6th May 2003, 10:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
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.
Where to start?
First, it's refreshing to see that you can see things from more than one side, it's something that some of us here, myself often included, fail to do.
My favorite history teacher was the one I had in 8th, Mr. Lockhart. It is of no small part because of him that I am a conservative, not because he was overtly conservative, but because his methods of teaching greatly included studies of capitalism and democracy, and not just events. It gave me a greater understanding of how the US has operated in its history. Truth, we have made mistakes. But the fact still stands: There's hardly a nation in the world that has seen success like we have, and I don't just mean our power. I mean our government. We truly have the most successful government in the history of mankind, NOT because it is the oldest or longest-lasting (I'm sure it ranks), but because of the type it is. We were the only democracy in a world of empires and kingdoms, we tested the waters of a true representative system and it has endured for a quarter of a millenium with only one challenge to its dominion, that being a single, and relatively short Civil War. This nation's government is the very model of stability, despite it probably being the one of the least powerful in the world. I don't believe it's narcissistic to claim we know better than everyone else. We do. And the most successful and powerful nations in the world today are this way because they emulated our form of government. Thus, it goes without saying that we know better than those who live under, or rule over regimes that practice archaic and oppressive forms of government.
Keep in mind that history is always written by the victors, and that the defeated are always looked down upon. But the only way the United States can ever fall is by way of internal strife. We are simply too protected and too powerful to fall to someone else's miltary force, which brought down most great empires. I honestly can't see that happening anytime soon. The United States has the chance, more than any empire before it, to perservere forever. Thus, there is a lot that other nations can learn from us, because we truly do know better than they do. As I said, those that are successful today are successful because they saw that we knew better than they did.
Quote: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.
See, the difference between the US and the three nations you mentioned is that those three tried to conquer with military force. Their aim was sheer dominance of those they conquered, and not mere assimilation. They all overextended their military forces and therefore fell repeatedly to threats from without and within. They really did not know better than their neighbors (they often in fact practiced the same government as their neighbors) and that point was driven home in their eventual defeats. We are really not in any similar circumstance to them. We're not trying to force our way of life on people so much as we are trying to get them to adopt it themselves and shape it to their own needs. It's better for people to live free, and it's better to have foreign governments who are friendly to us. But as N-Man said, it's just the way things are. Some ideas truly are superior to others. If there's a better form of government than Democracy, we would today have a nation of roughly equal power to us as a rival, and we don't. We perservere.
Quote: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.
Alright, I must concede here. You got me.
Quote: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.
The reason we had to assume that role is because the international community was derelict in it's duty. And even if the UN had gone to war with Iraq instead of just the US, it would have been almost exclusively US and British military involved anyway, as it has in practically every military engagement the UN was ever involved in. So it would have mattered little anyway, except that we would have other nations telling us what to do militarily, and ultimately weakening us (like in Desert Storm). Remember, it's not as though we didn't try to get the UN with us.
Quote: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."
But it is, for reasons I stated above. Chinese culture and arab culture are cultures, but they were also wracked by infighting and dynastic changes repeatedly through history, something we have not experienced except in one instance. We have no threats to our existence. And, it didn't take them the entire length of their existence to become the powers they were. Who knows how long this nation will stand? It could very well be thousands of years and we're just getting started.
Quote: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?
Yes, I would. They of course would have to realize that if that theocracy tries anything stupid, we'll be right back in there. I don't think it's likely a theocracy will take hold though. I hope it doesn't. I hope the Iraqi people are smarter than that now that they have a choice.
Quote: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.
I agree, to a point. We need something that is stronger than the UN, but only for purposes of alliance and peacekeeping, definitely NOT a world government, because that idea has already failed twice. World government can only succeed when it's members can agree on more issues, and when the most powerful member is at odds with most of the rest, it won't work, and there are too many differences between Socialist Europe and us for it to really work yet.
I mean, you have to consider that in the UN, the military force is predominantly American, because we do military better than anyone, and therefore we can make war like no one else. On one hand, it would be fair if every nation contributed equally to military force, but that isn't possible, and would probably do more harm than good. Same deal goes with the economics. We can contribute far more than most nations. When you consider the gap in power, both economic and military, and the differences of opinion, it's probably better for now that either there is no UN, or that we are not a part of it.
Quote:P.S. Thanks Weltall for reading my posts. I guess it's just the nature of the forums to focus on points of disagreement. [/B]
Not a thing, baby
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR