Subject:
|
Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:15:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@io.!antispam!com
|
Viewed:
|
1996 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> > I agree -- that your guess is just a guess. At last glance, France and
> > China and Russia and India and Pakistan and Iraq and a bunch of other
> > powerful nations had their eye towards expanding their borders.
> Uh? I can see China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iraq.
Wow, what a view! I want a house next to yours! :-,
> But France????
Mostly real-estate holdings in the Pacific, with some other (disputed)
claims in South America and the Indian Ocean. France is probably not the
best example, as they're not actively expanding their borders, just
inflicting the consequences of their nuke testing on their neighbors.
But yet, I don't see any reason for anyone to continue development on
nuclear weapons unless they intend to use them on *someone else*. Ergo,
there's the desire to conquor more at some point in the future.
> > We
> > Americans may have a longer history of imperialism than others, but we're
> > definitely not alone.
> US stands out because it's better at it. Lots of countries have tried to
> force their neighbours into submission, but not many other countries have sent
> troops off to do so on other lands halfway round the world.
Who was it who suggested to walk softly and carry a big stick? I'm almost
sure it was Churchill, but a good saying nonetheless. There are even times
it applies well to foreign policy. One of the best things the U.S. has done
was abandon its non-intervention policy and jump to the aid of economic
allies during WWII.
The U.S. has the nearly-unique position in that our neighbors tend to be
really friendly, or really small, or both. Subsequently, out military
forces tend to be less defensive and more offensive.
Does this explain why we send so many troops overseas? Yes. Does it excuse
this activity? Not by itself.
> And with being a very powerful Western democracy, perhaps most of the World
> tends to expect better standards of the USA than we tend to from some tin pot
> African dictatorship <grin>
This pains me a lot. (The truth in the statement, not that it was said.)
We *should* exercise better judgement in our foreign policy. I'm sure that
history can show a tin pot African dictatorship that behaved much better
than the U.S.
> To be fair US foreign policy has improved hugely over the last 20 years or so.
> US involvement abroad is now much more likely to be for good humanitarian
> reasons
> and now is no longer generally because the US is trying to force some US-
> friendly
> dictatorship on an unwilling population.
That changed largely because of the end of the Cold War. For any conflicts
we enter today, mere fear of Reagan's ubiquitous "Evil Empire" won't justify
anymore. Presidential spin doctors, on the other hand...
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
He stands...like some sort of...PAGAN GOD or DEPOSED TYRANT. Staring out
over the city he's sworn to...to stare out over... And it's evident...just
by looking at him...that he's got some PRETTY HEAVY THINGS ON HIS MIND.
- Ben Edlund, 1996
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
