TheRPGSite

QuoteJ. R. Dunn
Fri Jan 5, 10:30 AM ET
 


Hegemonism is the doctrine holding that every American action on the international stage should be examined under suspicion of evil intent. And what does it foresee occurring in        Iraq - and the Middle East at large - after the United States pulls out?


 
This is no trivial question. Hegemonist doctrine is a major factor in the rush toward abandonment of American responsibilities in the Persian Gulf. The hegemonist worldview is today dominant in American culture. With the effective collapse of the conservative consensus over the past half-decade, there is nothing to stand against it. It is the controlling ideology in the media, in the entertainment world, in the schools, and in the Democratic Party scheduled to take over the Congress next month. If asked to bet on the fate of American Middle East policy in the near future, the safe move would be to put money on general withdrawal before the 2008 election. The only thing opposing this outcome is the boldness and determination of George W. Bush himself - not a good situation in a democracy.

So how does hegemonism portray the near future?

This is not a speculative question either. The current situation is a carbon copy of that facing the U.S. in the spring of 1975, when this country ran out on our Southeast Asian allies in general, and South Vietnam in particular. In mid-April 1975 (I believe the date was the 15th, but I'm not absolutely certain) Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times' Cambodia correspondent, published an op-ed giving a seasoned reporter's view as to what would happen in the region now that the U.S. was out. Simply put, a blanket of peace not witnessed since Eden would descend across Southeast Asia. With the U.S. gone, all hostilities and violence would cease. The locals, peaceful folk all, would pick up the threads of their lives and, unmolested by arrogant Yankees, would create a society that would act as a shining example to the world at large, Americans in particular.

This is hegemonist doctrine in almost chemically pure form. The U.S. as a demon among nations, violence and depravity the sole results of its policies. The only such actor on the world stage, with all other nations serving as victims, with no course open to them beyond reacting to American provocations. With the U.S. removed from the equation, the world will then immediately right itself and roll on with not a single problem, conundrum, or challenge - at least not that any American need pay attention to. This was the doctrine as it stood in 1975, and if Nancy Pelosi's recent remark that, "If we leave Iraq, then the insurgents will leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave Iraq," is any indication, it has not changed in a single particular in the thirty years since.

So much for the hegemonist vision. As for the real world... Even as Schanberg's words appeared, the Khmer Rouge, in the service of a vision we will never be able to grasp, were emptying out the Cambodian capitol of Phnom Penh. What followed was one of the worst massacres of the 20th century, exceeded in sheer inhumanity only by the Holocaust and the Ukrainian famine. Within three years, something on the order of one to three million people ("over one million" as Schanberg's paper helpfully puts it) had been murdered. The        Khmer Rouge were enemies of technology, and most of those who didn't starve were beaten to death with bamboo staves. When the last victims in an area were dispatched and all that was left were the cadres, they turned on each other, far past the point where they were capable of understanding anything else. It was atrocity carried to its ultimate degree, an event with the stench of damnation about it. The world has hurried on with scarcely a glance back. (To my knowledge, Schanberg has never repudiated his statement of April 1975. This too is typical of hegemonist doctrine, which is in many ways a postmodern construct: if you don't acknowledge your errors, then they never happened.)

The Vietnamese ordeal was not as deadly. It was also slower in unfolding. Several years passed before the appearance of the Boat People, common Vietnamese who had grown so desperate as to entrust themselves to makeshift rafts and boats on the South China Sea in an effort to get anywhere - Hong Kong, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia - beyond the reach of the Party. We have no idea how many fled, and how many died on the high seas of thirst, starvation, in storms, slaughtered by pirates, drowned when their rickety craft disintegrated around them. The UN, and the world at large, ignored them, in the same fashion as we see today concerning Darfur. Since they were fleeing communism, the Boat People were not legitimate victims, in the same sense that the Christians of Sudan deserve nothing in the way of sympathy either.

And that was only the beginning. The latter part of the 1970s developed into a global Walpurgisnacht in which low-lying fruit of the international system were knocked off by Soviet-funded Marxists one after the other. Ethiopia, Nicaragua, the twin Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique (and very nearly the mother country itself, with incalculable consequences for Europe, but for the actions of Ramalho Eanes, one of the unsung heroes of the Cold War), Grenada,        Afghanistan - it was the most successful decade for the communists since the late 1940s. And with their fall, these small states were plunged into chaos, starvation, and endless warfare. As with the Boat People, the final toll is unknown. As with the Boat People, the world showed no concern whatsoever.

This record in and itself makes it abundantly clear that the hegemonist doctrine is fantasy, and widespread as it has become, an extraordinarily dangerous fantasy. The U.S. is not, and has never been, the snake in an international Eden. Quite the contrary: when the United States retreats, the tyrants, bandits, and ideologues are unleashed. The rule of blood returns, and genocide and horror walk the streets and highways of this civilization.

The record in recent years serves only to underline this fact. In Yugoslavia, a situation that a relatively small European expeditionary force, consisting at most of a few divisions, could have sorted out in a matter of months, was allowed to fester for the larger part of a decade. Thousands died in repeated offensives, sieges, ethnic-cleansing campaigns, and outright massacres until the U.S. broke the Serbian grip by main force.

Darfur, in which hundreds are being slaughtered at this moment, could be controlled with a few squadrons of helicopter gunships reinforced with Predator-class drones to establish a cordon across which no horsemen would be allowed to venture. But the U.S. is entangled elsewhere, and no one else is willing to step in. Not a single European state, not a single African country. Not even        Kofi Annan, himself an African, was willing to bestir his underlings, instead contenting himself with tirades at the Truman Library condemning the United States for the temerity of interfering with other countries.

Rwanda we have saved for last, since it comprises a special case, the example that in and of itself exposes the bankruptcy of a self-policing international system. Rwanda was the worst massacre since the Cambodian Year Zero, and the only one to match it for sheer lunacy. (There was a kind of sanity, in a debased and repellent form, about the Holocaust and the Ukrainian Famine. If you want to destroy a domestic enemy, you wipe them out to the last infant. So says the style of rationalism unbound embodied by Nazism and communism.) In the past few weeks, a dozen years after the slaughter, it has at last been revealed by the new Rwandan government that the massacre was planned and overseen in the chambers of the French embassy. That the militia that triggered the butchery was trained by French officers. That the mobile radio transmitter that goaded the Hutu into turning on their neighbors was maintained and operated by French engineers. All to carry out a foreign policy whose raison d'etre is that no French-speaking state can ever be allowed to fall under the control of Anglophones (the Tutsis, God help them, are English-speakers). For this, a million died under the most horrifying circumstances conceivable. For France, the cradle of civilization. France, the exemplar of culture. France, the nation that we - vulgar Yanks in particular - should all strive to imitate.

Well, something went wrong with France somewhere along the line - the Revolution of 1789, more than likely - and they are now the exemplar of nothing. They are yet another pirate state, with a record including Algeria, Vietnam, Bokassa's cannibal empire, and Rwanda. (Their recent actions in central Africa, consisting of air strikes on the Sudanese border that evidently killed mostly civilians, serve only to round this series out.) This is a record perhaps second only to that of the USSR itself. France is a state that, like Serbia or Libya, must be watched closely and if necessary kept in check. And what power is capable of carrying out such a policy? France has nuclear weapons. It has aircraft carriers. It has its own domestic military industry.

In all the wide world, there is only one such nation.

For an international system to work, the dominant state must act the role. When it stands aside no one takes its place. The marginal states deteriorate below the medieval level, while the more "civilized" nations behave in manner they would probably not even contemplate under other circumstances. The dominant power does not lead through strict application of force but by example and unvoiced threat as much as anything else. Its hand should be light, its intentions benevolent, as was generally (apart from Ireland) the case with Great Britain. But even a harsh overlordship, as in the case of the Ottomans and Rome, is better than the anarchy that reigns when the superpower declines its role. If the U.S. is guilty of any crime in its international relations, it is in the repeated attempts to evade its responsibility as the world's leading power. WW I dragged on for years due to U.S. refusal to join the fight against German reaction. A similar action guaranteed a near-total Allied collapse against the most sinister and powerful enemy ever faced by the civilized West during the first two years of WW II. We have already covered the 70s. The 90s were a similar period, when the United States decided to take the decade off under the impression that its job was done (of course,        Bill Clinton has apologized for all that during one of his bongo-playing expeditions). Different names have been used for what was essentially the same policy: normalcy, isolationism, detente, the end of history. We don't yet know what the name for next hiatus will be.

We do know that the impulse behind it is the hegemonist doctrine. No other force is keeping the U.S. from playing its international role. No outside element could possibly succeed in holding the country back. Only internal pressure from the media, the educational establishment, the universities, the Democrats. They call themselves idealists, and we can give them that. But American left-wing idealism is hollow, creating not the conditions for a global utopia, but for more wars, more brutality, more genocides, more bloodshed.

It follows that the hegemonist doctrine has to go. This is a dogma that has no beneficial aspect. It presents itself as infinitely virtuous while enabling the most evil aspects of the era. (The majority of its adherents - the kind of leftists who have adopted the label of "liberal" - would no doubt be deeply offended to hear that they are supporters of the Khmer Rouge and the Rwandan murderers -- but there's no ducking this.) It is accepted without thought or consideration, as simply the way educated people think. It is a doctrine that inveigles decent individuals to turn their backs on grotesque suffering, to shut the blinds and close their ears when they hear screams of pain and terror out in the darkness, in the conviction that the police are, if anything, worse than the rapists and murderers.

It is also a doctrine held - if not very seriously or very deeply - by a vast number of people, which raises the question of how such a thing can be challenged. In past decades, the center right has all too often allowed leftist premises to stand unchallenged. The reasons are varied - concentration on easier issues, a sense of hopelessness, an inability to recognize such ideas when they appear - and are not important. What is important is realizing that this stance is always an error. It has allowed the left to set the terms of debate, to define the issues, to prepare the ground before the fight even begins. The result has been much more effort and frustration in conservative efforts than has been strictly called for.

This is nowhere more true than of hegemonist doctrine. In debates concerning foreign policy, it has been treated as an axiom, something inarguable and untouchable. In going along with this charade, conservatives have effectively relegated all their own arguments to the "yes, but..." category. Such a consistent and long-lived tendency to undercut their own premises would be difficult to credit if it wasn't true of many other conservative positions as well.

Three methods would prove effective in breaking the hold of hegemonist doctrine: identifying it for what it is; discrediting its contentions; and replacing it with a healthy, serious conception of national feeling.

Identification - most people have no idea anything like hegemonism exists as a distinct concept, attributing its effects to the general climate of opinion. Since the collapse of Stalinism, the radical left has been very careful not to closely associate itself with the spread of its own ideas, instead depending on sympathetic or naive outsiders (in a previous epoch known as "transmission belts"), a tactic that has proven quite successful. Identifying hegemonism as leftist in its origins, methods, and aims would go a long way toward undermining it. Most people do not care to be intellectually manipulated, which is what this doctrine amounts to.

Identifying it as a distinct doctrine will also force the left to defend it as a doctrine, rather than simply acting as if it's what any sane person believes. (It's amazing, when you think about it, how many aspects of left-wing ideology are defended in those terms, and none other. Amazing, and frustrating, in that they've been able to get away with it for so long.)

Disparagement - This should be easy enough. In truth, few dogmas have been more discredited in recent years than this one. As we have seen, it was discredited first by the aftermath of the Vietnam War, as the world at large careened down the road to Hell without any assistance from the United States. It was discredited once more at the end of the Cold War, when the U.S., at its peak moment of triumph, turned away from any form of imperialist design.

It was discredited again during the 90s, when many of the pathologies of the 70s reappeared in limited form due to American sloth. It needs to be pointed out - over and over again, as many times as is necessary - that the hegemonist "backstory" is pure mythology, that the U.S., far from acting as an imperial state, has walked out of the global arena time and again in the past century, on each occasion leaving abject chaos behind. Human instinct is on our side - nobody cares to believe that they live in a psychopathic country, and the facts back us up on this. They should be reiterated constantly. At least as often as the left repeats their little yarns.

Replacement - The form of patriotism disdained by the left as "my country, right or wrong" is long gone, if it ever existed in the first place. What is needed to put up against hegemonic nihilism is a new form, in which skepticism of acting government is balanced by love of country, faith in its ideals, and both pride and understanding of its history, embracing both triumphs and errors. In other words, a style of patriotism much as it exists in the center right today. The left is commonly allowed to dismiss the patriotism of conservatives as the howling of Strangelovian maniacs. They need to be corrected, as firmly as the situation calls for.

We must keep in mind how easily        Ronald Reagan overturned the doctrine when it was at its most powerful, only a few years after the collapse of Vietnam. Reagan achieved this because he believed in his vision of America, and was able to communicate that belief. As in so much else, we need to look back on how the Gipper did it. Above all, we need to keep in mind what has been done before, can be accomplished again.

There's a great irony involved in all this in that even as the hegemonist viewpoint became the consensus, the U.S. was correcting domestic faults and achieving international victories that would have been impossible if the doctrine had any basis in truth. The odious institution of legal segregation was overthrown with no serious bloodshed, a social revolution in the role of women was encompassed in less than a generation, and new industries unimaginable in the last century transformed first the American, and then the global economy. Internationally, the U.S. brought about the collapse of communism, the most efficient system for human degradation ever devised, oversaw the rise of a new Europe that in large part left behind the abattoir politics responsible for the deaths of millions within living memory, and aided in establishing a network of young democracies across the Asian littoral.

Yet despite all this - a record unmatched by any other state in the modern era, perhaps any state in history -- we're supposed to turn our backs and instead brood over ancient wrongs and phantasms dreamed up by fearful, isolated academics ignorant of the very society that supported them.

In fact, the U.S. is pioneering a new method by which a great power relates to the world - as a combination of trading partner, lifeguard, and sheriff. There has been nothing quite like it before, although the British Empire pioneered some aspects (particularly those having to do with trade). Whether it succeeds is the core question of our era. If it does not... the example of Rome lies in reserve.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." Americans - many of them - have been deprived of a vision of their country for many decades by an ideological construct designed to make patriotism and love of country appear malignant. No society can thrive, much less fight a war, under such a burden of cynicism and self-doubt.

None of these dogmas last forever, and this form of inverted patriotism, this dispensable survival of the heyday of American leftism, has lived past its time, kept alive by misfits who had nothing else to sustain them.

Dispensing with it should be at the top of our agenda. It may be more important than tactics, more important than strategy, more important than anything that happens overseas, since without it being accomplished, nothing else can possibly work

Discuss, dissect and disprove... any or all you can.


I for one hear shades of the Pundit in this, while knowing that to this author, at least, he is Swine.

1) Source?

2) The article is interesting, though I can't give you a solid opinion until I'm done digesting it.

Yahoo News Opinions, home to William F. Buckley, Ted Rall, Ann Coulter and other big name editorial writers, as well as a host of lesser voices.

I thought of the pundit while reading an earlier article on Gerald Ford and the CIA... one that named Salvadore Allende among others, so when I read this I figured: Why not let the high and mighty intellects of the place parse it for weakness and strength.  It does certainly put an interesting spin on a great deal of 'undercurrent themes' I've noticed for myself.

My favorite part is his mention of us "abandoning our Southeast Asian allies".

Do conservatives not realize that VietNam has finally stablized now?

This view that we destroyed Viet Nam by leaving really baffles me.

Yes, the nation underwent a lot of hardship after we left, that's what happens when a country that has been occupied and divided by foreign powers for over 100 years is finally left the fuck alone.

And no, the United States is not the "demon of nations".

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckMy favorite part is his mention of us "abandoning our Southeast Asian allies".

Do conservatives not realize that VietNam has finally stablized now?

This view that we destroyed Viet Nam by leaving really baffles me.

Yes, the nation underwent a lot of hardship after we left, that's what happens when a country that has been occupied and divided by foreign powers for over 100 years is finally left the fuck alone.

And no, the United States is not the "demon of nations".

Well, the Communist instability in the region led to the Killing Fields and other problems that might not have occured had Vietnam not fallen. The entire region was affected by that war, for good or ill - not just Vietnam.

Jesus Christ, I couldn't help but start laughing my ass off reading this essay: France is the next world supervillain? Holy fuck, so this is the guy who write Ann Coulter's erotic fiction?

What an A-class idiot.  I mean, for starters, the best argument the group he calls "hegemonists" have is that the American Right DOES actually want Hegemony.  That's what the Project for the New American Century is all about, a plan to guarantee American world HEGEMONY for the next 100 years.

Not to mention that, while left wing idiots arguing that the world would be a utopia if the US wasn't active in the world stage are genuinely fools, I think most of the Left doesn't believe that at all; and in any case its just speculation.  What is KNOWN FACT is that the US, when it DOES interfere, has always done so for its own fucking benefit and no other reason.  I mean shit, we've had a right-wing conservative government in the US for the past 7 years now, who could have sent an "expeditionary force" to save the poor christians in Sudan anytime they wanted to. But they didn't give a shit about that because there's nothing tangible in it for the US.  Instead, the PNAC want control of Iraq, as a stepping stone to maintaining hegemony over the middle east, because that's where the oil is.  That's not speculation, that's whats been going on for all this time.

If the US were really a benevolent force interfering to save lives and promote peace in the world, the author might have a fucking point. As it is, he lives in looneyland. Whether you're talking about the 1960s or today, American foreign interference has always been bloodthirsty and for the sake of no one's benefit beside the administrations in power in the US at the time. Shit, rarely has it even been for the sake of the american people in general, except maybe in the "trickle down" sense.

RPGPundit

:D

See, just like the pundit, only opposite!

Quote from: WerekoalaWell, the Communist instability in the region led to the Killing Fields and other problems that might not have occured had Vietnam not fallen. The entire region was affected by that war, for good or ill - not just Vietnam.

You have to consider that Cambodian communism was at odds with the Vietnamese for most of its history.  Though the Viet Cong did have some role to play in the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in Cambodia, you can't blame Pol Pot being a total nutjob on Ho Chih Minh.

In any case, the communist insurgencies in southeast Asia developed BECAUSE of the instability in the region, and not the other way around.

RPGPundit

Yeah, I think the 100+ years of French and then American/Soviet occupation might have had something to do with the instability too.

Honestly, I think the region has stabilized better than expected.

And the fact that after Domino Theory was thoroughly disproved in Viet Nam but we're still listening to that shit about our "success in the central front of the War on Terror" aka "our grand Mesopotamian adventure" aka "Georgie works out his daddy issues on a grand scale" makes me want to puke in my soup.

Chuck

Quote from: RPGPunditYou have to consider that Cambodian communism was at odds with the Vietnamese for most of its history.  Though the Viet Cong did have some role to play in the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in Cambodia, you can't blame Pol Pot being a total nutjob on Ho Chih Minh.

In any case, the communist insurgencies in southeast Asia developed BECAUSE of the instability in the region, and not the other way around.

So, if the US had won, would it have prevented the troubles, or were they inevitable? I contend that the US abandoning SE Asia made it worse - how could it not?  A victory might not have prevented it, but might have blunted it a bit.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf the US were really a benevolent force interfering to save lives and promote peace in the world, the author might have a fucking point.

I'm curious, which countries would meet your definition of "benevolent force", and which ones promote peace?

Seeing as how nobody else ever even THINKS about making the effort (as if they could project power beyond the end of their upturned noses), I'd say people should at least pretend to be supportive of some of our efforts.

One thing no one has commented on is the more controversial stance that the US doesn't have to be benevolent. If peace doesn't happen, then ROME happens on your ass...

It is all well and good to refute that the US isn't always right thinking in their foriegn policy... of course I challenge you to find a nation that truly is... when the author takes the stance that they don't have to be. The US is the big dog, and the big dog keeps peace in his yard any way he want.

Quote from: WerekoalaSo, if the US had won, would it have prevented the troubles, or were they inevitable? I contend that the US abandoning SE Asia made it worse - how could it not?  A victory might not have prevented it, but might have blunted it a bit.

Really? And just what kind of "victory" was possible? The only one I can imagine is the kind of victory that the US had in latinamerica, creating and propping up brutal dictatorships that slaughtered thousands of people and repressed millions.  What kind of "victory" is that?

Again, its an illusion to suggest that the US, if allowed to "win" would somehow be able to create wonderful first world democracies throughout the world, or that indeed that would be their real goal (democracies being notoriously hard to control if they're real).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm curious, which countries would meet your definition of "benevolent force", and which ones promote peace?

There isn't any, at least none that uses military force.  Canada's "peacekeeping" concept as originally envisioned was something pretty close, but that and other UN-style projects are famously incompetent and ineffective in practice.

RPGPundit

Yes well, again, the author was literally arguing in favour of the idea of american hegemony.

That, and claiming that the French are the secret masterminds of the axis of evil, so that should tell you something about his mental state...


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? And just what kind of "victory" was possible? The only one I can imagine is the kind of victory that the US had in latinamerica, creating and propping up brutal dictatorships that slaughtered thousands of people and repressed millions.  What kind of "victory" is that?

Is that what kind of government South Vietnam had when we left? Or the kind that North Vietnam had and then imposed on South Vietnam?

Was the free government of South Vietnam preferable to the Communist North's government or not?

And "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy. That's why Iraq sucks so hard - some folks have forgotten what it means to WIN a war instead of just micro-manage and spin control one.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, its an illusion to suggest that the US, if allowed to "win" would somehow be able to create wonderful first world democracies throughout the world, or that indeed that would be their real goal (democracies being notoriously hard to control if they're real).

Its not an illusion. Worked very well in Japan and Germany. Not so much luck since then (aside from South Korea). The PROBLEM is that many times, we're content for "regeime change" without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure a basic change in the  thinking of the people in the countries we're engaged in. So when we get done, it falls apart. Or we have to leave without "finishing" the job and it reverts to whatever it was before, or worse.

Winning hearts and minds dosn't seem to work too well, now does it? If it did, the UN would control the world. Get back to me when that's finalized, will ya?

Quote from: RPGPunditThere isn't any, at least none that uses military force.  Canada's "peacekeeping" concept as originally envisioned was something pretty close, but that and other UN-style projects are famously incompetent and ineffective in practice.

I'm curious as to why you seem (And I can only use your post to make this sort of assertion, and obviously what little we commit to "paper", so to speak, is not the entirety  of who we are, so please feel free to tell me if I am missing something here.) so vehemently against the concept of proactive use of force.

I work in Law Enforcement. I deal with use of force issues on a very regular basis, and I have come to believe that force is a tool, like any other. Subject to the same sorts of abuse in its use.

While I don't think we should look to use of force as our first option, all of the time-I do think we shouldn't discount using the proper tool for the proper problem. (If that makes sense.)

This is not to be taken as a justification of any action of any government, but rather an explanation of my own views. (In broad strokes.)

Quote from: WerekoalaIs that what kind of government South Vietnam had when we left? Or the kind that North Vietnam had and then imposed on South Vietnam?

Was the free government of South Vietnam preferable to the Communist North's government or not?

Um.. honestly? I'd say not. They were a despicable totalitarian military regime, and corrupt to boot.  There was nothing about them that made them the more "preferable" choice, unless you count their willingness to be a puppet of the United States instead of the Soviets.

QuoteAnd "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy. That's why Iraq sucks so hard - some folks have forgotten what it means to WIN a war instead of just micro-manage and spin control one.

Well, if you're talking about a normal "war", winning means beating the other guy's army.  You guys did that in Iraq in a question of weeks.
But if you're talking about "victory" against popular uprising, then "victory" means slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, most of them innocent civilians, and imposing brutal repression to force your ideology on a populace that ends up hating you.

QuoteIts not an illusion. Worked very well in Japan and Germany. Not so much luck since then (aside from South Korea). The PROBLEM is that many times, we're content for "regeime change" without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure a basic change in the  thinking of the people in the countries we're engaged in.

The difference is that at that moment you had a populace that was desperately interested in a fundamental change in their system. Also, in that war, the Allies were acting as a group (it wasn't the US who "changed" germany and Japan, it was all of the Western Powers and the nascent UN back when it was actually able to do stuff).  Both the Nazi regime and the Japanese military authority and everything they represented were rejected and despised by the populace themselves, because of the horrors of the former and the shameful defeat of the latter.

In all subsequent cases, the US has not been the "good guys"; they've been, at best, the "utterly self interested guys".  To the point that in Latinamerica they actually destroyed every democracy they could find, the fucking US, who are supposed to be the guiding light of democracy in the world, they wiped out every democracy in latinamerica because they cared more about controlling the region.

And you know, people aren't stupid. Its really easy to tell when you're sincerely doing things "to help out" vs. when you're doing things that are actually best for YOU, and not for them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd "victory" has the same meaning it always had - the absolute defeat of your enemy.

I think that is a problem, that point of view. In World War II this was certainly a prevalent military theory, and given the tools and tactics of the time who can fault them?

But have we not advanced at all? And even if we haven't, shouldn't we strive to do so? I'm not saying we discard the concept of total war, just that we realize it is our tool, one of many and that it should be used when needed. Not because we like it.

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm curious as to why you seem (And I can only use your post to make this sort of assertion, and obviously what little we commit to "paper", so to speak, is not the entirety  of who we are, so please feel free to tell me if I am missing something here.) so vehemently against the concept of proactive use of force.

I work in Law Enforcement. I deal with use of force issues on a very regular basis, and I have come to believe that force is a tool, like any other. Subject to the same sorts of abuse in its use.

While I don't think we should look to use of force as our first option, all of the time-I do think we shouldn't discount using the proper tool for the proper problem. (If that makes sense.)

This is not to be taken as a justification of any action of any government, but rather an explanation of my own views. (In broad strokes.)

Because more often than not, when you're talking about countries, the use of force ends up looking like Iraq does now. And more often than not, its done for those kinds of motives too.

There are cases, however, when I can see myself supporting the use of force. WWII was a good example.

RPGPundit

I will whole heartedly agree we often see abuse of our tools, as nation states. A shame too.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe difference is that at that moment you had a populace that was desperately interested in a fundamental change in their system. Also, in that war, the Allies were acting as a group (it wasn't the US who "changed" germany and Japan, it was all of the Western Powers and the nascent UN back when it was actually able to do stuff).  Both the Nazi regime and the Japanese military authority and everything they represented were rejected and despised by the populace themselves, because of the horrors of the former and the shameful defeat of the latter.

In all subsequent cases, the US has not been the "good guys"; they've been, at best, the "utterly self interested guys".  To the point that in Latinamerica they actually destroyed every democracy they could find, the fucking US, who are supposed to be the guiding light of democracy in the world, they wiped out every democracy in latinamerica because they cared more about controlling the region.


RPGPundit

The first paragraph has an incorrect assumption: that the people of germany and Japan wanted the US to tear down their governments and assemble new, and in the case of Japan, radically different, governments in their place. They accepted this because they were throughly demoralized and devestated by a brutal war and the iron boots of the righteous conquerers who had shattered their nations and their will to fight.  Most assuredly you did NOT have cheering germans and Japanese civilians lining the roads to cheer on the American Soldiers and sell them candy and war trophies is you very much did have in Iraq.  

Yes, the US mucked up South America pretty good, not without a lot of help from the locals. Yes, they did it out of self interest. We can even say malevolent self interest.  Find me a nation of altruists without any self interest and I will show you the shortest lived nation of all time.

Quote from: SpikeYes, the US mucked up South America pretty good, not without a lot of help from the locals. Yes, they did it out of self interest. We can even say malevolent self interest.  Find me a nation of altruists without any self interest and I will show you the shortest lived nation of all time.

For that matter, show me just about any human endeavor at any point in history that wasn't led by "utterly self-interested guys". I'd wager 99%+ of anything done by any human being is done out of self-interest... enlightened or otherwise, even if that self-interest was something as basic as personal survival.

Quote from: WerekoalaFor that matter, show me just about any human endeavor at any point in history that wasn't led by "utterly self-interested guys". I'd wager 99%+ of anything done by any human being is done out of self-interest... enlightened or otherwise, even if that self-interest was something as basic as personal survival.

Very true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  It is the fact that US was in a position to do it that frustrates others. The fact that we did so under the flimsiest of excuses, with the most short sighted goals in mind that makes our actions deplorable, not the fact we did so.  In our own short sighted 'self interest' we did more harm than good in the long run... to our own 'self interest'.


I just find it funny that every time I read the Pundit in this thread I keep seeing


Swine=France....

Quote from: SpikeVery true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  

... as long as they were certain that it wouldn't end up in their death or the destruction of their country.

That's the important part of the equation, and the biggest reason why people fear or envy the US - because we can, basically, do just about ANYTHING we want and be relatively certain it won't result in a) the death of the people ordering it or b) destruction of our country. We're powerful enough we CAN do about anything we want. The fact that, for the most part, we don't TRY to take over the world speaks larger volumes (to me at least) than the ocassional Iraq.

In world history, any nation with that kind of power has turned into a conquering Empire, and that's what everyone's afraid of - or fearfully jealous of. That's why they want to shackle us to the ICC or UN or (insert multinational organization here) - that's why they always oppose any US military effort (the "global consensus on Afghanistan", for example, lasted about 45 minutes into the campaign - we had to SHAME NATO into coming in once the worst of the battle was over - and years later, I might add) - to try to restrict the power they fear.

That's also why you don't see anyone doing anything about places like Darfur or Zimbabwe - if there were any of Pundit's altruistic nations out there, they'd be trying their damndest to put an end to those genocides.

Line forms to the left. . .

Quote from: SpikeVery true, and it irritates me that we toss the term around as if it were a dirty word or vile insult.  It's a 'my shit don't stink' attitude.  

If the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.  It is the fact that US was in a position to do it that frustrates others. The fact that we did so under the flimsiest of excuses, with the most short sighted goals in mind that makes our actions deplorable, not the fact we did so.  In our own short sighted 'self interest' we did more harm than good in the long run... to our own 'self interest'.

Oh I agree, but that's the point there, isn't it? That the real reason that American dreams of Hegemony are seen as bad is not because of some spineless socialists creating a fairy tale, but because everyone has seen real living evidence of the US fucking up time and time again, with bad motives to begin with, and bad results in the end.  To the point that even a sizeable population of the US are against the "Project for a New American Century" mentality, not because they're secretly terrorists or French spies or whatever the fuck this guy imagines, but because they want what's best for America, and realize that the number 1 produce of Anti-american terrorists and fanatics who want to kill Americans, as well as people from other nations coming to just generally despise America, has been George W. Bush, via his actions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Werekoala... as long as they were certain that it wouldn't end up in their death or the destruction of their country.

That's the important part of the equation, and the biggest reason why people fear or envy the US - because we can, basically, do just about ANYTHING we want and be relatively certain it won't result in a) the death of the people ordering it or b) destruction of our country. We're powerful enough we CAN do about anything we want. The fact that, for the most part, we don't TRY to take over the world speaks larger volumes (to me at least) than the ocassional Iraq.

Two things:

1. The fact that you can't even "take over" a pissant third world country in the middle east doesn't exactly prop up the bets on the chances that you could take over the entire world.  You have enough nukes to DESTROY the entire world if you wanted to, sure, but I really don't see the US being able to "take over" it the way, say, the British Empire did.

2. You are right, however, in saying that there's nothing that you fear, or really need to fear. No outside opponent, no army, no terrorist, can destroy the United States. You can only destroy yourselves by suicide.  Lafayette said that about you, and its a lesson I wish you'd listen to now, because you have clearly forgotten it, and Franklin's more famous statements about liberty and security (especially the second part, that he who chooses security over liberty will soon lose both).
Only you can destroy yourselves, by letting your pettiness and your intellectual poverty and your fear and your baser emotions lead you to cheerfully surrender everything the Founding Fathers fought to create.

QuoteThat's also why you don't see anyone doing anything about places like Darfur or Zimbabwe - if there were any of Pundit's altruistic nations out there, they'd be trying their damndest to put an end to those genocides.

Line forms to the left. . .

I think you'll note that I already stated that those "altruistic nations" do not exist.

But you will notice that the US has done fuck all about Darfur or Zimbabwe either.  So much for the lie that you give a fuck about the "Freedom" of Iraqis, you don't even give a fuck about the lives of the Sudanese, at least not enough to send troops in to save them, so you certainly didn't send troops into Iraq because you give a flying fuck about the poor little Iraqi's freedoms.  And that's why people hate you: you lie, boldfacedly, about your motives.  You claim that you want to spread democracy to the world, but you actually just want to control it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SpikeIf the leaders of... say Uraguay... saw a chance to assassinate the president of the US and put a new US president in power that supported Uraguayan intrests they would do it.

Shit, we've been ratted out! ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditTwo things:

1. The fact that you can't even "take over" a pissant third world country in the middle east doesn't exactly prop up the bets on the chances that you could take over the entire world.  You have enough nukes to DESTROY the entire world if you wanted to, sure, but I really don't see the US being able to "take over" it the way, say, the British Empire did.

2. You are right, however, in saying that there's nothing that you fear, or really need to fear. No outside opponent, no army, no terrorist, can destroy the United States. You can only destroy yourselves by suicide.  Lafayette said that about you, and its a lesson I wish you'd listen to now, because you have clearly forgotten it, and Franklin's more famous statements about liberty and security (especially the second part, that he who chooses security over liberty will soon lose both).
Only you can destroy yourselves, by letting your pettiness and your intellectual poverty and your fear and your baser emotions lead you to cheerfully surrender everything the Founding Fathers fought to create.



I think you'll note that I already stated that those "altruistic nations" do not exist.

But you will notice that the US has done fuck all about Darfur or Zimbabwe either.  So much for the lie that you give a fuck about the "Freedom" of Iraqis, you don't even give a fuck about the lives of the Sudanese, at least not enough to send troops in to save them, so you certainly didn't send troops into Iraq because you give a flying fuck about the poor little Iraqi's freedoms.  And that's why people hate you: you lie, boldfacedly, about your motives.  You claim that you want to spread democracy to the world, but you actually just want to control it.

RPGPundit

Once again, how about some other nation not busy elsewhere pick up that ball and run with it? If the US is "self-interested" and dishonest than what does that make all the rest of the free world who sit around doing nothing but criticizing us for what action, right or wrong, we do take? What nation doesn't use lies, misdirection, and/or manipulation in their foreign policy? Do you rail against your own government for it's lack of action in Darfur as much as you do the US's? Why, just because we take action in Iraq, does the rest of the world seem to think it automatically becomes our sole responsibility to also act in Africa? How about some country that actually does have a more vested interest in intervening take that responsiblity. So, we're not perfect... neither is anyone else, but they sure are quick to throw stones and demand we act while they sit on their collective asses and do nothing themselves.

BTW, the only reason we're having such a hard time in Iraq is because we do care about the welfare of the innocents and non-combatants... about trying to preserve the nation itself. Were we to collectively get it in our heads that we wanted victory at any cost, we'd leave the country a smoking ruin, and probably still control the oil.

Quote from: RPGPundit....but I really don't see the US being able to "take over" it the way, say, the British Empire did.

Of course the British couldn't, and well no one could in the same way. It's not the nineteenth century any more man. Saying that is a kind of a lot of silly, in my opinion.

I'm curious as to how substantiate your claim that America as a whole doesn't care about the freedoms of people in various places. Had you limited that statement to "major portions of the the military industrial complex and your government" I'd be much more inclined to whole heartedly agree.

But see I see way to many kids with "War is Terrorism" stickers, and other such nonsense to be able to say anything so cut and dry. The fact is this country is way too big to just have one set of opinions, no matter who is in power at the moment.

There is no average American, no one way of looking at things, no one regional view, or universal dialect.

Anyone who believes there is hasn't lived here. I've lived in America most of my life, and I still know less than I should about vast swaths of this nation, and I am an avid reader and historian.

Yes, well, by "America" I meant the military-industrial-corporate complex that governs said nation.  The vast majority of actual Americans aren't really hostile to other people's freedoms, just utterly apathetic to them.  And there are a few college kids who are in favour of "freedoms" because its fashionable.

Then there are the people who are educated enough and compassionate enough to have a real and informed, and enlightened, opinion on the subject. All six of them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThen there are the people who are educated enough and compassionate enough to have a real and informed, and enlightened, opinion on the subject. All six of them.

I sniggered at that.

Quote from: Serious PaulOf course the British couldn't, and well no one could in the same way. It's not the nineteenth century any more man. Saying that is a kind of a lot of silly, in my opinion.

Not entirely, and it was gone about differently. Interestingly, though, it was when we were more self interested that we did better. We 'civilised' as a byproduct of our self interest, introducing technology, railways, semi-efficient bureaucracy, law and security. It's once we started crusading, once the evangelicals got their claws in and we started interfering in other ways it all wen to pot (though getting rid of suttee in India was quite popular with widows).

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well, by "America" I meant the military-industrial-corporate complex that governs said nation.

Military-industrial complex? That phrase is still in use?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe vast majority of actual Americans aren't really hostile to other people's freedoms, just utterly apathetic to them.  And there are a few college kids who are in favour of "freedoms" because its fashionable.

Then there are the people who are educated enough and compassionate enough to have a real and informed, and enlightened, opinion on the subject. All six of them.

And again, how - exactly - is this different from any other nation on Earth?

Its not our apathy or self interest that sets us apart from France or Uruguay, its the fact that we can touch any point on this globe any time we want - and nobody else can. That's what makes us a target for every other 2nd or 3rd world nation on this planet. They fear and envy our power.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Quote from: SosthenesMilitary-industrial complex? That phrase is still in use?

Apparently by at least one person ;)

But realistically, if Pat Buchanan were elected President tomorrow and issued an executive order to withdraw all American forces to within the territorial borders of the USA (something he more or less promised to do when running for President), who would be the most upset?

Europeans.

So there's a lot of mixed feelings about American power. Europe and Japan can concentrate on their economies while we foot the bill for the aircraft carriers and Rangers that would protect them within 48 hours if something went bad.

Of course there's the other side of that, that we occasionally use our power when WE want to, not just when Europe wants us to.

But honestly, if we completely disarmed tomorrow, Europe, Japan and Korea would be very upset (even France- maybe ESPECIALLY France) and South America would probably throw the world's biggest block party.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckApparently by at least one person ;)

But realistically, if Pat Buchanan were elected President tomorrow and issued an executive order to withdraw all American forces to within the territorial borders of the USA (something he more or less promised to do when running for President), who would be the most upset?

Europeans.

In one of his editorials on one of his manga, masamune Shirow said he did not was america to pull out of japan, so don't be so sure that europe would be the most distressed of america basically told the world "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd again, how - exactly - is this different from any other nation on Earth?

Its not our apathy or self interest that sets us apart from France or Uruguay, its the fact that we can touch any point on this globe any time we want - and nobody else can. That's what makes us a target for every other 2nd or 3rd world nation on this planet. They fear and envy our power.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Your statement isn't totally wrong, but it carries the implication that somehow that fear is unfounded or something.  They hate you because of what you've done with that power. In almost any region of the world there is a serious track record, at least a couple of countries, if not a metric ton of them like here in latinamerica, where that power was used to destroy many many people's lives, many people that had fuckall to do with being an "enemy of america" in any real or active sense.

So it is not an unjustified paranoid fear, it is a fear that has been confirmed by actions over and over again.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn one of his editorials on one of his manga, masamune Shirow said he did not was america to pull out of japan, so don't be so sure that europe would be the most distressed of america basically told the world "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Edit: Oops totally misread that.

Yeah, I mentioned Japan, and I'm sure they'd be VERY unhappy about America being isolationist.

They have very very little military capacity.

They have that luxury thanks to us.

Note: I am by no means excusing all the stupid things we have done with our power. I am just stating that for every country that would be thrilled for a return to the isolationist 30's there would be others that would be far less than thrilled.

Also, I'd like to point out that power seems to abhor a vacuum.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I firmly believe if America was not a dominant military power throwing its weight around, someone else WOULD be.

I mean, it's not like Russia or Britain have shown much reluctance to militarily intervene.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour statement isn't totally wrong, but it carries the implication that somehow that fear is unfounded or something.  They hate you because of what you've done with that power. In almost any region of the world there is a serious track record, at least a couple of countries, if not a metric ton of them like here in latinamerica, where that power was used to destroy many many people's lives, many people that had fuckall to do with being an "enemy of america" in any real or active sense.

So it is not an unjustified paranoid fear, it is a fear that has been confirmed by actions over and over again.

I'll accept that premise if you are willing to accept this one: MOST of our actions have been well-intentioned, regardless of the outcomes.

And while there is a good deal of Fear of the US, there's also a metric assload of envy. Go on, admit it - it won't hurt.

You can haggle about the personal motivations of the men putting the actions in motion, but the folks who carry out those decisions generally do so with good intentions.

Hell, next left... of course.

But we're NOT an "evil" country.

Ahhh Pundit....so much about America to hate, so little time.

I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what you'd prefer.

• America projects power everywhere it can to help better the world (Sudan, etc), not just where it wants.
• America doesn't project power anywhere to help better the world (pull out of not only Iraq but Afghanistan, Bosnia, Europe, Japan, the Phillipines, the list goes on and on).
• America projects power at the behest of the International community - where the UN says go, we go.

Everyone seems to answer #2, except deep down inside what they really want is #3. America out of Iraq, but in Africa; out of Latin America, but in South Korea (after all, Kim's a nutjob!); and for secular-atheisms sake, protect Tawian!

The problem is #3 is right out. When you're footing the bill, you get to tell the piper the tune. That leaves us with #1, which not even Americans want, or #2, which (as others have pointed out) the rest of the world doesn't really want. So that leaves us with the path chosen - use some sort of criteria to decide where to project.  What better choice then national self interest?  What would your criteria be?

Here's the thing - if you don't like how America projects its power, you have two choices:
[LIST=A]

• Defeat it.  That's right, just stop America from being able to project that power.
• Move here, become a citizen (optional, apparently), and change it from within.

My suspicion is that the hostility around the world towards American power is that they want to stop it, but can't do either A or B.  So the only option left is to complain that America doesn't project it's power the way you'd like.

Now you've got a bug up your ass about the way America treats Latin America.  OK, on behalf of the other 299,999,999 of us, I'm sorry.  We'll try to do better in the future. At least we'll try - which is more than can be said about most others.

And really, PNAC? Are you serious?  Did you get a visit from Cindy Sheehan or something when she was down visiting Chavez?

I agree with almost all your points James- though I would add these caveats:

America does need to be beat with the +5 Bludgeon of Humiliation for the way it has treated South America every chance we can, because we've done some really dumb things for dumb reasons.

When you compare our meddling in S. America to our meddlings in the Middle East, for example, there's a marked difference in kind. At least you could make the case that our national interest was served by Iraq. I disagree, but I can see a case a reasonable person would make.

Our support for the Shah of Iran in the 50's and our support for Israel throughout are also cases where an even better case could be made that we were acting in our national interest. The Shah, for example, had been an American ally since WWII, when he replaced his pro-Nazi father.

By contrast, in South America we overthrew governments at the behest of General Foods. That's just dumb. You're also talking about an area where the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was used again and again- supporting dictatorships of the most brutal sort as long as they were anti-communist.

South America has a legitimate beef with us, and given the way Georgie beats his chest over Venezuela, we still seem to not have learned our less that we don't need to LIKE the governments down there and can't PICK them.

The other point I'd make is that talking about PNAC right now is very necessary, because they have the ear of some prominent politicians, including our President, Vice President and a Presidential contender (McCain is even more well liked by PNAC than Bush).

So we do need to get the word out what a radical bunch of losers PNAC is, not to mention that their high-minded theories never turn out to be correct, so that they lose all influence in American foreign policy, forever.

But on your basic premise, I agree.

America completely withdrew from world affairs after WWI. We reduced our military to the 19th largest military in the world (we had a smaller army than Poland at the start of WWII) and let Europe and Japan run things.

How did that work out? Not so well.

So since then we've focused on collective security through NATO (not the UN- NATO) and have managed to finally bring a lasting peace to Europe.

So I think most reasonable people agree the world is better off with America manning the helm of the USS Big Stick (TM) than anyone else (since, as I mentioned earlier- SOMEONE would step up to be that great power- politics seems to abhor a vacuum). But that doesn't mean we should stick our noses everywhere.

Quote from: WerekoalaI'll accept that premise if you are willing to accept this one: MOST of our actions have been well-intentioned, regardless of the outcomes.

And while there is a good deal of Fear of the US, there's also a metric assload of envy. Go on, admit it - it won't hurt.

You can haggle about the personal motivations of the men putting the actions in motion, but the folks who carry out those decisions generally do so with good intentions.

Hell, next left... of course.

But we're NOT an "evil" country.

Oh shit, there's a huge amount of Envy, speaking as someone living in a country where a huge percentage of the population still willingly describe themselves utterly seriously as "communists", there's a park dedicated to Che Guevara, and the president's a socialist; the US is despised by many people here, utterly despised... in one breath. In the other, they're always trying to buy the latest stuff from America, their kids get in line to go to the McDonald's, and they desperately want to imitate that country in any way they can.  Shit, the "smoking ban" that has been set up here was done mainly because it was an attempt to prove how "1st world" Uruguay really is, how much like the US. There's tons of shit like that.
And Argentina is about 100 times worse than Uruguay.  They're desperate, desperate to do anything that brings them closer to the "1st world" in appearance, and while the 1st world means Europe AND the US, it definitely includes the US in that.

Not to mention that if just about anyone was offered a chance to move to the US legally, they would take it.

But what this doesn't mean, at all, is the stupid stupid fucking Bush-conservative line of "They hate us because they're jealous of our freedom".  That's nonsense.  

People hate you because of this: there's a guy in my gaming group who never knew his parents.  They were taken one night, from their house, by secret police when he was just a baby.  They are, to this day, "disappeared". He never got to find a body or bury them, much less know them and have everything a son should have from his parents. He was raised instead by his elderly grandmother, whom he no doubt loves, but who had to also no doubt make incredible sacrifices in the face of incredible tragedy to take care of him.  He still almost certainly has psychological scars from what happened to his family, which will no doubt haunt him for the rest of his life.

And why did his parents get taken away? Because they belonged to an illegal organization. They hadn't killed anyone, harmed anyone, bombed anyone; but someone in the CIA's Plan Condor decided they had to be one of the thousands to die as part of the overall master plan to secure american hegemony in latinamerica.  So they died.

And that's why you're hated. You're hated because in much of the world, people know someone, they have someone in their gaming group, or a neighbour, a friend, a co-worker, whatever, who was a direct victim of your "good intentions".  Good intentions, my ass. That is my entire point, most of the times you DO NOT have "good intentions" aside from the good intention of wanting to hold onto power in the region you are taking over.  There's nothing well-intentioned about it.

Oh, and I will even go so far to say that when you are loved, it is more for the idealisms that you cast, be they the illusions of the "Land of capitalist plenty where everyone's rich", or the illusions of "the land of freedom and democracy".  And there's nothing wrong with either of these, but when you're hated it tends to be not for what you represent, but for what you ACTUALLY DO, the reality as opposed to the illusion; and that means that when push comes to shove that hate will always be stronger than any love people might have.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachAhhh Pundit....so much about America to hate, so little time.

I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what you'd prefer.

Hey, dude, I'm just trying to get you to understand WHY you're hated. Which you all seem to have a very hard time getting.

You can argue about why you shouldn't be hated all you like, but until you really, truly understand why you're hated, you're kind of taking shots in the dark.

And sure, you can really say you don't give a fuck, but then please, stop complaining about everyone "unfairly hating you". Just shut the fuck up and take it.  If you don't even want to bother to know the whys and whatfors, then you really don't have a right to say anything in protest about it.

As for changing it, what really needs to change is a change of attitude and criteria, IF you want to be less despised.  But it isn't OUR job to change that, its yours.  The reason many American citizens are desperately interested in doing so is because they realize that in the Long Term (and not the really long term, I'm talking very close long term here) the attitude of "I don't give a fuck what you think, I'm going to be the global bully and claim that I'm doing it as a favour to all of you" is going to come back and bite you in the ass. It creates far more needless problems for America than it solves.  

And fixing your problems is your job, not ours. We have enough trouble trying to survive your "help".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, dude, I'm just trying to get you to understand WHY you're hated. Which you all seem to have a very hard time getting.

No, no we don't really. Just because we don't subscribe to your opinions point by point doesn't mean we all miss the bus.

I do think it's funny you feel the overwhelming need to remind American's why they're disliked and even hated in some parts of the world, some of the time.

You can argue about why you shouldn't be hated all you like, but until you really, truly understand why you're hated, you're kind of taking shots in the dark.

QuoteAnd sure, you can really say you don't give a fuck, but then please, stop complaining about everyone "unfairly hating you".

Huh? I don't think anyone here has said it's completely unfair to hate America at times, and if they did well I'll disagree with that. Hell I hate my country at times. Who doesn't?

QuoteJust shut the fuck up and take it.  If you don't even want to bother to know the whys and whatfors, then you really don't have a right to say anything in protest about it.

What asinine logic you're asserting here. Do you seriously believe this? If so I've lost a little bit of respect for you, because this is very similar to the same logic my four year old uses when discussing his toys with other kids.

Childish.

QuoteAs for changing it, what really needs to change is a change of attitude and criteria, IF you want to be less despised.  But it isn't OUR job to change that, its yours

As if it were that simple. As if it's just one decision to be made by one person.

QuoteThe reason many American citizens are desperately interested in doing so is because they realize that in the Long Term (and not the really long term, I'm talking very close long term here) the attitude of "I don't give a fuck what you think, I'm going to be the global bully and claim that I'm doing it as a favour to all of you" is going to come back and bite you in the ass. It creates far more needless problems for America than it solves.

Which is one of many reasons why this country is so divided at the moment. You seem to fail to separate the people from our government which is funny, especially if you've ever lived here.

QuoteAnd fixing your problems is your job, not ours. We have enough trouble trying to survive your "help".

LOL!

More to the point, most of the shit that really slags of the Pundit in South America happened before many of the American posters here were born, much less of age to vote.

What this comes down to is 'meddle here, don't meddle there' once again. Bring up Darfur in the same breath as South America or Iraq and you practice hypocracy, or presume too much.

Interestingly enough, the tread of the article... if I may be rude enough to push this thread back on track, is that it doesn't matter if our actions are 'good' or not.  There is very much a 'will to power' ideal running through it, the sense that as the 'lone superpower' we have a duty to flex our muscles to align the world according to our needs and wants.... and that by doing so we actively promote stability. Failing to do anything at all creates instability.

Or did I misread the author's intent?

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, dude, I'm just trying to get you to understand WHY you're hated. Which you all seem to have a very hard time getting.

You can argue about why you shouldn't be hated all you like, but until you really, truly understand why you're hated, you're kind of taking shots in the dark.

Wait a minute - is that your goal? Do you not think that the Americans on this board (perhaps with the exception of DN) understand why we're hated?  Didn't Werekoala summarize it in two words - fear and envy? You seem to agree that it's a psychologically bizarre mix of the two, yes?  Hell, I even tried to apologize for the mistakes we made in South America. And let's be honest, there's only one reason we even care what happens in Venezuela - it's starts with an "O" and ends in an "L". So again, self interest and all.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd sure, you can really say you don't give a fuck, but then please, stop complaining about everyone "unfairly hating you". Just shut the fuck up and take it.  If you don't even want to bother to know the whys and whatfors, then you really don't have a right to say anything in protest about it.

Unless of course I'm saying stop complaining cause I heard you the first ten thousand times.  See, this is my problem with many folks - they assume if you disagree that either:

• You didn't hear/understand the first time
• You are ignorant if you did hear/understand and don't agree.

So I don't agree with you.  And I heard/understood you.  Are you insinuating I'm ignorant?  And I'm not talking it personally - I'm asking to get a feel for your point of view.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs for changing it, what really needs to change is a change of attitude and criteria, IF you want to be less despised.  But it isn't OUR job to change that, its yours.

Oh, so you don't like our attitude.  If we said please and thank you, would that help? I'm asking for specific criteria - how would you change it? I've laid out the options - pick something and let's talk about it from both perspectives.  Maybe we'll both learn something.

And don't give me "I don't care, just stop disappearing people." That's not determining when we should project power so much as how.  And on that, I'd bet we could find some common ground (as well as more disagreement).

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reason many American citizens are desperately interested in doing so is because they realize that in the Long Term (and not the really long term, I'm talking very close long term here) the attitude of "I don't give a fuck what you think, I'm going to be the global bully and claim that I'm doing it as a favour to all of you" is going to come back and bite you in the ass. It creates far more needless problems for America than it solves.

As I was writing this, I was going to say you're right - the US doesn't give a fuck.  But I thought about how this is related to the 2 points above.  It's not that the US doesn't give a fuck. It's that we often disagree with much of the world.  Oh the US tries to convince everyone and does, contrary to what you might have been led to believe by those with whom America disagrees, listen to the council of others.  But in the end, the US is going to act in its self interests even if others disagree - and that is spun as "they dont' give a fuck."  Why doesn't anybody call France's motives for object to OIF into question; or Russia's? Taking action even if other world powers disagree doesn't make the US a bully - that's your spin.  If the US projected power ONLY to show it could, that would be a bully.

It always distresses me when the US claims its actions are a favor for the world. That's usually a beneficial by-product spun for PR purposes as the reason for the action, but it's rarely the real reason.  As I've said before in this very forum, the US should come out and say it is in Iraq to ensure the free flow of relatively inexpensive oil (not to steal, to buy) and Afghanistan as it could not let it continue to allow training camps for AQ, etc.  The fact that it (might) end up liberating a bunch of people and expose the festering swamp that is the Middle East is just coincidence.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd fixing your problems is your job, not ours. We have enough trouble trying to survive your "help".

Well, here I am, an American, asking for your opinion. Explain to me, specifically, what criteria we should use (other than national self interest) to properly project our power?

Sorry Spike, one more side track...

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat an A-class idiot. I mean, for starters, the best argument the group he calls "hegemonists" have is that the American Right DOES actually want Hegemony. That's what the Project for the New American Century is all about, a plan to guarantee American world HEGEMONY for the next 100 years.

This is bullshit. PNAC != Amercian Right.  It might be a small portion of the American Right, but it's not really representative. How do I know?

If you asked people, even on the American Right, what they want for the world, hegemony would not be the response for most. That's right, even conservatives don't care about hegemony.  You know what most want? Peace, properity, and to be left the fuck alone.  And they don't just want the for themselves, they want it for everyone - in the whole world.

Some may see hegemony as the tool to achieve that, but very few. It might be surprising for you to know, but Americans, in general, even on the American Right, recoil instinctively from hegemony.  We are, after all, a breakaway British colony.

That's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

Quote from: James J SkachThis is bullshit. PNAC != Amercian Right.  It might be a small portion of the American Right, but it's not really representative.

That's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

I disagree. It might be a very small % but as I stated above, that % currently includes many leaders of the American right, including Bush, Cheney and even future Presidential candidates. McCain is their golden boy and Joe Lieberman bizarrely channel PNAC every chance he gets foreign policy-wise.

A song for the new imperialism:

Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still, and wider, shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet!

Truth and Right and Freedom, each a holy gem,
Stars of solemn brightness, weave thy diadem.

Tho' thy way be darkened, still in splendour drest,
As the star that trembles o'er the liquid West.

Throned amid the billows, throned inviolate,
Thou hast reigned victorious, thou has smiled at fate.

Land of Hope and Glory, fortress of the Free,
How may we extol thee, praise thee, honour thee?

Hark, a mighty nation maketh glad reply;
Lo, our lips are thankful, lo, our hearts are high!

Amen!

You know it's always funny when people tout America as the land of the free, when for a significant portion of American history a significant number of American's have neither been free or even considered "Americans".

Hell until about 40 years ago a significant portion of our society was denied basic civil rights, and to be honest we still have segments of our population that  are still suffering.

Quote from: James J SkachThat's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

Its not a "conspiracy theory", its an actual conspiracy, and not in the pop culture "secret cover-up" "area 51" sense; in the classic sense of the word, where people have reached an agreement and have a plan that they put into action, like most real conspiracies its one that they make absolutely NO effort to hide.

Given that the signatories of the PNAC are also the most prominent names associated with the current Bush Administration, and that the plan they lay out in the PNAC is pretty much word for word what the Bush Administration has actually fucking done, I think that making some kind of suggestion that its all somehow a wierd paranoid theory, that requires speculating about some kind of information that isn't right out there in the open for anyone to read, seems pretty ridiculous.

RPGPundit

So every person in Congress who voted authorization for OIF were part of the conspiracy?  Ditto every country that backed the US in Iraq?

I mean, if you are saying that there's a group of people who thought up this plan and then did what they could to make it happen, then the AARP is a conspiracy to stop changes to Social Security.

When you label someting as a "conspiracy," whether you mean it in the classical sense or not, it implies a certain nefarious nature.  The people involved are bad or the plan is illegal.

Now, which is it you are implying?  Or are you just asserting that a group of like-minded people (no matter how wrong they might be) wrote up a policy and then put it into action in the way that, say, the DNC put together a plan to retake Congress and then put it into action?

I'm sure you're shocked, SHOCKED! to find people doing this in Washington.  That's what I mean by PNAC being a red herring. It's irrelavent and it's meant to derail the discussion at hand - when America should project it's power (sorry again Spike).

OK, here, let me handle it for you.  The US went into Iraq to ensure the relatively consistent, cheap access to oil as it drives the US economy, literally. The US needed a stake in the desert and Iraq was the best shot for the US to have a beachhead. The US didn't go there to liberate the people, it was just an idea that perhaps it would be of benefit to the US in the long term - you know, self interest and all.

There, I just blew PNAC's "conspiracy."

Now, can you go back to the question I asked?  If the US is not projecting it's power in the correct places, what criteria should be used?

Quote from: James J SkachOK, here, let me handle it for you.  The US went into Iraq to ensure the relatively consistent, cheap access to oil as it drives the US economy, literally. The US needed a stake in the desert and Iraq was the best shot for the US to have a beachhead. The US didn't go there to liberate the people, it was just an idea that perhaps it would be of benefit to the US in the long term - you know, self interest and all.

There, I just blew PNAC's "conspiracy."

Yes, you did, precisely.  The Bush administration didn't invade iraq because of 9-11 (though they were only ABLE to do so because of 9-11, otherwise the American people would never have approved of such a war, had they been in their right mind).

They didn't invade because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
They didn't invade because Saddam was "murdering his own people".
They didn't invade to bring democracy to Iraq.

They murdered because Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a gang of other Straussian conservatives wanted to try out their little social experiment to guarantee American hegemony, to prove that the US army could handle military action on multiple fronts, and to intentionally create a chaotic morass in the middle east that would ensure the US the excuse they needed to maintain a permanent military presence in a country they directly controlled (via a very transparent puppet govt) to assure control of the oil supply for the 21st century.

QuoteNow, can you go back to the question I asked?  If the US is not projecting it's power in the correct places, what criteria should be used?

Personally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither. If you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.

Or, the alternative, is to realize that perhaps all those hawks out there are wrong, take a more globalist point of view of things, and realize that what might actually help the US in the longer term is to realize that a decline of American power is an inevitability in the future (it happens to every world power) and that this decline might be curtailed, and even delayed, by creating strong diplomatic alliances with other developed nations and by fostering strong relationships of assistance with underdeveloped nations.
Yes, this would mean no military action without widespread multi-national support (like, you know, the first gulf war?) with very focused strategic ends for causes that are above reproach; the fostering of development of all sorts, but ESPECIALLY education in the third world, to try to create environments that are resistant to the rise of terrorist or anti-democratic anti-american movements, and work on the principle that its better to be loved than feared. And, you know, the principle that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better that will be for the US in the long term.

Shit, if America actually lived up to its fantasyland story of being the "beacon of hope and democracy" in the world; if the utterly fake "bush doctrine" of wanting to encourage democracy everywhere in the world were really serious, then America would be loved and respected almost universally.  Why do you think that people in Holland still love you (well you, and Canada, and the other WWII allied powers that fought on the western front)? Or that Poland and the eastern bloc countries are still highly pro-american? Because they remember those moments where America really did seem to represent a light against the totalitarianism those countries were plagued by.

Do that honestly, regularly, and you'll really be insuring a "new American century".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditShit, if America actually lived up to its fantasy land story of being the "beacon of hope and democracy" in the world; if the utterly fake "bush doctrine" of wanting to encourage democracy everywhere in the world were really serious, then America would be loved and respected almost universally.

C'mon now. Some one would find a reason to hate us. It's just natural.

But you are correct in saying that a lot of people love and respect an America that doesn't exist, and may never have existed. The Allies weren't exactly paragons of virtue during WWII.

You're pretty incensed, and like a lot of American's-if you lived here you'd realize just how divisive this issue really is-and like a lot of American's I hear on a regular basis you seem to be real good at complaining, but were you here, and were a citizen would you do anything other than complain?

Our voter turn out, even at it's best, is apathetic. Hell a lot of people don't even bother to register to vote. Is it any wonder a segment of our society is able to dictate which direction this country takes, for better or worse?

I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I believe in lots of rights with a small government. believe me I know what it is to be dissatisfied with the way things work in these parts. I am also an atheist, so believe me when I say I get frustrated at times.

Quote from: RPGPunditPersonally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither. If you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.


RPGPundit

Emphasis mine

Once again, I am forced to believe that the Pundit actually wrote the initial article. First there is the unavoidable France=Swine comparison, now this, because that is exactly what the article was driving at.

Of course, what I had hoped for was for the pro and con people to line up and rip into the actual article, not so much eachother.  Still, it is entertaining.

:D

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, you did, precisely.  The Bush administration didn't invade iraq because of 9-11 (though they were only ABLE to do so because of 9-11, otherwise the American people would never have approved of such a war, had they been in their right mind).

They didn't invade just because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
They didn't invade just because Saddam was "murdering his own people".
They didn't invade just to bring democracy to Iraq.

My changes in bold...and they are the ones that drive you to distraction. Could it possibly be that there was more than one strategic reason to go to Iraq?  Was the primary to bring democracy? I don't think so and I doubt alot of other Americans did either.  You can argue about the WMD til you're blue in the face.  It won't make the threat the Hussein regime posed any less.  As I've said, my distaste was the we didn't just say "Look, we're not going to fuck around anymore. Make us feel OK, or we'll blow your ass off the face of this here earth." Think how that would have gone over with "world opinion."  Ironically, I don't think it would have been received any worse.

Quote from: RPGPunditThey murdered because Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a gang of other Straussian conservatives wanted to try out their little social experiment to guarantee American hegemony, to prove that the US army could handle military action on multiple fronts, and to intentionally create a chaotic morass in the middle east that would ensure the US the excuse they needed to maintain a permanent military presence in a country they directly controlled (via a very transparent puppet govt) to assure control of the oil supply for the 21st century.

Well, now, see, you can assign all of the motives you want, like Straussian social experiment, and that's where I call conspiracy-theory-bullshit. The last thing you say, assuring control of the oil, is the closest you get.  Flow of oil and security concerns were the main two reasons. That it lined up with what Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney may or may not have wanted is superfluous discussion. I can see how some might like to delight in it to distract attention or chase conspiracies, but that's all it is - a distraction.

Quote from: RPGPunditPersonally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither.

See, I knew we'd find agreement!

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.

Almost! I like how national self interests - which I think we can all agree are valid concerns and exist for every nation - are now "greedy."  Just can't help yourself, can you?  I do agree that "gussying it up" is pointless.  Either people don't trust us or dislike us enough that trust isn't even an issue.  So let's just be straight up.  We're the World's Lone Superpower (tm), so here's what we're going to do.  We'll try not to be too much of a bully.  We'll listen to what others have to say. But in the end, we're going to do what we think is right for the US first.  Everyone else comes second. Our apologies in advance.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr, the alternative, is to realize that perhaps all those hawks out there are wrong, take a more globalist point of view of things, and realize that what might actually help the US in the longer term is to realize that a decline of American power is an inevitability in the future (it happens to every world power) and that this decline might be curtailed, and even delayed, by creating strong diplomatic alliances with other developed nations and by fostering strong relationships of assistance with underdeveloped nations.
Yes, this would mean no military action without widespread multi-national support (like, you know, the first gulf war?) with very focused strategic ends for causes that are above reproach

See, this is a sticky wicket. You bring up the Desert Storm, but not Bosnia/Kosovo. Why is that?  I mean, in both cases, there was world opinion going both ways. But the UN sanctioned one and  not the other, yeah?  So who is the final arbiter?  That's the problem with using that as a criteria - at what point does world opinion mean ok - ten countries; 20? It's why nobody trusted Kerry (or those who believe) that world opinion counts for anything other than an opinion to whcih we should listen.

And we do foster relationahips.  Ask JimBob how strong our relationship is with Australia! ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditthe fostering of development of all sorts, but ESPECIALLY education in the third world, to try to create environments that are resistant to the rise of terrorist or anti-democratic anti-american movements, and work on the principle that its better to be loved than feared. And, you know, the principle that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better that will be for the US in the long term.

Back to agreement.  And you might be surprised that, as I noted before, most Americans understand, however deep it might be in their psyche, that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better off we are:

• They buy our stuff
• They sell us new/cheap/different stuff
• They don't attack us

Surprisingly, that's often seen a conservative view in the US - capitalist pigs!