![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a continuation
... of this.
For values of "not as bad" that include "vastly better in every measurable way."
Yeah, having your house uprooted by bulldozers and your children killed is vastly better. And that wall Sharon is building is a surefire crowd pleaser. I'll tell you what: i'll soften my stance on Israel once they stop disobeying UN resolutions. I mean, that's one of the things that got Iraq in hot water, yeah?
Having interests in a region hardly equates to an alliance. We send Egypt billions in foreign aid each year also, but nobody would suggest they're an ally.
That hasn't been the impression i've gotten. As far as i know, Hosni Mubarak has been tight with US presidents for years now.
That's nonsense. Germany wasn't a democratic state at the beginning of 1945, but democracy took off pretty well once its facist leadership was forcibly removed from power. Ditto for Japan, and Spain.
OK, here's your "apples to oranges" badge. Good job. Japan is probably the best comparison here, and it took two fuckin' nukes to break them. You wanna go for that now?
What, in your view, makes the Arabs inferior in this regard? On what basis do you claim they're "not ready" for democracy, as opposed to simply being enslaved in a social structure which prevents it?
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. And if you think that our aggression is going to free them from that social structure, you're very deluded. But, hey, we can just kick back and see how our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan bear fruit in the next 10 or 20 years.
Here, I'll rephrase: If you're right and they're not read for the 21st century, that would seem to make it all the more important from preventing them from obtaining weapons of horribly destructive power.
Then maybe we shouldn't SELL IT TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, DICKHEAD.
Jingoistic cultural snobs? You're the one saying those brown folk aren't ready for modern governments, and I'm the cultural snob?
You're the one who called them "thuggish" and "medieval" (not to mention "brown folk"). You're trying to enforce, through violence, a culture that you consider superior on other people; you're a cultural snob.
Re: Off subject, but still relevant
As far as being the best the world's got - that's pretty jingoistic. How about Sweden? or Denmark? France? The United Kingdom? Or Canada? How about Switzerland? Oh, what about Japan? Oh, here's a good one - Bahrain. They're all pretty damn good.
Even if you believe that we are the so all and end all of government and foreign policy, it's seems fair to say that we could still be better. Significantly better. Visibly better. I'm not talking about invention - I'm talking about morals and ethics that have been established for hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years. Certain principles - altruism, egalitarianism, fair play, justice - even compassion - things that we preach, we don't practice. That's what I'm on about - sure, we'll continue to screw up, but one would hope that the screw ups are inadvertant, not intentional.
I'll agree that we have more mobility - socially, financially, etc. This is a land of exceptional priviledge. I sincerely belief that the reason things are THE WAY THEY ARE in this country is that the majority of people have a lifestyle that would make them practically royalty in most other countries. It's easy to sit back and watch the world go by - odds are, you personally will be unaffected by any but the most major disasters. And why would you do something that might lessen your personal empire? I mean, I could volunteer at a soup kitchen, but I've got a Nintendo, for chrissakes.
But there is no excuse for political apathy. We grouse about the hows and whys, but how have you (the rhetorical you) changed the way things are done? Is voting enough?
It's a big mess. And who's to blame? Well, if Democracy works the way we claim it does, it's on you and me.
This is on my mind lately, but I'm not sure it's true: Does the two party system keeps our country at war with itself? Clinton reduces the deficit, and Bush wages war to the tune of umpteen billion.
Re: Off subject, but still relevant
Only if you consider all things done in war criminal. It's a defensible viewpoint, but not one I share.
Especially if they surrender first
They didn't surrender, now did they? Not on the US's terms. They were trying to negotiate a surrender that would allow the underlying cause of their militaristic aggression to survive; that wasn't acceptable. They wanted to set terms, and were in no position to dictate them. That lesson had to be taught in one of two ways -- nuking them or invading the Home Islands. Nuking was the less costly option, measured in human lives.
As far as being the best the world's got - that's pretty jingoistic.
It is not. It is flatly accurate.
How about Sweden? or Denmark? France? The United Kingdom? Or Canada? How about Switzerland? Oh, what about Japan? Oh, here's a good one - Bahrain.
How many carrier groups do they have? In billions, how much foreign aid do they give? How much freedom does a citizen of any of those countries have? By all measures, they fall short. Not by a lot, in some cases -- the UK is a strong ally that still remembers how to carry the White Man's Burden (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html) -- but yes, the US is still the world's last, best hope.
Certain principles - altruism, egalitarianism, fair play, justice - even compassion - things that we preach, we don't practice.
There is no room for altruism in the Hobbesian environment of international politics, though it's a fine thing among individuals. Egalitarianism requires the existence of peers -- we're egalitarian with the UK, for instance, and even France, though they currently oppose us. But there is no point of equality with governments like Cuba or North Korea or Libya, while their people groan under a yoke. Justice? The first great law is the right of self defence. Thwarting aggressive actions intended to kill you is eminently just. Compassion? Who gives more to the world, both government largesse and the private charity of individual citizens?
I sincerely belie(ve) that the reason things are THE WAY THEY ARE in this country is that the majority of people have a lifestyle that would make them practically royalty in most other countries.
Yes, and that lifestyle was made and kept so by the suffering and death of our fathers, whose faces we seem bent on forgetting.
no subject
The governments of Cuba and North Korea and Libya ARE our peers, regardless of their scumminess. In order to achieve progress between our nations, we need to start by treating them as peers instead of as disgusting and inferior.
no subject
Both, of course. They do not conflict. Charity freely given is an excellent measure of a nation's commitment to helping others. The Hobbesian environment is one between governments -- i.e., I should not expect France to do something that isn't in its national interest, and my government doesn't act in ways that don't further its own national interests. Foreign aid has a lot of benefits for the US.
The governments of Cuba and North Korea and Libya ARE our peers, regardless of their scumminess.
In no way. Our government speaks for our people; Castro's government speaks only for Castro. Kim Jong-il's government appears to speak for Moony the Moonbat.
no subject
Until the people object to the rule of tyrants, the tyrants effectively speak for the people. You can't ignore the tyrants and try to talk to his people directly.
Also, i think Kim Jong-Il's hair does the talking.