When will I stop blaming the USA?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...401628375.html

Quote:

More pain for Hurricane Jeanne survivors
September 29, 2004 - 2:35PM


Victims who survived Hurricane Jeanne but lost relatives, homes and belongings now are tormented by street gangs who attack food convoys and distribution points, raid homes at night and shoot those who get in their way.

The failure of Haiti's US-backed government to disarm the gangs that helped oust President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has created a climate of insecurity that further jeopardises lives in the calamity Jeanne visited on the city of Gonaives when it was still a tropical storm.

"There's a big problem with gangs," said the security chief of the UN stabilisation mission in Haiti, John Harrison.

On Wednesday, he was looking for safe food distribution points and stopped at the port, where he found armed men.

"I think things could get worse," he said.

While planeloads of relief aid have arrived from around the world, getting it to the people who need it has become a challenge.

The entrance to the city has been a flashpoint for looters - a government convoy was held up on Saturday by men armed with guns and machetes - but was being secured on Wednesday by Uruguayan troops in the UN peacekeeping force.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1056618.htm

Quote:

NORMAN HERMANT: The leading edge of an international force has arrived in Haiti - less than a day after the besieged former President fled.

These US marines will help restore order.

This is what they're facing in Port au Prince.

Much of the capital descended into chaos as news spread that Jean Bertrand Aristide had left the country.

Mobs of his supporters roamed the streets.

Some died in the crossfire, others were clearly murdered, as gangs used the power vacuum to settle old scores.

With roadblocks alight and Port au Prince shrouded in smoke, Haiti's chief justice, now acting President, pleaded for calm.

Mr Aristide and his key allies slipped out of the country on a jet provided by the United States.

The departure, part of a deal brokered by Washington.

GEORGE BUSH, US PRESIDENT: I have ordered the deployment of marines as the leading element of an interim international force.

NORMAN HERMANT: Later, that international force received unanimous endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Haiti's rebels have said they won't resist the intervention.

They say they are satisfied just to see Mr Aristide go.

GUY PHILLIPE, REBEL LEADER: We just hope that no country will accept Aristide so that they will send him back to be judged.

NORMAN HERMANT: That's not likely to happen.

One reason, already some are calling Mr Aristide's ouster nothing more than coup.

After all, the former president was democratically elected - twice.

He played a vital role in overthrowing Haiti's dictatorship and he disbanded the country's army.

Many of the rebels are former soldiers - some with links to the old regime.

Critics say the White House will only fight for democracy when it's convenient.

CHARLES RANGEL, DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE: I don't know what's going on, but we are just as much a part of this coup d'etat as the rebels, as the looters, or anyone else.

When will I stop going on about the US? When it stops interfering so much in so much of the world. This has so much repercussions of Angola. The US backs armed groups to do it's will, achieves it's aims, then get's the hell out and forgets that there is a legacy that it has left behind. Let's face it, no other country feels that it can interfere so much in the politics of other countries.

The end result is the proverbial bull in the china shop.

[Patrick]

When will I stop going on about the US? When it stops interfering so much in so much of the world. This has so much repercussions of Angola. The US backs armed groups to do it's will, achieves it's aims, then get's the hell out and forgets that there is a legacy that it has left behind. Let's face it, no other country feels that it can interfere so much in the politics of other countries.

There are certain countries in the world that I call permanently failed states - Haiti is one, Ethiopia is another. Through a combination of factors, including history, the physical environment, the lack of committment of the people to democracy, etc., those countries seem like one never-ending disaster. Haiti was a disaster long before Bubba Clinton launched his Gilbert and Sullivan war to install the leftitst Aristide, who then proceded to violently suppress the political opposition. To blame Haiti's permanent chaos on the U.S. is simplistic. Also the Angola charge is bogus. The U.S. became involved in that after the soviets and cuban proxies. Most of the instances of U.S. interference historically have been in response to expansionism during the cold war by the soviets -- the real culprits.

Good thing the U.S. "interfered" in western europe after the cold war -- otherwise the euros would be part of the soviet empire, which of course would still be in existence. That the U.S. saved the euros from that fate of course left their memories about ten seconds after the end of the cold war, just as the U.S. contributions to liberating western europe left their memories ten seconds after that war. That the instances of "inteference" devolve mostly from the U.S. nearly single-handed effort to oppose soviet imperialism all over the world is of course not recognized by the euros, who sat on their hands for the duration.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
When will I stop going on about the US? When it stops interfering so much in so much of the world. This has so much repercussions of Angola. The US backs armed groups to do it's will, achieves it's aims, then get's the hell out and forgets that there is a legacy that it has left behind. Let's face it, no other country feels that it can interfere so much in the politics of other countries.

There are certain countries in the world that I call permanently failed states - Haiti is one, Ethiopia is another. Through a combination of factors, including history, the physical environment, the lack of committment of the people to democracy, etc., those countries seem like one never-ending disaster. Haiti was a disaster long before Bubba Clinton launched his Gilbert and Sullivan war to install the leftitst Aristide, who then proceded to violently suppress the political opposition. To blame Haiti's permanent chaos on the U.S. is simplistic. Also the Angola charge is bogus. The U.S. became involved in that after the soviets and cuban proxies. Most of the instances of U.S. interference historically have been in response to expansionism during the cold war by the soviets -- the real culprits.

Good thing the U.S. "interfered" in western europe after the cold war -- otherwise the euros would be part of the soviet empire, which of course would still be in existence. That the U.S. saved the euros from that fate of course left their memories about ten seconds after the end of the cold war, just as the U.S. contributions to liberating western europe left their memories ten seconds after that war. That the instances of "inteference" devolve mostly from the U.S. nearly single-handed effort to oppose soviet imperialism all over the world is of course not recognized by the euros, who sat on their hands for the duration.

qelle ***** ...

Charlie (c'est tout) Monoxide

[Patrick]

qelle ***** ...

A non-response, and in french to boot. Doesn't get more pussified than that!

[Grammatron]

When you are no longer alive.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
When you are no longer alive.

I was kind of hoping the US would change it's foreign policy to be a little less intrusive. I keep on thinking that maybe, after Vietnam, the US will come to it's senses, and see that maybe there is a need to be less instrusive, since the results range from the relatively minor disaster to the major disaster.

Maybe, after Chile. Or Angola, or Iraq. But no, no amount of intervention failures can ever replace 'remember Germany and Japan'.

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane, and in this state, the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway, stealing aid, looting and killing. All because the US doesn't like the way the man who did rule thinks. I don't think he was such a pleasant or good ruler myself, but it is not up to me, any more than it is up to the US, to change that.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was kind of hoping the US would change it's foreign policy to be a little less intrusive. I keep on thinking that maybe, after Vietnam, the US will come to it's senses, and see that maybe there is a need to be less instrusive, since the results range from the relatively minor disaster to the major disaster.

Maybe, after Chile. Or Angola, or Iraq. But no, no amount of intervention failures can ever replace 'remember Germany and Japan'.

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane, and in this state, the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway, stealing aid, looting and killing. All because the US doesn't like the way the man who did rule thinks. I don't think he was such a pleasant or good ruler myself, but it is not up to me, any more than it is up to the US, to change that.

USA cares about the only thing it should, USA. Your(whoever is reading this) country is no different.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
USA cares about the only thing it should, USA. Your(whoever is reading this) country is no different.

Bullsh*t.

[Patrick]

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane, and in this state, the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway, stealing aid, looting and killing. All because the US doesn't like the way the man who did rule thinks.

The U.S. sent intermediaries to stop the last wave of fighting including asking for international monitors, and even called on Aristide to crack down on the gangs. The gangs in turn arose because of widespread hatred for Aristide's corrupt police, and his stiffling, including murdering, the political opposition. Uh, you pretty much don't have a clue.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane, and in this state, the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway, stealing aid, looting and killing. All because the US doesn't like the way the man who did rule thinks.

The U.S. sent intermediaries to stop the last wave of fighting including asking for international monitors, and even called on Aristide to crack down on the gangs. The gangs in turn arose because of widespread hatred for Aristide's corrupt police, and his stiffling, including murdering, the political opposition. Uh, you pretty much don't have a clue.

Much like happened in other trouble spots, the US blunders in and makes things worse than they started.

[Patrick]

the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway

You're completely confused -- Bill Clinton sent a marine force in to INSTALL Aristide! Arisitide, although previously democratically elected, and then undemocratically deposed, didn't adhere to democratic principles after he was reinstalled, which is the real cause of the last wave of violence. Also, to pretend that Haiti would be an island paradise with good-natured natives enjoying peaceful lives except for the U.S. "meddling" is just silly.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

When will I stop going on about the US? When it stops interfering so much in so much of the world.

Funny, the article you quote bashes the US for not interfering.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Funny, the article you quote bashes the US for not interfering.

Exactly what I mean. You can't tell the difference between aid and interference. Bull in a China shop.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane, and in this state, the armed thugs the US backed to overthrow a democratically elected president now hold sway, stealing aid, looting and killing. All because the US doesn't like the way the man who did rule thinks.

Oh, this is rich. Thank you, a_u_p. This is the kind of over-the-top lunacy that makes reading your posts such a richly rewarding experience.

Let's examine this a little bit, shall we?

So once a president has been elected democratically, that's good enough for you; he never has to worry about his legitimacy ever again and can now embark on crushing his opposition and murdering his enemies. I'd ask you if you think if that should have applied also to a famous European who was democratically elected in 1932, but I don't want to invoke Godwin's rule so quickly.

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane. News flash: Haiti is pretty much always in a state of chaos. News flash #2: Haiti is not in a state of chaos due to a hurricane; Haiti is in a state of chaos because they've cut all the trees down and there's nothing to hold back the resulting rivers of mud. Imagine - a desert in the middle of the Caribbean.

The government's armed thugs now hold sway, stealing aid, looting, and killing. News flash #3: This has always been the case in Haiti. And you know what? It's also true in a lot of countries where the U.S. hasn't interfered in the business of a "democratically elected" butcher. What do you think had been going on in Iraq for 20+ years until last year?

C'mon, a_u_p - you're almost there. Suck up your guts, go that little extra distance and make that final claim that will once and for all mark you as being hopelessly and calamitously insane. C'mon - you know you want to say it. You know you wish it were true. Go ahead, say it: The U.S. caused hurricane Jeanne and aimed it at Haiti.

Next up:
Comet to Destroy Earth in January, 2006
Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit
A_U_P Blames U.S.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Patrick
qelle ***** ...

A non-response, and in french to boot. Doesn't get more pussified than that!

Quelqu'un m'a dit que c'est vous qui sont le chat. Je pense que c'est vrai.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Oh, this is rich. Thank you, a_u_p. This is the kind of over-the-top lunacy that makes reading your posts such a richly rewarding experience.

Let's examine this a little bit, shall we?

So once a president has been elected democratically, that's good enough for you; he never has to worry about his legitimacy ever again and can now embark on crushing his opposition and murdering his enemies. I'd ask you if you think if that should have applied also to a famous European who was democratically elected in 1932, but I don't want to invoke Godwin's rule so quickly.

I have already stated that the ruler of Haiti was not on my list of favourite leaders. However, what was done about this. A bad leader was replaced by chaos. Hardly an improvement. Bull in a China Shop.

Quote:

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane. News flash: Haiti is pretty much always in a state of chaos. News flash #2: Haiti is not in a state of chaos due to a hurricane; Haiti is in a state of chaos because they've cut all the trees down and there's nothing to hold back the resulting rivers of mud. Imagine - a desert in the middle of the Caribbean.

Haiti has been devestated by a hurricane, which was made much worse by the limits of growth for that population in that country with the level of development they experience. It has been made worse by the fact that there are only armed thugs to keep order.

Quote:

The government's armed thugs now hold sway, stealing aid, looting, and killing. News flash #3: This has always been the case in Haiti. And you know what? It's also true in a lot of countries where the U.S. hasn't interfered in the business of a "democratically elected" butcher. What do you think had been going on in Iraq for 20+ years until last year?

As I have already stated, the US somehow feels it has the right to use force to implement it's policies in countries for no other reason than it's own interests. The wreckage that may ensue is ignored.

Quote:

C'mon, a_u_p - you're almost there. Suck up your guts, go that little extra distance and make that final claim that will once and for all mark you as being hopelessly and calamitously insane. C'mon - you know you want to say it. You know you wish it were true. Go ahead, say it: The U.S. caused hurricane Jeanne and aimed it at Haiti.

no

Quote:

Next up:
Comet to Destroy Earth in January, 2006
Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit
A_U_P Blames U.S.

[/b][/quote]

no

[Skeptic]

So now the hurricane deaths in Haiti are "really" due to the "root cause" of the US ousting their dictator and "creating a climate of insecurity".

Sure--we all know how wonderfully prepared Haiti was for hurricanes under the previous government, don't we? Shame on the US, ruining the hurricane-readiness system which was the envy of the world, by causing "insecurity"...

Well, AUP, since you are literally blaming the US for the weather now, (isn't "global warming" all Bush's fault, by the way?) I'd say you will never stop blaiming the US.

If aliens invade tomorrow, you'd say they picked up the fact of our existence from American broadcasts and that the US should have been more careful broadcasting radiowaves into outer space. If they don't, you'd say the lack of contact with benevolent civilizations who would make our world a paradise is due to evil US underfunding of SETI programs.

[TragicMonkey]

Reminds me of blaming one's mother for anything that goes wrong in one's life, because you can always trace it back to something she did, or didn't do, or did poorly, or did well but not well enough....

Once you decide to find fault with anything, you will not be disappointed in your quest.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Exactly what I mean. You can't tell the difference between aid and interference. Bull in a China shop.

Well, you seem to have developed a perfect system to distinguish between them. When the US does send something to country X, you claim it is "interfering with X's internal affairs". When the US does not send something to country X, you claim it is "witholding humanitarian aid from country X".

[Drooper]

Oh AUP.

If only you did have the wisdom of Norman Gunstan

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
When will I stop going on about the US?

When hindsight and armchair quarterbacking cease to exist, which means never...

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Bullsh*t.

Which part?

[Tony]

Quote:

When will I stop blaming the USA?

When you get de-lobotomized?

[punchdrunk]

Quote:

Posted by BPSCG:
Oh, this is rich. Thank you, a_u_p. This is the kind of over-the-top lunacy that makes reading your posts such a richly rewarding experience.

Let's examine this a little bit, shall we?

So once a president has been elected democratically, that's good enough for you; he never has to worry about his legitimacy ever again and can now embark on crushing his opposition and murdering his enemies. I'd ask you if you think if that should have applied also to a famous European who was democratically elected in 1932, but I don't want to invoke Godwin's rule so quickly.

Haiti is now in a state of chaos due to a hurricane. News flash: Haiti is pretty much always in a state of chaos. News flash #2: Haiti is not in a state of chaos due to a hurricane; Haiti is in a state of chaos because they've cut all the trees down and there's nothing to hold back the resulting rivers of mud. Imagine - a desert in the middle of the Caribbean.

The government's armed thugs now hold sway, stealing aid, looting, and killing. News flash #3: This has always been the case in Haiti. And you know what? It's also true in a lot of countries where the U.S. hasn't interfered in the business of a "democratically elected" butcher. What do you think had been going on in Iraq for 20+ years until last year?

C'mon, a_u_p - you're almost there. Suck up your guts, go that little extra distance and make that final claim that will once and for all mark you as being hopelessly and calamitously insane. C'mon - you know you want to say it. You know you wish it were true. Go ahead, say it: The U.S. caused hurricane Jeanne and aimed it at Haiti.

May I ask, what is your opinion regarding nation-building? Are you generally for or against it? thanks

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
May I ask, what is your opinion regarding nation-building? Are you generally for or against it? thanks

That is a complex question, and no "A" or "B" answer will do it justice.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
That is a complex question, and no "A" or "B" answer will do it justice.

Hey, he asked me.

That is a complex question, and no "A" or "B" answer will do it justice.

[punchdrunk]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Hey, he asked me.

That is a complex question, and no "A" or "B" answer will do it justice.

Well, I did attempt to make the question simpler by asking for your 'general' opinion about it. I assumed you wouldn't be able to give a blanket opinion about all circumstances.

Still, you are correct, it is a complex questions that probably deserves a complex and thorough answer. Personally, I'm struggling with the issue; I truly don't know which side I fall on in this case.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
Well, I did attempt to make the question simpler by asking for your 'general' opinion about it. I assumed you wouldn't be able to give a blanket opinion about all circumstances.

Still, you are correct, it is a complex questions that probably deserves a complex and thorough answer. Personally, I'm struggling with the issue; I truly don't know which side I fall on in this case.

Welcome to the forum rhoadp. As you can see, it can be a tough crowd...

Anyway, my off-the-top-of-my-head answer is, it depends on whether it's in my country's national interests. This answer is designed to infuriate a_u_p, so let me compound his fury by adding, I don't care about the interests of other countries, since I owe no allegience to them, nor they to me.

Some more to infuriate a_u_p: We did a pretty damn good job of nation building in Japan and Germany after WW II. We've done a lousy job in other places. It's easier when countries want to build themselves and all we have to do is help them clear the obstacles (viz. eastern Europe). It's harder when countries have a large self-destructive element (viz. most of Africa and the middle east).

[Supercharts]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...401628375.html

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1056618.htm

When will I stop going on about the US? When it stops interfering so much in so much of the world. This has so much repercussions of Angola. The US backs armed groups to do it's will, achieves it's aims, then gets the hell out and forgets that there is a legacy that it has left behind. Let's face it, no other country feels that it can interfere so much in the politics of other countries.

The end result is the proverbial bull in the china shop.

If it's the "Bull" that stood by Eastern Europe and Bosnia why worry?

Glass gets broken, melted down and is reformed. Hopefully for the better. Mostly with U.S. blood. [Apparently that's a "secret" ingredient - no one wants to acknowledge or appreciate. We [U.S.] will save your ass and aspirations - but we are the ones actually offering our sons and daughters in "doing it". Irritating to self-styled intellectuals' but pragmatic non-the-less].


Don't worry - be happy.

Mothers in the U.S. wonder the same thing.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
When will I stop going on about the US?

Why not ask the relevant question, which is: "When will anyone outside of your family give a flying f*ck what you think?*






*And I have it on good authority that you mother thinks you're a reactionist blowhard, too.

[Art Vandelay]

When he stops making Patrick look rational.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
May I ask, what is your opinion regarding nation-building? Are you generally for or against it? thanks

The question is a fair one, though it has become 'loaded' with implications in US politics.

I am not generally for or against it. I think that relations between nations, and helping them and looking after your own interests is an incredibly complex subject. Whole departments of universities around the world are devoted to studying politics and history, and they can't agree with much at all. Compare this to, say, the Physics departments, etc.

I like to think that we can improve the world, but I don't think it is an easy task, one that can necessarily ever be complete, nor one that you can ever get a consensus on whether something has been achieved or not.

The basic indicators, such as literacy, infant mortality, etc, are some way of measuring how good or bad a country is doing, though.

The concept of a sovereign country is pretty simple, and, to date, about the best way of defining where the boundaries of one body of people interfering in another starts and stops. Far from perfect, but it provides some element of order in the world. To break those boundaries, there has to be a good reason. I am paraphrasing Singer here, but IIRC there has to be

a) a good chance it will work
b) you have to see the action through to the end
c) the benefit has to outweigh the negative.
d) there has to be an international consensus.

In many of the actions of the US, the actions are half arsed, dropped when the interests of the US are met, carried out without consensus, and not seen through to the end.

The idea that all this is justified because of Germany and Japan is getting a little tired now. Since these two successes, there has been

(I am talking here in terms of actions within a sovereign country, not just 'helping' a country).

a) Iran. Major disaster.
b) Vietnam. Over two million dead. Beyond a disaster
c) Chile. Overthrow of democratically elected government
d) Nicararagua.
e) Angola
f
etc

The common response has been, don't worry about those examples, look at the good ones. Sort of, don't feel the quality, feel the width.

You can't excuse an immoral act by saying you performed another one that was moral. It just doesn't make logical sense. "Hey, I murdered that guy, but I gave someone else $20 last week because he was feeling hungry".

In the case of Haiti, a leader who was bad, and not in favour with the US, was replaced, with the help of the US, and the whole thing was then forgotten. Now, gangs of thugs roam the place, looting aid. To replace a democratically elected leader, with a regime that is no better, is not justified. There was no benefit for the country, and the people are now worse off.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
When he stops making Patrick look rational.

I don't recall ever calling any female forum members a slut.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The question is a fair one, though it has become 'loaded' with implications in US politics.

I am not generally for or against it. I think that relations between nations, and helping them and looking after your own interests is an incredibly complex subject. Whole departments of universities around the world are devoted to studying politics and history, and they can't agree with much at all. Compare this to, say, the Physics departments, etc.

I like to think that we can improve the world, but I don't think it is an easy task, one that can necessarily ever be complete, nor one that you can ever get a consensus on whether something has been achieved or not.

The basic indicators, such as literacy, infant mortality, etc, are some way of measuring how good or bad a country is doing, though.

The concept of a sovereign country is pretty simple, and, to date, about the best way of defining where the boundaries of one body of people interfering in another starts and stops. Far from perfect, but it provides some element of order in the world. To break those boundaries, there has to be a good reason. I am paraphrasing Singer here, but IIRC there has to be

a) a good chance it will work
b) you have to see the action through to the end
c) the benefit has to outweigh the negative.
d) there has to be an international consensus.

In many of the actions of the US, the actions are half arsed, dropped when the interests of the US are met, carried out without consensus, and not seen through to the end.

The idea that all this is justified because of Germany and Japan is getting a little tired now. Since these two successes, there has been

(I am talking here in terms of actions within a sovereign country, not just 'helping' a country).

a) Iran. Major disaster.
b) Vietnam. Over two million dead. Beyond a disaster
c) Chile. Overthrow of democratically elected government
d) Nicararagua.
e) Angola
f
etc

The common response has been, don't worry about those examples, look at the good ones. Sort of, don't feel the quality, feel the width.

You can't excuse an immoral act by saying you performed another one that was moral. It just doesn't make logical sense. "Hey, I murdered that guy, but I gave someone else $20 last week because he was feeling hungry".

In the case of Haiti, a leader who was bad, and not in favour with the US, was replaced, with the help of the US, and the whole thing was then forgotten. Now, gangs of thugs roam the place, looting aid. To replace a democratically elected leader, with a regime that is no better, is not justified. There was no benefit for the country, and the people are now worse off.

Nobody asked you for your opinion, but you just couldn't resist, could you?

[Patrick]

I don't recall ever calling any female forum members a slut.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssse me
fo engaging in some edgy humor.

[demon]

I get tired of the usual crude distortions of the position of those who oppose the United States' attempts to run the world in the interests of its own elites. Even a recent string of surveys that suggests growing resentment around the world over America's role as global policeman doesn`t make those who distort that position stop and think "why?" for a moment..

Some say America gets criticised for "intervening" but then, on the other hand, when Washington's squad cars fail to arrive at the scene of an incident, the US gets blamed for inaction.

Sudan is a good example.

I am not aware that many critics are blaming the US for inaction in Sudan. There are, however, quite a few who are suspicious of US motives. Given the history of American intervention, whether in the name of humanitarianism, anti-communism, Christian goodwill or whatever, such cynicism seems amply justified.

Those who distort the position of critics of America do not go on to draw the obvious conclusion: that the rulers of the US are distrusted, feared and hated not because they behave as the world`s policeman, but because they use force solely in what they consider to be their own interests, without regard for international law or for the welfare of those they claim to be protecting.
In the case of Iraq, they launched an illegal invasion which has killed thousands of people; in the case of Sudan, they are prepared to ignore their legal obligations (under international law, they are legally obliged to stop genocide), but George Bush appears to have no plans for direct humanitarian intervention while allowing yet further thousands to die under their own steam.

Same with Palestine. Many say that Washington is not doing enough in there but informed opponents of US policy on Palestine are quite well aware that Washington is doing a great deal, supporting Israeli violence at the expense of the American taxpayer.
There is no contradiction between opposition to this policy and the wish for a reduction in America`s global "law enforment".
As in Haiti, Iraq and a number of other cases, the position is simply that the US has no right to enforce its business interests by inflicting violence on other countries.

[Lucky]

Well, a_u_p: so why do you (and much of the left) blame the USA for the world’s problems? My view is that it’s partly justified, and partly not. The most obvious point is that there’s no-one else to blame any more. There aren’t any empires, and the USA is the only super-power now. And it behaves in the way that a super-power is absolutely bound to do: to promote its economic, political and military interests (almost) without regard for any other consideration. Just as empires (and, more recently, non-imperial super-powers) have always done.

Where I would agree with you is my belief the situation is wrong, is not inevitable, and that it should and will change. And that relying on the USA to protect our interests harms us all.

Where I would disagree is your implication that there is anything especially American about American actions, or that they could act in a significantly different way, given world power politics. Americans are just more powerful than the people and governments that criticise them (who would mostly do the same thing, given the chance).

Here’s an interesting throwaway remark from George Orwell. It was written in 1939 and was in response to a suggestion that the ‘democratic nations’ should form an economic and political union to deter an attack on any of them.

Quote:

Look again at his list of sheep and goats. No need to boggle at the goats (Germany, Italy and Japan), they are goats right enough, and billies at that. But look at the sheep! Perhaps the U.S.A. will pass inspection if one does not look too closely. But what about France? What about England? What about even Belgium and Holland? Like everyone of his school of thought, {the author} has coolly lumped the huge British and French empires – in essence nothing but mechanisms for exploiting cheap coloured labour – under the heading of democracies!

What interests me is his casual assertion that the USA was more democratic, and less immoral in its foreign policy, than Britain or France. It was true then (not so long ago), and it’s Britain and France that have (unwillingly) changed, not the USA.

Let me make it clear that I am absolutely not condoning American foreign policy, which in most cases is based solely on looking after American economic interests, and often doesn’t succeed even in that. As you point out, blundering into a complex situation in another country is overwhelmingly likely to make matters worse.

Anyway, we’ll all be able to blame the Chinese before too long.

And I wish people would stop posting boring threads about the minutiae of American life and politics that cause interesting ones like this to get buried.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucky
Well, a_u_p: so why do you (and much of the left) blame the USA for the world’s problems? My view is that it’s partly justified, and partly not. The most obvious point is that there’s no-one else to blame any more. There aren’t any empires, and the USA is the only super-power now. And it behaves in the way that a super-power is absolutely bound to do: to promote its economic, political and military interests (almost) without regard for any other consideration. Just as empires (and, more recently, non-imperial super-powers) have always done.

Where I would agree with you is my belief the situation is wrong, is not inevitable, and that it should and will change. And that relying on the USA to protect our interests harms us all.

Where I would disagree is your implication that there is anything especially American about American actions, or that they could act in a significantly different way, given world power politics. Americans are just more powerful than the people and governments that criticise them (who would mostly do the same thing, given the chance).

I don't think I have made that implication. I don't think if you tool away America, the world would instantly be a perfect place. There are Americans here that I have a lot of respect for. There are Americanse here who have all that you can expect anyone to do. They look at their leader, judge him on their own terms, and decide whether to vote for him again. I get the feeling a lot of them are not happy with how he has led their country.

Not a perfect world, or a perfect country, or perfect people. But they are making judgements as individuals on the evidence. If the US was run just on those terms, I don't think anyone would have any more to say about it than any other country. However, the problem is that you can get forces building up inside it, like a volcano that is going to erupt. These forces take on a life of their own, and lead the US into foreign policy decisions that have a life of their own.

Quote:

Here’s an interesting throwaway remark from George Orwell. It was written in 1939 and was in response to a suggestion that the ‘democratic nations’ should form an economic and political union to deter an attack on any of them.

What interests me is his casual assertion that the USA was more democratic, and less immoral in its foreign policy, than Britain or France. It was true then (not so long ago), and it’s Britain and France that have (unwillingly) changed, not the USA.

France was one of the driving forces behind Vietnam, of course, the Rainbow warrior attack in New Zealand an nulcear testing in the pacific. England has been painfully winding back it's empire. Maggie thought the Falklands was a godsend.

You are right, they have changed, the US was less interested in a traditional empire, but still very much interested, more at some times than at others, in projecting it's power. "Manifest Destiny" was an idea with a lot of credence for a while. However, just as France and Britain have changed, so has the US.

I was just reading more of "Axis of Deceit", by an Australian intelligence analyst who resigned because the the Iraq war fiasco.

Here is what he said about the reasons for the war with Iraq, quoting Richard Clarke,

Quote:

Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and 'getting Iraq'. .... Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on Al Qaida. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Powell and his deputy Armitage ... 'I thought I was missing something here,' I vented. 'Having been attacked by Al Qaida, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our attacking Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor'. ... Powell shook his head. 'It's not over yet'. Indeed it was not. Later in the day, Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghainistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the Government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

Quote:

Let mde make it clear that I am absolutely not condoning American foreign policy, which in most cases is based solely on looking after American economic interests, and often doesn’t succeed even in that. As you point out, blundering into a complex situation in another country is overwhelmingly likely to make matters worse.

Anyway, we’ll all be able to blame the Chinese before too long.

And I wish people would stop posting boring threads about the minutiae of American life and politics that cause interesting ones like this to get buried.

That is why there is an election thread. However, to relieve your boredom, I could start a few threads on the minutae of Australian politics. Like, what is the issue about Pauline Hanson's legs.

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Reminds me of blaming one's mother for anything that goes wrong in one's life, because you can always trace it back to something she did, or didn't do, or did poorly, or did well but not well enough....

Once you decide to find fault with anything, you will not be disappointed in your quest.

Indeed. I don't believe that AUP will stop blaming the US for everything, including possibly the amount of salt in the last batch of Vegemite. Because if the US changes their policy, people will just bring out their magic-markered histories and claim that it's all the fault of the US for something that happened back when.

If the US does something, and something bad happens, it's because of the US. If the US doesn't do something, and something bad happens, then it's the fault of the US. If something good happens, of course, it's never because of the US.

If one points this out, the answer is pretty consistent: "Oh, you think the US can do no wrong, eh? You US patriot! You don't think that the US should be criticized!" Or something like that.

In any case, it's always vapid. Criticism is like a heat engine; there has to be a differential. Times where the US is relatively isolationist have to be compared to times where the US is relatively imperialist. However, this so-called "criticism" balks at this, because the goal is to find fault no matter what and feel all smarmy about it. And, when they do that, they voluntarily give up the right to be taken seriously. Because it becomes background noise, always constant, like death and taxes. And if nothing bad happened today, there's always something from the past that can be dredged up.

So when 9/11 happened, it was all the rage to say that it was the chickens coming home to roost, that the US was bad. Which must have meant Clinton, who was in a context of sanctions and had no major land war against Iraq. Both of which were bad. Now, of course, George Bush has no sanctions and a major land war. Both of which are also bad.

Set the wabac machine to the end of the Gulf War. All those oil-burning Toyotas and Datsuns with the "No Blood For Oil" bumper stickers. In the blink of an eye, they got covered up with "What About the Kurds?" bumper stickers. Desert Storm was bad! And if it weren't bad enough, it stopped! And no more Desert Storm was bad! Desert Storm was bad! No Desert Storm was bad!

And the Vietnam War. Bad US! No, it had nothing to do with France. France is good, and France is strong, and France is the best of everything. And Srebrenica didn't happen. And if it happened, it was the fault of the US for not intervening enough. And the US was also bad for intervening in the former Yugoslavia in the first place. Except that it was NATO, which is OK, except for the US part, which is bad! And besides, do I have to mention the bombing of the Chinese Embassy? And also, Europe would have taken care of it eventually, even though they did nothing for more than a year after the pictures of concentration camps were made public. And besides, concentration camps are a European tradition. And who is the bad US to judge anyway? Bad US. Bad, bad, bad US! And so what if a few Jews get killed. Where's my wheat shipment? I should get it free. Bad US!

It's all bad, no matter what. And it all becomes white noise.

[Lucky]

From a_u_p:

Quote:

to relieve your boredom, I could start a few threads on the minutae of Australian politics. Like, what is the issue about Pauline Hanson's legs.

Er, thanks, but no thanks. I was about to ask you who Pauline Hanson is, but please don’t tell me that, either. If I really want to know I can find out. Sometimes I think I’ll do a search and find out who Ann Coulter and Dan Rather are, so I don’t feel so much of an outsider here, but I don’t suppose I’ll get round to it.


epepke:
Please tell me who is saying the things you describe. Honestly, it is just not the kind of thing that I hear in Britain. True, there are large numbers who take every opportunity to rubbish the US, but many of those same people take every opportunity to rubbish the British government, the police, the armed forces, the teaching profession, vaccination and the lunar landings. They are just anti, they are not really pro anything (and certainly not pro-Europe, or pro-UN).

Just one example:

Quote:

And the Vietnam War. Bad US! No, it had nothing to do with France. France is good, and France is strong, and France is the best of everything.

Well, look at what a_u_p actually said:

Quote:

France was one of the driving forces behind Vietnam, of course, the Rainbow warrior attack in New Zealand an nulcear testing in the pacific.

Also, you must have noticed that the Brits on this board tend to be much more left-leaning than most of the Americans, and you surely can’t accuse us of having a good word to say about the French!