Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011 From: The Old Pueblo Status: offline
|
I also meant to address a few other points you raised. quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub Zonie it seems to me that we, meaning the US, beat ourselves up over the condition of the world today. I believe this dead wrong. The direct result of the industrial and military might of the US is a massive increase in the well being of every human on this earth. In the last 50 years the world population has exploded. Third world countries are entering the modern age for the fist time in their history...all because of the US... no one else. We have continually rebuild western Europe after their petty arguments dragged the world twice into war. We protect them today... without the US military umbrella Europe would have to spend its money on defense not bullet trains. Our economic pressure alone can change the actions of aggressive nations... We have not just changed the world we have made it stable and more prosperous than ever in human history. A few points here, at least for some historical perspective. Going back to the late 19th and early 20th century (before WW1), what we now know today as the "third world" was mostly under the colonial control of the European powers, with Britain and France controlling most of it. They also had a role in the early development and industrialization of these territories, far more than what we were doing at that point. As for their "petty arguments," it was really the Germans who dragged us into it, twice. First time, they tried to rile up Mexico to attack us and then declared unrestricted submarine warfare, which gave us no other viable choice but to enter the war against Germany. Second time, Hitler declared war on us all by himself. I would take issue with your assertion that we have made the world more stable than ever. The world was pretty stable in 1900, and probably could have remained that way if not for Germany. The hot spots of the world we hear about today were nothing back in 1900. North Korea was certainly no threat at that time, and neither was Iran. Apart from a brief spat with the Barbary pirates in the 18th and early 19th centuries, we had zero problems with the Middle East. None whatsoever. The biggest threat coming out of China was the Boxer Rebellion, but they were far too disorganized and undeveloped that they could hardly mount any serious threat against the United States - not like they are today. Back in those days, the biggest geopolitical threat to US security was...Pancho Villa. We didn't have to worry about fascists or communists or Islamists either. quote:
The US is the first preeminent world power not to seek new territories by force... We have been and will continue to be a deterrent to aggression. I disagree. The entire history of the US has been built on seeking new territories by force. Back in 1607, what would eventually become the US was nothing more than a tiny village on the east coast of Virginia. We got much, much bigger. How do you suppose that happened? We also grabbed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain, which had previously taken those territories by force. We used force against Spain, then we used force against the native populations of those lands in order to keep them under our thumb. The Philippines was especially bad. Just because our history has been whitewashed and they didn't tell us these things in school doesn't mean they didn't happen. But even worse still, we had pushed for the Open China policy and participated on the side of European colonial powers in the Boxer Rebellion, thus giving our assent to the legitimacy of colonialism and the world system as it was. Our participation on the Allied side in the World Wars also put us even more firmly in the camp of the colonial powers - which is why we couldn't extricate ourselves from their business after the war. After World War II, the world could have been made more stable if we had a president who was more flexible and open to a rapprochement with the USSR. Truman and his ilk screwed the pooch because they were so obsessed and scared about the so-called "communist conspiracy" to take over the world. That's what led us into the Cold War and led to much of the instability in the world today. All over the world, the victims of colonial aggression, whose territories were taken by force, were trying to fight back and gain independence and freedom. This did not suit the US government at the time, which in fact, makes us the aggressors. If we're going to claim that we hold some sort of moral high ground over so-called "aggressive" nations, then at least we should put it some perspective here. As an example, when the French took over Vietnam and the rest of Indochina, they just took it over and declared it French territory. No puppets or proxies; they just "it's ours" and that was that. Was that, somehow, less moral and less honorable than our installation of puppet governments and operating under the pretense of "independence" when nothing was further from the truth? Or what about the coup we engineered in Chile or other places around the world? Was that more honorable than if we had just invaded and took over the country entirely? quote:
As much as people bitch about the free enterprise system it is the most efficient and prosperous in the history of mankind. It works in many types of government... just look at China. The raising middle class of China alone, a direct result of a free enterprise system, is larger than middle class anywhere in the world... including the US . China is still communist. It may be a more adaptive and flexible form of communism than in previous eras, but they never would have reached the pinnacle of success they enjoy today without first cleaning up the mess left by the colonial powers and the corrupt, morally-bankrupt regime that existed in that country prior to 1949. Plus, they had to recover from the brutalities inflicted upon them by the Japanese. I honestly don't know why capitalists always point to China as their poster child extolling the virtues of "free enterprise." Have we forgotten that China is still a dictatorship and has brutally used force to crush dissent and any movements towards democracy? Is this what the future holds for global capitalism? Are they the new role model for the future? Is this what you're praising? quote:
We as Americans have nothing to be ashamed of... we have led be example. Every generation including today as contributed none better or worse than the last. What we have to do is to not look back with blame but look forward with innovation to make our country better, and by doing that we will make the world better. Butch I don't think we should be ashamed, but I think we should be honest about who we are and what we've done. We're not a bunch of angels or choir boys. But that just makes us human; we're no better or worse than other people in the world. It's not a matter of looking back with blame, but more a matter of rationally and coherently realizing where we made our mistakes so that we don't make similar mistakes in the future. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
|