To: David and Horse
From: Risky
DMB:
Don't you think the USA should be held accountable for her actions?
Shouldn't she take responsibility for her foreign policies? I mean, what I
see missing from the whole "making progress" debate is any discussion of
that. Its not even a matter of charity or generosity. Its a matter of doing
injury to other nations and other cultures. This is what breeds resentment
and terror. Did you know that the USA?...
Trained and funded Osama bin Ladin. Has sold weapons and given money to
Saddam Hussein. Sold Indonesia the weapons it used to perpetrate a genocide
in East Timor. Helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in
Argentina and installed a military dictatorship. Runs "the school of the
Americas", which trains terrorists. That Angola's Savimbe, who killed half a
million of his own people was called "the Abe Lincoln of Africa" by Reagan
and "one of the true heros of our time" by Jean Kirpatrick. That Henry
Kissenger is being sued for war crimes. That a third of the planet's
population current suffers from US economic sanctions. And has supported a
vast number of repressive regiems throughout the world. I could go on for
days, but you get the idea. Terrorism is mostly caused by blowback. To
simply attribute the world's problems to "their" dysfunctionality strikes me
as a profound abdication of responsibility.
RISKY:
David, this list is so petty and mean spirited that it adds nothing to the
debate. You know as well as anybody that the US has supported lesser evils
and has supported one-time friends or heros that later turned out to be foes.
You know that supporting a friend can lead to unintended consequences. You
know that out of context 'one liner' diplo-speak is no way to judge foriegn
policy. You know that the war against communism required some questionable
allies, and in some cases to some regretable alliances. You know that our
sanctions against Iraq, North Korea and Cuba are social sanctions aimed at
avoiding/penalizing dysfunctionality and totalitarian exploitation.
However, YOU ARE RIGHT that the US has made its share of mistakes (and
successes). We need to think more for the long term, hold ourselves
accountable and avoid contradicting our ideals. Some of the totalitarian
leaders we have supported in the past and today (Saudi Arabia comes to mind)
are evil and our support has and will continue to come back to haunt us. And
that steel quota/tarrif thing is an absolute kick in the face of "free"
trade. We are more active in world events than any other nation, but that
brings more responsibility, not less.
Certainly nobody is simplifying the problem with terrorism or lack of social
progress on any single dimension. The solution isn't just that they need to
get less "dysfunctional," or that US needs to cause less problems. Complex
problems often require complex solutions.
HORSE:
Victorian (UK) foreign policy was to subdue each and every nation that failed
to comply
with it's favoured economic model and goals... which appears to be identical
to current
US foreign policy.
Hopefully the new(ish) US imperialism will go the same way as Victorian
imperialism...
DMB...
Exactly. Its no accident that US imperialism resembles the UK's colonialism.
The US began to absorb Europe's colonies beginning in the late 19th century.
It started with Spain's Cuba and the Phillipines in the 1890's, and was
wildly excellerated after WW2 when the UK pretty much said, "Here, take
these countries. We can't afford to keep them anymore." Naturally, the US
has developed a more efficient form of imperialism. After all, colonialism
is a rather expensive way to exploit nations. All that's left now are
puppets, allies and enemies. "You're either with us or you're against us."
RISKY:
So exporting our ideals now classifies as IMPERIALISM? Since the start of
WWII the US has done as much or more than any other country to defend peoples
right to self determination. I already admitted that we made some mistakes
along the way in our war against the spread of totalitarianism (nazi,
fascist, communist, fundamentalist), but if not for us I suspect Horse and
his European buddies would currently be little nazis in training. We didn't
assume control of Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia, or the
Phillipines, and we aren't going to assume control of Afghanistan or Iraq
either.
DMB:
And this is a source of great confusion. Most Americans believe they live in
a democratic nation, but in fact are citizens of a global thermo-nuclear
empire. And what we're seeing is not true globalism, as in the rule of
international law, so much as the world-wide export of some rather
provincial corporate values that is resulting in the massive extinction of
plants, animals, cultures and languages. Its estimated that half of the
world's 6,800 languages will be lost within a hundred years. How does a
person fight all that?
RISKY:
Your second sentence is itself quite confused. Are we a democratic republic
or not? What makes us an empire?
As for the export of corporate values, I take it you are refering to the
value of free enterprise and the social knowledge of capitalism. The export
is voluntary. I believe the problem that you and Horse have is that you are
both economic socialists and it really bothers you that your economic ideals
have been thoroughly disastrous. You both abhor the values that people
establish when given a degree of freedom in the matter, and instead want to
tell others what is best for them. You are both master planners who are
convinced that everyone else is an idiot or exploited stooge, and that the
solution to all the worlds problems are to place one of the two of you in
charge.
If you have any actual economic argument, please make it and cite examples.
Otherwise, there is only one proven contender that countries and people are
freely looking at for economic advancement and that is variations on the
theme of good old fashioned, provincial, free enterprise.
As for your tacked-on argument that "provincial corporate values" lead to
extinction of plants and animals and languages, may I remind you that you
might want to support this allegation with a semblance of argument? For
example, please provide evidence that biodiversity or cultural diversity are
more threatened in free enterprise democracies than in theocracies or
socialist states or other totalitarian regimes. I think you will find that
biodiversity is protected much better in advanced western
capitalist/democracies than in any form of totalitarian state.
As for the loss of language, I would like to ask what you are recommending?
Are you suggesting that people in New Guinea NOT be allowed to assimilate?
Are you recommending they be forced back out into the rain forest? Talk about
imperialism. If people voluntarily give up their language, then what right do
you have to stop them? (And I too believe that the loss of language/culture
is regretable.)
But I could be wrong,
Risky
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:58 BST