Hi Horse! Thanks for joining in. I do miss the good ol' days.
HORSE:
Roger, please tell me why, if the US was so concerned about the rights of
others all over
the world, that it waited so long to get involved in a war against such an
offensive and
oppressive regime. Surely not because it was quite happy selling war supplies
to the
Nazis even though it was aware of the attrocities against Jews, Blacks, Gays,
Intellectuals etc. As is still the case, the USA only gets involved when
there is an
immediate threat to itself. In 1942 it was the Japanese who forced you to act
and in
2001 it was the immediate threat of terror on its own soil that prompted it
to act against
'Global Terror'. Prior to these events it didn't give a damn.
Risky:
So your argument is that we didn't win the war in Europe soon enough? You
are right that there are elements within the US (probably everywhere) that
are isolationist. We feared repeating the quagmire of WWI. OK Horse, you
win. The US is an imperialist nation that doesn't give a damn.
H:
As far as I'm aware the only rights that the USA are prepared to defend are
the rights of
the USA to do as it pleases, wherever it pleases regardless of the
consequences. Can
you offer me an instance of the USA protecting the rights of a nations people
to self
determination where that nation is not in some way useful to US economic or
military
interests.
R:
I have no idea what the economic value of Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam, Grenada
or Korea were to the US. Certainly the economics weren't worth sending young
men there to die. These wars were supported for principles that extend way
beyond economics or defense. And yes, some were still a mistake.
<IMPERIALISM>
The principle or spirit of empire; advocacy of what are held to be imperial
interests. In
nineteenth-century British politics, the principle or policy (1) of seeking,
or at least not
refusing, an extension of the British Empire in directions where trading
interests and
investments require the protection of the flag; and (2) of so uniting the
different parts of
the Empire having separate governments, as to secure that for certain
purposes, such
as warlike defence, internal commerce, copyright, and postal communication,
they
should be practically a single state.
In the United States, imperialism was similarly applied to the policy of
extending the rule
or influence of the American people over foreign countries, and of acquiring
and holding
distant dependencies, in the way in which colonies and dependencies are held
by
European states.
The essential features of imperialism are the concentration of capital, the
merging of
industrial and banking capital into finance capital and the division of the
world between
national and international monopolies.
R:
The US has not tended to hold dependecies, or to unite with places like
Korea, Turkey, the Philipines, Japan, Germany, etc into a "single state.".
These are very much independent countries with wills and goals of their own
(often at odds with US interests). Certainly Americans would not usually
support the widespread creation of national and international monopolies.
This description does not IN GENERAL describe US policy.
H:
Whilst the US have not assumed control directly in the coutries you mention,
the
installation of 'amenable and sympathetic' governments amounts to much the
same
thing. This is most obvious recently in Afghanistan - first the Mujahadeen
(sp!) were
assisted into government, then when they were no longer amenable and
sympathetic to
the interests of the US the Taliban were similarly aided.
R:
Wasn't there a little matter about... what was it... oh yeah... about them
attacking US civilians and killing 3000 innocent people. Maybe I am confused
though. If we were so hell bent on forcing sympathetic governments, do you
really think we would put up with France? Seriously though, after the cold
war, the US and NATO have no excuse to meddle in others' affairs unless they
threaten us or the world agrees to act multilaterally. I am sure large
countries like the US, Russia and GB have occassionally crossed the line
though.
M:
Once it was seen what a stupid
mistake had been made the Northern Alliance (AKA Mujahadeen) were given
military
and financial assistance to.... and so it goes on. All I can say is that I
hope the Northern
Alliance don't welch on the deal to install the oil pipeline across
Afghanistan or they too
will be shown the door.
R:
So it was really about oil? Maybe we just pretended to blow up those towers?
By the way, I never have bought all the arguments some espouse about the
mid-east being primarily about oil. Oil is a fungible resource and it isn't
worth much to anyone if it isn't sold. Who cares who sells it to whom? The
issues in the mideast are PRIMARILY about clashing cultures, imo.
H:
Roger, please don't expect me to believe that the Social Level beast that is
US foreign
policy is helping to export the Intellectual level values that will help to
destroy it. That is
a nonsense - and incidentally goes against all the tenets of the MoQ. The US
Government, Military and US based multinationals are Social level and
wouldn't know
squat about an Intellectual Value except to understand that they are a threat
and must
be destroyed at any cost.
R:
Let me see now... Germany is now a free democracy. Japan is now a free
democracy. South Korea is now a... There are more democracies now than any
time in the history. There are more free people now than any time in
history. And yea, people like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton helped make it
happen. Multinationals depend upon free markets and upon intellectual and
property rights. Free people and free economies go together hand in hand.
If the MOQ disputes this then so much the worse for the MOQ.
But I am frequently mistaken,
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 - 16:01:59 BST