Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Imperialism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Communist evangelism -the Soviet Union trying to export its brand of "liberty" by conquering others and imposing regimes on them, very similar to Islam and the U.S. today.
    Blatant intrinsicism.

    We have to agree to disagree then. All depends how you define "liberty" and America cannot say it is right and everyone else is wrong.
    Why is it wrong to say "america is right and everyone else is wrong"?

    After all in your little world, there is not such thing as right or wrong.
    Last edited by Praxus; 19 Jul 04,, 03:56.

    Comment


    • #17
      We have to agree to disagree then. All depends how you define "liberty" and America cannot say it is right and everyone else is wrong.
      How do we know everyone disagrees with America on what liberty is though? If they don't have the right to say they would prefer American style liberties and if they don't have the right to vote for such liberties, how do we know what they think? And it is not subjective because the West does not prevent a Communist from living according to Communist principles, it doesn't prevent a Muslim from following Islam, or an evangelist from following evangelical Christianity. The fact is, we know we have liberty because you could take the lifestyle of anyone on earth and replicate it in the West without fear of persecution. You cannot take anyone from the West and put them somewhere else and have them similarly unoppressed.

      If America spreads its principles of liberty, it would include a constitution written by and ratified by the people of that country. How, by any stretch of the imagination can that be considered unfree.

      Now Praxus...I really don't get how you think its okay for America to nuke any country that has a dictator. You can't liberate nuclear fallout. I have no problem with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan started the war, but if simply by being a dictatorship they become nukable...that's wrong. The initiator of force is responable, but while a dictator by nature uses force against his own people, hes not necessarily useing force on other countries (I'm not saying they have a right to exist, but to nuke them takes away the possibility of liberating them)

      Comment


      • #18
        Now Praxus...I really don't get how you think its okay for America to nuke any country that has a dictator. You can't liberate nuclear fallout. I have no problem with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan started the war, but if simply by being a dictatorship they become nukable...that's wrong. The initiator of force is responable, but while a dictator by nature uses force against his own people, hes not necessarily useing force on other countries (I'm not saying they have a right to exist, but to nuke them takes away the possibility of liberating them)
        I agree that we should not wage war on every dictatorship, just the ones that threaten our interest.

        Bringing an individual rights based republic to the enemy country is certainly in our interest, I agree. Nuking is almost always impracticle, but it should not be ruled out for moral reasons.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Confed999
          Main Entry: ty·rant
          Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
          Function: noun
          Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
          1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
          2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally

          Thanks for posting the dictionary meaning of tyrant!
          As per the definition it seems US is in bed with many of these tyrants right at this moment. Musharraf of Pakistan, Mubarak of Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to name a few.

          I am sure your are opposed to your govt. policy of supporting these dictators.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by turnagainarm
            I am sure your are opposed to your govt. policy of supporting these dictators.
            If you've read my posts, you allready know my stance on this issue.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Praxus
              I do not believe the use of nuclear weapons should be taken lightly. However it is a moral crime to sacrifice American soldiers in some altruistic crusade. Which it essentially is when we have weapons that allow us to destroy the enemy without forcing our soldiers to go die in some 3rd world country.
              Excellent point.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Confed999
                If you've read my posts, you allready know my stance on this issue.
                I am relatively new to this board, I take it that your answer is affirmative.
                Last edited by turnagainarm; 20 Jul 04,, 17:41.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Praxus
                  I do not believe the use of nuclear weapons should be taken lightly. However it is a moral crime to sacrifice American soldiers in some altruistic crusade. Which it essentially is when we have weapons that allow us to destroy the enemy without forcing our soldiers to go die in some 3rd world country.
                  So as per your doctrine US should have nuked Iraq instead of invading it and in the process lose about 700+ soldiers?

                  Does your doctrine apply only to 3rd world nations i.e. nuking the enemy, or it applies to all countries ?

                  I should clarify what it says. The war also has to be in our self-interest.
                  Do you mean based purely on self-interest or has to be morally justified too?
                  Last edited by turnagainarm; 20 Jul 04,, 18:48.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by turnagainarm
                    So as per your doctrine US should have nuked Iraq instead of invading it and in the process lose about 700+ soldiers?

                    Does your doctrine apply only to 3rd world nations i.e. nuking the enemy, or it applies to all countries ?
                    When nukes should be used is a practicle concern not a moral one when it applies to dictatorhips/theocracys/etc.... As I believe I said before, nukes in almost all cases are inpracticle.

                    I would have ignored Iraq for the time being and attacked Iran.

                    Do you mean based purely on self-interest or has to be morally justified too?
                    Any war in our self-interest is morally justified. A war in our self-interest is one designed to defend our rights and as such it is never in the self-interest of the citizens of a non-free country to wage war.
                    Last edited by Praxus; 20 Jul 04,, 18:38.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Praxus
                      When nukes should be used is a practicle concern not a moral one when it applies to dictatorhips/theocracys/etc.... As I believe I said before, nukes in almost all cases are inpracticle.

                      I would have ignored Iraq for the time being and attacked Iran.
                      You did not answer my question. You wrote earlier than US soldiers life is not worth swacrificing in a 3rd world country and US should just nuke them.
                      My question was should USA have nuked Iraq instead of losing 700+ soldiers and counting?

                      As per your doctrine do you recommend nuking Iran?

                      Also does your doctrine only apply to 3rd world countries or all countries?

                      Any war in our self-interest is morally justified. A war in our self-interest is one designed to defend our rights and as such it is never in the self-interest of the citizens of a non-free country to wage war.
                      Iraq has more than 100 billion barrel of oil deposit, gettting all that oil would be definitely in US self interest, do you agree?

                      US has over 100,000 troops in Iraq is and dispatching even more troops. These troops need not really be spread all over Iraq, they could just capture & control the oilfields and let the Iraqis have the rest of the country to themselves.
                      Would you reccomend such a course of action since getting the oil would be definitely in US self interest and therefore moral as per your doctrine?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think Praxus's point (and i know he will correct me if i missed it) is that US blood should only be spilled for US self interest. That if the US wished to just dispatch a tyrant (such as Saddam) then a nuke would be a bloodless (from a US perspective) means of achieving it. To further extend it, Praxus is essentially saying that the US should not get involved in other people's fights, or even liberation, unless there is something in it for the citizens of the US.

                        Praxus's practicality qualifier essentially rules out all those nations that can nuke back (because then it isn't bloodless for the US and therefore isn't practical and the self interest argument requires greater justifcation).

                        Its a fair point. But it assumes that you can distance yourself from the consequences of your actions and that people are like pieces in a wargame that can always be stood up again after a battle. The indiscriminate nature of a nuke is now well documented, thus making it morally an issue for any nation to use one unless a desperate last measure.

                        Whether or not the US is an imperial nation depends on how it handles those nations that do not wish to take part in an economic or military relationship with it. Every nation has the right to choose not to align itself with the US. Further people have the right to live in theocracies if tehy want to. It isn't for the US to determine that the leaders have not just got off the phone to god. It might seem daft to the west to beleive that God takes an active interested in a governments policy, but not to other parts of the world.

                        Also a country doesn't have to be against the US nor for it. If the US is an imperialist nation it will shows it colours in this scenario. It will act like a drunken suitor that has been rebuffed and will find away to coerce the object of its affections into submission. If it just move on, it isn't imperialist.
                        at

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          ts a fair point. But it assumes that you can distance yourself from the consequences of your actions and that people are like pieces in a wargame that can always be stood up again after a battle. The indiscriminate nature of a nuke is now well documented, thus making it morally an issue for any nation to use one unless a desperate last measure.
                          Do you agree that any deaths in war are the moral responsibility of the agressor?

                          Also do you agree that the citiznes of a country are the moral responsibility of the Government?

                          If you agree with these two things then you must agree that the only moral thing to do in a war is to limit casulties on our side as best as possible and fullfil the objective of the campaign, which is to force the enemy to surrendur or annihalite them.

                          Iraq has more than 100 billion barrel of oil deposit, gettting all that oil would be definitely in US self interest, do you agree?
                          Yes

                          US has over 100,000 troops in Iraq is and dispatching even more troops. These troops need not really be spread all over Iraq, they could just capture & control the oilfields and let the Iraqis have the rest of the country to themselves.
                          Would you reccomend such a course of action since getting the oil would be definitely in US self interest and therefore moral as per your doctrine?
                          It would be moral but not at all pragmatic as it would be nearly impossible to stop terrorist attacks without a larger campaign.

                          You did not answer my question. You wrote earlier than US soldiers life is not worth swacrificing in a 3rd world country and US should just nuke them.
                          My question was should USA have nuked Iraq instead of losing 700+ soldiers and counting?
                          So your sayng it's not in our interest to establish a Governemtn friendly to the United States that is willing to protect the rights of it's citizens?

                          This is why I said nukes are almost always impracticle and of course that enemy Governments would respond with nukes if they had them.
                          Last edited by Praxus; 21 Jul 04,, 01:00.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Praxus
                            So your sayng it's not in our interest to establish a Governemtn friendly to the United States that is willing to protect the rights of it's citizens?
                            That's allways going to be in the intrest of a free nation. Our freedom will never be totally secure, and I want 6 billion other free people watching my back.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Praxus
                              Do you agree that any deaths in war are the moral responsibility of the agressor?
                              That a philosphical trap. In most wars the aggressor is not clear cut like some movie. There is always cause and effect, nations can be forced into war to protect their own self interests, but the chain of aggression can be long, and poorly understood by all. Secondly how nations conduct their wars is also a representation fo the civility of those nations. Its facile to simply raise things up to governmental level when discussiing the events of thousands of people. We in the west suport individual rights and with them come individual responsibilites. Nuking a city of civilians (to use an extreme example) is morally reprehensible unless it is your people's last stand.

                              In fact aggressor is itself a matter of perspective to those involved.

                              Also do you agree that the citiznes of a country are the moral responsibility of the Government?
                              Not entirely. The government of a country has a responsibility to its citizens, but the morals of the government come from those of the citizens. The government is its citizens.

                              If you agree with these two things then you must agree that the only moral thing to do in a war is to limit casulties on our side as best as possible and fullfil the objective of the campaign, which is to force the enemy to surrendur or annihalite them.
                              Quite true,. but again, its philosophical trap. Real life is not a wargame. You can't simply hit pause once the mushroom cloud goes up, or the cities are burning, and say "you started it" its your fault. People are dead and we have to be responsible for our actions in killing them.

                              Another thing you are forgetting is that once a war starts people rally behind what they know and their history anhd actually fight the force that would have thought would be supporting them. Many people have made this mistake. It happened in Iraq, but there are many precendants (Napoleon being perhaps the classic example). Once this rallying starts the perception of aggressor is then even more heavily distorted. If you base your moral standpoint solely on your perception of aggressor then you are engaging in a philosophical exercise with no real-world merit.
                              at

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Praxus,
                                So let me get this straight, you are saying that since getting control of Iraqi oil will be in US self-interest, it will be morally right on US part to capture Iraqi oilfields?

                                Also what is the basis of this "morality" you are espousing? Judeo-christian? Jungle-law?

                                Can other countries also adopt this "self-interest based morality" and feel free to grab other weak nations resources if it is in their self-interest?

                                So your sayng it's not in our interest to establish a Governemtn friendly to the United States that is willing to protect the rights of it's citizens?
                                Yes it would be in US interest to have have friendly govts., however, you can't create friendly govts. by force. You would be kidding yourself if you think Iraqis are going to to friendly to Americans once they have a regular govt. in place replacing the current puppet regime.
                                Iraq is a shia majority country, once the power gets transferred to them in all likelyhood they would align themselves with Iran.

                                Now back to my question, as per your doctrine, would you rather have nuked Iraq than launch a ground invasion and in the process lose 900 American soldiers and counting?

                                Similarly a ground invasion of Iran would probably cost significantly more American soldier lives than in Iraq, would you rather nuke Iran?
                                Last edited by turnagainarm; 21 Jul 04,, 18:01.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X