5th May 2003, 2:29 PM
Weltall-We have definitely had different upbringings, but I'd like to clarify that I believe the United States has done immense good in its short history. I am proud to be American. I am proud of all the progress we have made in the last 226 and 3/4 years. But progress inherently means that, at some point, we had skewed or confused views on some subjects. I may disagree with Rumsfeld, but I unconditionally support our troops.
But back to our difference in education: My history teachers have always taught their students to look at history with a critical eye. That's probably why I remember all of the mistakes of our foreign policy. In fact, I've been taught in quite a pessimistic way: a focus on what should have been done. "We should have entered WWII earlier", "We shouldn't have made Japanese internment camps", "We shouldn't have misdiagnosed Vietnam as we did", etc. For that, I apologize.
But if there is ever a consistent pattern in history, it is that narcissism does not make a better world. In my education of history, I have found narcissism behind Napoleon, Hitler, fundamentalist religious groups, racism, "divine right" kings, imperialism, and several other movements that, in the light of history, are looked down upon.
I think it is when this narcissism seeps into our foreign policy that we make mistakes that we wish we could take back.
"The United States is what the world should strive to be."-Weltall
Replace "The United States" with "France," and you practically have a quote of French foreign policy in 1803 (Napoleon). I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.
Or maybe replace "The United States" with, "Great Britain," and you have a quote of the foreign policy of imperialist Great Britain.
And, might I add, if you change "The United States" to "Germany," you've practically quoted Hitler.
My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.
While I agree that my assessment of our foreign policy was overly pessimistic, I still think that we struggle to define our role in the international community. Clearly, in the most recent war, we were the judge, jury, and executioner. I think it's dangerous for one (non-God) entity to have that power. I also think that taking a "father" role is a latent form of narcissism for the reasons listed above.
I'd also like to point out that just because the United States is currently the world's superpower does not mean that its form of government is superior to all others. We've been a superpower for about 50 years and the world's lone superpower for only about 14 years. In the whole view of history, that's insignificant. The Chinese culture held the title for at least 600 years, the Arab culture for several centuries, and the Roman empire for almost a thousand years. Going by the logic, "The world's current most powerful form of government is superior to all others," a person living in 1939 might say, "Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."
I'm a little confused on your last comment. Would you be willing to accept a theocracy in Iraq if the majority of Iraqi's voted for a theocracy?
I agree with you on a couple of points, Weltall:
1.) ABF has to back up his claims. It's not enough to say, "I'm too lazy"
2.) A president won't be supported forever simply because he is the president. There's a time aspect in there. I mean, at the beginning of the Vietnam War, LBJ had a solid majority. Slowly but surely, the majority slipped away. I actually did a project on that last year so I'll see if I can find the Gallup Poll...found. According to the March 10, 1968 NY Times, here are the results:
"In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?"
.....................Yes (%)..No(%)...No Opinion (%)
March '68.......49...........41.............10
Feb. '68..........46..........42..............12
Dec. '67.........45...........46...............9
Oct. '67..........46...........44.............10
July '67...........41..........48..............11
May '67...........37..........50..............13
Feb. '67..........32..........52..............16
Nov. '66..........31..........51..............18
Sept. '66.........35..........48..............17
May '66...........36..........49..............15
March '66........25..........59..............16
August '65......24..........61..............15
That's a pretty convincing trend right there.
True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:
a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.
and
b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.
P.S. Thanks Weltall for reading my posts. I guess it's just the nature of the forums to focus on points of disagreement.
But back to our difference in education: My history teachers have always taught their students to look at history with a critical eye. That's probably why I remember all of the mistakes of our foreign policy. In fact, I've been taught in quite a pessimistic way: a focus on what should have been done. "We should have entered WWII earlier", "We shouldn't have made Japanese internment camps", "We shouldn't have misdiagnosed Vietnam as we did", etc. For that, I apologize.
But if there is ever a consistent pattern in history, it is that narcissism does not make a better world. In my education of history, I have found narcissism behind Napoleon, Hitler, fundamentalist religious groups, racism, "divine right" kings, imperialism, and several other movements that, in the light of history, are looked down upon.
I think it is when this narcissism seeps into our foreign policy that we make mistakes that we wish we could take back.
"The United States is what the world should strive to be."-Weltall
Replace "The United States" with "France," and you practically have a quote of French foreign policy in 1803 (Napoleon). I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.
Or maybe replace "The United States" with, "Great Britain," and you have a quote of the foreign policy of imperialist Great Britain.
And, might I add, if you change "The United States" to "Germany," you've practically quoted Hitler.
My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
Quote: Weltall:
Like Eastern Europe, and Russia? All ruled by brutal dictators today, are they? Hah. Communism collapsed not because of how we fought it, but because we used our economy to eliminate the USSR, and when that happened, the Communist Bloc overthrew communism. What you state happened in a small percentage of cases. It happened in China, South Vietnam, and...?
I think ABF's talking about the period DURING the Cold War. In Asia, Africa, and South America, and Central America, we supported (set up "puppet governments" for) any anti-Communist regime, even if it was brutal, violent, undemocratic, and descriminatory. Here are some off the top of my head: Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Angola and Nicaragua. I'm 99% sure there were more.
Quote:Posted by Weltall:
We can be all that you say. We can be the guide, the friend, the police and the parent. There's no reason we can't do all that. A human being can. A man can be a cop, a father, a friend, etc. and can do all of them without compromising any. And it's extremely unfair to say we're failures at it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. True, we're not perfect, no one is. We've messed things up at times. But we have also done incredible good. The world is only as peaceful and stable as it is because of the United States. We created the world's most successful, most free, and most stable form of government, and it has taken hold in much of the world, casting out ancient monarchies and despots. We rid the world of fascism, and Communism is in it's definite late-stages. Right now you see people in Iraq protesting out presence. That alone speaks volumes of how much more free those people are.
While I agree that my assessment of our foreign policy was overly pessimistic, I still think that we struggle to define our role in the international community. Clearly, in the most recent war, we were the judge, jury, and executioner. I think it's dangerous for one (non-God) entity to have that power. I also think that taking a "father" role is a latent form of narcissism for the reasons listed above.
I'd also like to point out that just because the United States is currently the world's superpower does not mean that its form of government is superior to all others. We've been a superpower for about 50 years and the world's lone superpower for only about 14 years. In the whole view of history, that's insignificant. The Chinese culture held the title for at least 600 years, the Arab culture for several centuries, and the Roman empire for almost a thousand years. Going by the logic, "The world's current most powerful form of government is superior to all others," a person living in 1939 might say, "Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."
I'm a little confused on your last comment. Would you be willing to accept a theocracy in Iraq if the majority of Iraqi's voted for a theocracy?
I agree with you on a couple of points, Weltall:
1.) ABF has to back up his claims. It's not enough to say, "I'm too lazy"
2.) A president won't be supported forever simply because he is the president. There's a time aspect in there. I mean, at the beginning of the Vietnam War, LBJ had a solid majority. Slowly but surely, the majority slipped away. I actually did a project on that last year so I'll see if I can find the Gallup Poll...found. According to the March 10, 1968 NY Times, here are the results:
"In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?"
.....................Yes (%)..No(%)...No Opinion (%)
March '68.......49...........41.............10
Feb. '68..........46..........42..............12
Dec. '67.........45...........46...............9
Oct. '67..........46...........44.............10
July '67...........41..........48..............11
May '67...........37..........50..............13
Feb. '67..........32..........52..............16
Nov. '66..........31..........51..............18
Sept. '66.........35..........48..............17
May '66...........36..........49..............15
March '66........25..........59..............16
August '65......24..........61..............15
That's a pretty convincing trend right there.
Quote:Geno:
The world may not always agree with a certain country, but does that make the world right? Not always.
True, but I believe that taking the duty of judge, jury, and executioner is inherently wrong. While I agree with the ends (deposing a terrible dictator that may threaten our national security), I am troubled by the means. There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity. Sadly, I think this will not happen until:
a.) the most powerful nation in the world is willing to give up some of its powers, just as states had to give up some of their powers to form the United States.
and
b.) there is a clear and present danger that requires the cooperation of previously warring nations.
P.S. Thanks Weltall for reading my posts. I guess it's just the nature of the forums to focus on points of disagreement.