are groups who are working for democratic change in Colombia who could use our support
It would take direct military support to keep them in power, otherwise they'd be murdered by drug lords or replaced (and murdered) by some despot. And who shall provide the military aid for this almost-certain-to-fail endeavor? The UN? The US?
That, or they would soon become utterly corrupt themselves and eventually be (popularly) replaced by another dictator (as in Pakistan) and the whole cycle could repeat. Yee-haw.
Honduras & Guatamela, more US supported right wing death-squad using dictators
Well, since you seem to like to go back in time as far as suits your argument (i.e. slavery), why don't I remind you that these countries were formed by the Spaniards and Portuguese who wasted no time exterminating the local population. If the US is to blame for Africa, then Spain and Portugal are to blame for Central and South America. I don't believe either, by the way.
The point is, you can look at virtually *any* country on the planet and find flaws in its history. Show me one that doesn't and I'll show you one that isn't involved in world politics.
Anyway, enough of this. Back to downloading Kylie Minogue's latest video.
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-24T06:43:35
Actually, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile, wasn't he?
Yep, you're right. Brain fart. Same point, different country.
They *are* part of NATO. You can lump most of Europe (i.e. NATO) in there right with us if we're *evil* for supporting the Turkish government.
I do lump them in with that. Western Europe has long been a supporting player in US malfeasance abroad, though they often draw the line a bit sooner, though England usually toes the US line the longest.
It would take direct military support to keep them in power, otherwise they'd be murdered by drug lords or replaced (and murdered) by some despot. And who shall provide the military aid for this almost-certain-to-fail endeavor? The UN? The US?
That, or they would soon become utterly corrupt themselves and eventually be (popularly) replaced by another dictator (as in Pakistan) and the whole cycle could repeat. Yee-haw.
Fine, if we can't do anything good (which I think may be true) then at the very least we can not arm the government to the teeth so that they can go form death squads to execute peasants. We also shouldn't be "crop-dusting" drug farms with potentially dangerous chemicals.
Well, since you seem to like to go back in time as far as suits your argument (i.e. slavery), why don't I remind you that these countries were formed by the Spaniards and Portuguese who wasted no time exterminating the local population. If the US is to blame for Africa, then Spain and Portugal are to blame for Central and South America. I don't believe either, by the way.
I never suggested they weren't at least in part to blame. Certainly, Western Europe is where the whole colonialism thing got started, and they've done more than their fair share of damage around the world.
The point is, you can look at virtually *any* country on the planet and find flaws in its history. Show me one that doesn't and I'll show you one that isn't involved in world politics.
I agree 100%. So why do you get so upset that I'm criticizing the US? Do you think I'm unaware of the role other countries have played? That is certainly not the case.
However, I do think that the US, in the post-WWII period, has been the single most malevalent player in world politics. In earlier times, we can see Spain, Portugal, England, and France jockeying for that position, with possibly England coming out as number one.
Anyway, enough of this. Back to downloading Kylie Minogue's latest video.
Sorry to interrupt you. Of course, you can go back to doing that, because you're in a position to do so. Most people around the world are not, and through no fault of their own.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-24T15:56:20
However, I do think that the US, in the post-WWII period, has been the single most malevalent player in world politics.
Perhaps. It's also been the single greatest benefactor.
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-25T16:49:49
Bwah hah hah ha!
I think you'll find that, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the balance comes down heavily weighted on the 'malevolent' side.
But the Marshall Plan was really good. Thanks for that.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-26T15:33:00
That's clearly false. Many people even in your own country agree that the benevolent side outweighs the rest, if you choose to attempt to balance it. *shrug* Sure, you and autarch believe otherwise. But please don't pretend that means the rest of the world agrees with you.Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-27T08:53:04
I think you may be confusing "Being nice to the US because it's carrying a really big stick." and "Being nice to the US because it's genuinely doing good things in the world."Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-27T13:04:08
I think you may be confusing your opinion with the world's.Re:Well...
TorgoX on 2002-02-23T21:15:24
True, but then let's keep in mind that we were still Europeans when we were first dealing in the slave trade.What you mean "we", Kimosabe?
Re:Well...
Purdy on 2002-02-23T07:00:57
I'm not up on all of these events and all of their degrees of complexity (I'm still trying to get my head around the Milosevic stuff), but I think it unfair to directly associate the deaths of millions of people to the support (or lack thereof) of the US.The US is not pulling the trigger in most of those examples, and I would hunch that it was not only the US that supported those governments or parties that led to those atrosities. Additionally, hindsight allows us the luxury to see that they were atrosities instead of what could have been a better situation. That's a harsh judgement to apply to any country.
The official thread-killer is always a Nazi/Hitler reference
;) - Hitler had the support of the neighboring European countries for his nationalistic endeavours and we all know where that led to. Does that make Italy, Finland and Romania bad countries? Jason
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T14:50:49
The US is not pulling the trigger in most of those examples, and I would hunch that it was not only the US that supported those governments or parties that led to those atrosities.
In Vietnam (and Cambodia & Laos), the US did indeed pull the trigger.
In all the others I've mentioned, there was active US involvement (usually via the CIA) to support the brutality. This goes for all the South American countries mentioned as well as Iran, Iraq and other middle eastern countries.
The others have all received major foreign aid, including in some cases weapons.
So even in cases where the US did not send troops or CIA agents, there has been explicit financial support for the people doing the killing. If I pay an assassin to murder someone, am I not responsible?Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-24T08:15:06
There are those who see the whole Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos debàcle as a reason for indicting Kissinger on war crimes charges. There's other despicable stuff too mind.Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-24T17:58:26
I definitely think Kissinger is a war criminal. As are Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright (Iraq) and numerous other US government officials. Frankly, the list of people in the US government, past, and present, who should be indicted on war crimes, is simply too long to list. And then we can go to the puppet regimes the US supported in South America and Southeast Asia, there's Ariel Sharon, and the list goes on.
Of course, none of them will be brought to trial because it is not politically useful for the US to allow that.Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-25T09:30:14
I think the shocking thing about Kissinger is not that he did a bad thing, but that he has done so many bad things and has got away with it.Re:Well...
hfb on 2002-02-26T01:17:48
The official thread-killer is always a Nazi/Hitler reference
;) - Hitler had the support of the neighboring European countries [suc.org] for his nationalistic endeavours and we all know where that led to. Does that make Italy, Finland and Romania bad countries? The US provied the technology and sold the Nazis the computing machines that made their census possible. The US also took no action until Pearl Harbor even though the NYT had front page news of the atrocities of the war. Hitler had a lot of support, even if indirectly, from the US too. Also, Finland was, as I recall, promised help from the US that never came and when faced with Russia or Germany, the latter seemed to them the lesser evil. Hitler decided to go after Russia after they saw the Finns wipe the floor with the Russians in the Winter War...this probably saved England from Invasion and the Germans winning the war.
Re:Well...
Purdy on 2002-02-26T02:15:18
That wasn't my point - this thread seemed to become a US-bashing one and I was merely pointing out that the US is not alone in supporting such atrocities, though the US does seem to receive more than its fair share of finger-pointing.Good to see you back, hfb!
:) Jason
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-26T08:10:49
I just don't understand why you think the US receives more than its fair share of finger pointing? It does the most worst stuff and gets the most criticism. Pretty simple, I think.
The reason why I personally focus on the US is that I live here, so I figure I should start close to home.Re:Well...
Purdy on 2002-02-26T14:30:12
Again, you're missing the point, which is that instead of solely finger pointing to the US, how about also identifying the other countries that also share some of the blame? You shouldn't focus only on the US, especially when they aren't the only guilty country in the mix.I also argue that we didn't do "the most worst stuff" - I leave that to Hitler/Nazi Germany. Or Stalin/Russia. Let me know when the US slaughters millions of its own citizens and then we can talk about "the most worst stuff."
Jason
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-26T17:03:50
But your original journal entry was about the US!
If you had been talking about how great a country the UK was, maybe I would have responded. But probably not, since I'm just not as up on the UK's foreign policy, except inasmuch as it mirrors ours.Re:Well...
Purdy on 2002-02-26T17:27:06
It was about the US, but I did NOT say that the US was the best country to live in or the best country ever. I said it was the best for me (and as you point out, probably so because I'm within the majority [white male]). My original point in the journal is that patriotism is a personal issue not equivical with others. Again, I may be ignorant, especially in foreign issues/affairs.Jason
Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-26T17:10:25
Oops, I forgot to respond to the other half.
As to "the most worst stuff", I don't feel a need to find the absolute #1. Definitely Hitler and Stalin are among the worst of all time. No argument there.
What worries me is your talking about the US slaughtering its own citizens. Does that mean that when the US slaughters at least a million people in Vietnam (along with sending about 58,000 of our own citizens to die) that it doesn't matter as much because it wasn't our own citizens being butchered?
I hope you wouldn't make such a sick argument.Being bold...
Purdy on 2002-02-26T17:37:06
I would make such a "sick" argument. Focusing on your comparison, let's compare Vietnam (which I'm not totally familiar with, either, but I know it was a war) vs. the US rounding up a minority group and executing them.That's apples & apples to me (for comparison's sake) and you're saying that Vietnam is on an equal footing of "most worst stuff" with genocide?
I would argue that genocide is more horrible (if that point hasn't been made already) than war-time casualties (oops, I mean "slaughtering"). You're talking about rounding up innocent citizens for murder versus killing an opponent in the name of war. I cannot grasp how those two would be equal (though I admit both are offensive) in offense.
Jason
Re:Being bold...
autarch on 2002-02-26T18:08:55
Vietnam was a war only because the powers that be (here in the US) called it a war. The vast majority of people killed were Vietnamese non-combatants.
The peasants that made up a large majority of the country pretty much all supported the Communists. But of course a (relatively) bloodless communist takeover could not be allowed.
So US policy was designed to kill and uproot huge numbers of peasants. The ones who weren't killed outright by US weapons still had to survive in a country that was mined like crazy, had no infrastructure left for things like health care, and had been defoliated through the massive use of agent orange, making it all the more difficult to grow crops.
Then after the war the US maintained an embargo against Vietnam for eighteen years, further exacerbating the already desperate situation.
You need to do some research on what was going on beyond what you might have learned in high school. The idea that this was a civil war in Vietnam is a joke. The South Vietnamese government was a US puppet. Without US support, it never would have existed and the country would like have become communist with far less suffering.
In fact, their had already been a treaty signed between the Vietnamese and the French which provided for elections in Vietnam. The US outright ignored this treaty because it knew that the communists would win the election.
During the "war", the US consistently opposed any political settlement, knowing that while we were politically weak (with no popular support) we could at least beat the hell out of them with military might. And so we did.
The death toll in Vietnam was enormous, in the millions, while the US death toll was about 58,000. Is that not a holocaust?Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-26T16:05:03
The US sold them the machines? I thought it was IBM.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-26T16:27:52
On the other hand, I guess the US didn't really do anything to STOP the sale, which itself is cause enough for complaint...
BTW, I am told by a friend who hates Nazis and Republicans that the book "IBM and the Holocaust," which documents that the Nazis used IBM machines etc., has been "judged to be very weak on facts" by historians. I can't say either way, YMMV.Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-04T16:21:29
In the UK, when British Aerospace wanted to sell a bunch of jets to an unpleasant regime (can't remember which one now) there was a good deal of bashing of BAe for wanting to in the first place. And a good deal more bashing of the government for granting the export licenses.Re:Well...
davorg on 2002-03-04T18:19:43
Do you mean the sale of thje Hawks to Indonesia?
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-05T07:44:48
That would be it. Or the really big steel tubes to Iraq.Re:Well...
jhi on 2002-02-26T01:46:44
I'm not condoning the choices of my grandparents (or, more like, their parents), but I think at that point in time "it seemed like a good idea". Namely:
1939 Sep 1st Germany invades Poland
1939 Sep 3rd Britain, France, Australia, NZ declare war on Germany
1939 Sep 5th US proclaims neutrality
1939 Sep 10th Canada declares war on Germany
1939 Sep 17th Soviets invade Poland
1939 Sep 27th Poland surrenders...
1939 Nov 30th Soviets attack Finland
(Thanks for the WW2 timeline.)
What happened between the September and November was that Hitler and Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, in which they divided up the Baltic states and Finland. Finland was to be Russia's.
Then, in the summer of 1941, any pretense of camraderie between Germany and Russia was dropped, and Germany invaded Russia. Some people in Finland saw the possibility of revenge, and asked for Germany's help.
Re:Well...
jhi on 2002-02-26T01:49:29
Uhhh... correction: the M-R treaty had been signed already earlier in the year, not between the September and November.
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-23T20:07:58
I have the feeling that the people who benefited most from that particular trade were the merchants of Liverpool and Bristol. Which is why the UK government is not desperately keen on having slavery classified as a crime against humanity 'cos the reparations required would be enormous.Well, the American slave trade didn't exactly do any good for Africa.Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-23T23:57:37
Well, I'm not going to fight about who benefitted the most. White Europeans, particularly in England, benefitted a lot. White Americans benefitted a lot. White Americans probably benefitted a lot more than the English after the American Revolution, I would presume. And England abolished slavery in its colonies in the 1830s.Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-02-24T07:52:39
I believe that we were still selling slaves to America for quite some time after it was banned in our own colonies, after all there was money (vast amounts of it) to be made.Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-24T15:57:27
Although, in your favor, the abolitionist movement that spread to the colonies began in the UK, didn't it? And then it was picked up by the Republican party... wait a minute, my world is turned upside down! :-) Re:Well...
hfb on 2002-02-26T01:33:04
You forgot the Caribbean and Baby Doc Duvalier. Impressive list
:) Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-26T08:11:49
I probably forgot lots of others too. That list was mostly from memory, which is a scary thought.
Any takers on trying to make a list where the US acted in a purely helpful way? Pudge?Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-26T16:39:40
LOL. I say this in all sincerity: if you really think it's needed, then you are only looking for the negative and closing your eyes to the positive.Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-02-26T17:02:37
I honestly think you would have a difficult time finding anywhere near as many examples of actual altruistic activity since WWII. But altruistic is a loaded word. How about examples of foreign policy initiatives which, while possibly helping the US, also unequivocally helped another country (as a whole, not just the rich people there).Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-02-26T17:28:58
I am not going to argue this with you. Your objective is to show that the USA is a lot more negative than positive in its influence. I think that's nonsense, and said so.
I don't think it is useful or interesting to try to weigh positives vs. negatives in this fashion. I have plenty of unspoken arguments against your negatives too, but I don't think it's interesting to debate them, as most people who care know that e.g. the issues of Israel, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia etc. are a lot more complex and have a lot more sides to them than you present; I'd say that those three examples are all more positive than negative, and I don't find it interesting to try to prove to you why, since you clearly want to emphasize the bad. I just pointed out the self-evident (to most people) fact that America has done a lot of good in this post-WWII world -- again, not even attempting to weigh good vs. bad, just noting that there has been a lot of good -- and if you can't see it, well, it's a pity, I suppose.
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-04T16:25:55
- The Marshall Plan
- Rebuilding Germany's economy
- Building Japan's economy
Hmm... I'm sucking mud. I'm sure there must be more though.Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-03-04T16:40:20
Those are decent examples, although of course the US got a lot of benefit from those as well. I wouldn't call them altruistic so much an enlightened practicality. We have to have a few trading partners, right?
But is that all you can come up with? Those are the things I'd list too. And they're all immediately post-WWII. What about in the past 30-40 years?
I am such a cynic;) Re:Well...
pudge on 2002-03-04T17:07:21
As you already said:
But altruistic is a loaded word. How about examples of foreign policy initiatives which, while possibly helping the US, also unequivocally helped another country (as a whole, not just the rich people there).
Personally, I think no action by person, let alone government, is purely altruistic, because even if I open a door for someone with apparently no gain to myself, I want to do it and perhaps even feel good about it. So sticking to your own refinement of the idea, those things certainly do fit.
Further, you didn't ask for last 30-40 years, you asked for anything "since WWII". No changing the target in mid-shot. Of course, I already said I am not going to participate, but still.
And yes, you are such a cynic!:D
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-04T17:09:08
Ahem... moving the goalposts is considered unsporting. Of course all of those things were in the US interest. I'm just not entirely sure you could say that about some of the things on the 'USA bad' list. In many cases the long term harm seems (to these eyes at least) to outweigh any short term gain.Re:Well...
autarch on 2002-03-04T17:31:31
I wasn't moving the goalposts. I said the list you gave was good. I was just curious if there were any others that occured later.
As to whether many US foreign policies have resulted in harm to the US. We only need look at the rubble where the World Trade Center once was to see that.
But hey, at least we got some draconian rights limitation measures through Congress as a result! And that certainly serves the interests of many of the policy makers. And people in the defense industry will no doubt profit from "America's new war."
So maybe it _does_ work out in the long term too.Re:Well...
ziggy on 2002-03-04T16:48:13
Don't forget the Monroe Doctrine, helping Egypt recover from the building of the Aswan Dam[*], or brokering the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Or all of the foreign aid that comes out of the US whenever there's a natural disaster somewhere in the world...*: How else did the Temple of Dendur wind up in New York City?
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-04T17:06:15
Clinton's efforts in the Israel/Palestine thing, and Northern Ireland were pretty decent too. Okay, so one of 'em has broken down irretrievably and the other is horribly stalled. But he gets points for trying.
The US stance during the Suez Crisis was also a Good Thing in the long run I think.Re:Well...
ziggy on 2002-03-04T17:37:43
If we're counting unequivocably good things that the US has done over the years, I'd have to mention the IGY - the International Geophysical Year in the 50's. I don't remember much about it, but ISTR the US being a key player in that peacetime endeavor.Similarly, NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" has provided some serious data on what we're doing here and where we might be headed. In 1976, there were news specials about the impending ice age (because the US had a pretty severe winter). Now, the weather forecasts are talking about "common occurrances for an El Nino cycle" and predicting volcanic eruptions.
Sorry, but I don't think that Lichtenstein was the lead nation in those efforts...
Re:Well...
pdcawley on 2002-03-05T08:01:08
Oh ghod yes. NASA. I know there were good cold war reasons for it. The whole High Frontier thing and the general JFK Dick size war of it. But speaking personally I'd have to say that the space program is a Good Thing that has and will benefit us all.
Okay, so it's purely a gut feeling thing, but moments like Armstrong stepping off the ladder; the safe recovery of Apollo 13, the amazing photographs of the the Earth as a tiny blue marble rising over a barren horizon and the revelation of the (for me at least) heart stopping beauty of this planet seen from space. Priceless.
I have cynical friends/relations who only see the dicksize war, the military uses of the shuttle, the horrors of Challenger and all the bad stuff, and who reckon that the money would be better spent elsewhere. And I say bollocks to 'em. We need inspiration too.
GPS is really, really good as well.
The problem is, I guess, that it's all a matter of how you look at it. Those amazing photomaps of the earth's surface can also be read as saying 'Nice place you live in isn't it? Wouldn't it be awful if a big nuclear warhead fell out of the sky and ruined it. And that just might happen. After all, if we can take these photos...'
I don't doubt that the people at NASA are doing this stuff because it's a really really cool thing to do. But the capabilities that it implies are all part of the US's 'Big Stick' and I'm sure that the policy folks back in the Pentagon and elsewhere are also perfectly aware of that which is, in part, why NASA continues to get funding.
Two sides to every story I guess.
