Subject:
|
Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Aug 1999 06:59:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2129 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote:
> 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! :-,
I will take the plexiglas windows, thank you...oh, and the armoured station wagon to
go along with it...
> > 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.
Algeria? Algeria? Anyone? Bueller...? In reality, border-expansion imperialism
is pretty much dead; the only way most governments can do it is by ejecting (or
eradicating) the people already there. It's far cheaper to exert cultural and
economic hegemony without having to deal with--and care for--all of those human
bodies. That's how US imperialism has worked for nearly a century, by calling
itself anything but imperialism. The Teflon Rome!
> 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.
I don't want to live anywhere that's been conquered by nuclear firepower, do you?
They're researched to make a cheaper deterrent, a more effective one, with a lower
probability of failure (or accident). Weapons are not always in development for
reasons of brute yield.
> > > 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 line was Teddy Roosevelt's. 'Big Stick' diplomacy, as a term, originated with
Panama in the early years of this century. And the United States is 'better' (a
loaded term, hoo-whee) at hegemony because the US consistently refuses to allow that
it's an imperial power. The rest of the world realized it in 1898 (or before), but
US policy has always shied away from the term 'empire'. It clashes miserably with
high-minded ideals of self-determination. Often we've been caught in a hypocritical
catch-22 because of it--and it's led many nations (peoples, not necessarily their
states) to loathe the US.
> 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.
It's also remarkable that we have only two contiguous neighbours. We do have
defensive military forces--they're just not standing ones. Canada is in the same
situation, yet you don't see Canadian troops being deployed all over the world. The
US has a reason--credibility. When US interests or the security of US allies are
threatened, not acting carries a strong potential for adversity in the US economy,
the opinions of the US public, etc., etc.
> > 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.
Well, if all you've got is tin pots, you'll be assured of altruism from your
leaders. :) The Tanzania of Julius Nyerere is a good example--but governance is
made much more difficult by Africa's mineral wealth. Nigeria has been a mess
because of oil money, and South Africa is beginning to teeter from arguments over
the enormous wealth that is so obviously there, yet so obviously doesn't reach most
of the population that extracts it from the ground.
> > 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...
The friendly dictatorships have become more wily. They now know that a reasonable
'democratic' movement will garner US support--so they not only squash these
movements with greater brutality, but they also seem to do a lot more kissing-up to
us. Witness Robert Mugabe, Daniel arap Moi, or any of the other long-time strongmen
of Africa--they all know this and fear can drive ruling parties to violence. The
goal now is not to keep the USSR out but to make sure the environment is good for US
economic interests. Our worst enemy is now our own stated belief in
self-determination.
LFB.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
