Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When did the US decided to lead the world?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 12:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I am no American so I can only my opinion from outsider point of view... So if you'er interested, I believe the US "trend" to become the world super power first started during Jefferson administration "to win back pieces by pieces" from the British Empire, I think this is a prove that the US, at least had some degree of ambition to eventually take over the British Empire (possibly through republican revolution). And British Empire is every where, so to take over it, is also to take over the world. Since Republican and Democrat differed little in its initial ideology during the earlier state of the United States, I believe that this strategy (more like a dream) of Jefferson had been carried out (to a minor degree) continuously by every presidents of United States, both to satisfy hunger for global recognition of American public and also as a practical mean to deter a (then) more powerful Europeans power on the new world. In short, it's a defensive strategy practised for centuries by the US government. After all, good offence is the best defence, that's why not many American - possibly even the president had any ideas of where this practice may leading to when they first employ it.

And as you said, after the WWII, this strategy simply brought you to the point that American is the only surviving power and suddenly found herself as the world leader.

First, you try to catch up with the British, then the European, then the USSR, and now - no one. That would be how I sum up the history of American power development in the world stage.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:30:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 12:05:28 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I am no American so I can only my opinion from outsider point of view... So if you'er interested, I believe the US "trend" to become the world super power first started during Jefferson administration "to win back pieces by pieces" from the British Empire, I think this is a prove that the US, at least had some degree of ambition to eventually take over the British Empire (possibly through republican revolution). And British Empire is every where, so to take over it, is also to take over the world. Since Republican and Democrat differed little in its initial ideology during the earlier state of the United States, I believe that this strategy (more like a dream) of Jefferson had been carried out (to a minor degree) continuously by every presidents of United States, both to satisfy hunger for global recognition of American public and also as a practical mean to deter a (then) more powerful Europeans power on the new world. In short, it's a defensive strategy practised for centuries by the US government. After all, good offence is the best defence, that's why not many American - possibly even the president had any ideas of where this practice may leading to when they first employ it.

And as you said, after the WWII, this strategy simply brought you to the point that American is the only surviving power and suddenly found herself as the world leader.

First, you try to catch up with the British, then the European, then the USSR, and now - no one. That would be how I sum up the history of American power development in the world stage.

I don;t doubt that there were elements in America, even at the beginning, that wanted dominion if you will, but I don't think such aspirations are specific to America - with ISIS begin just one of many manifestations of that desire. Yet early America was deeply suspicious of such notions and widely sidelined them for a century or so. TheAmerican Revolution created a deep mistrust of power in American society, and it would take time, distance, and an economic revolution to begin to awaken the desire into something American.

Interestingly enough, I recall a presentation of Uncle Sam in which European presentations of him begin as a kind of fat and happy character that slowly slims down and becomes more threatening in presentation just before Teddy Roosevelt takes over. Not that this is proof positive mind, you, but it does show that Empire oriented aspects of American were coming to the front of American image in both domestic and foreign audiences. That would be post Civil War for us, but prior to the Spanish American War where this nascent ideology began to hold sway.

Still, in the aftermath of WWII, this narrative became dominate, in a way that I do not think is healthy. There are certain aspects of American ideology that I think translate well the world over, as its been my experience in travel that no one does not want to be free, and that universal rights are just that. The problem thought is that we have become far too militarized in our policy. Drones are the manifestation of that policy, where we think we can solve other Nations problems with missiles. To date, that has proven counter productive.

There is huge difference in early American policy, where US Marines broke up pirate Empires and gladly handed the remnants over to more sympathetic tribes (the famed Halls of Montezuma) - having broken the pirates that prayed upon early American shipping. The destruction of the Taliban followed by episodic empire building in Afghanistan, and the destruction of Iraq and plundering aimlessly and faultily into a that tribal abyss points to serious recognition between arms and policy - one that I do not thin our manifest destiny attitude can long support.

It isn't that America truly seeks world domination, but we use a dominant position often unwisely. The sense of strategic priority and patience is ... limited in our outlook, and when we make decisions based on Republican critiques of 'weakness' rather than hard nosed rarities of strategic priority .... we are bound to find agony for all the might we nevertheless can bring to bear.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

In 1945, the US became the most powerful country in the world but the US didn't become the sole superpower until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed so thats probably the year your looking for.
fmind
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 9:26:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well this has been going on since Pilgrims left England other places to colonize this new land. (USA) Driven by some sense of "divine inspiration" to colonize. And slaughter Native Americans. Then it went on to Mexico so they gained California all the way to Texas. Oh then claimed the Alamo was a massacre, they were already telling Mexicans what to do, taking over when the Mexicans were nice enough to invite them to their land to cultivate together. Yeah just look into history ;) This has been going on for YEARS
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 9:26:15 AM, fmind wrote:
Well this has been going on since Pilgrims left England other places to colonize this new land. (USA) Driven by some sense of "divine inspiration" to colonize. And slaughter Native Americans. Then it went on to Mexico so they gained California all the way to Texas. Oh then claimed the Alamo was a massacre, they were already telling Mexicans what to do, taking over when the Mexicans were nice enough to invite them to their land to cultivate together. Yeah just look into history ;) This has been going on for YEARS

you mean CENTURIES
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:38:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state?

Perhaps when the Grand Area Doctrine was formulated by economic & political establishment types during WWII (this of course was their fundamental reason for getting the United States into the war, btw; that is, they wanted to ensure that the outcome of the war would find the U.S. in a position to begin setting itself up as the new global hegemon; stopping the Holocaust was never a genuine motive, which of course explains why in the entire course of the war there was not a single bombing or commando mission to impede the Nazi's mass murder of Jewish and other victims).

http://www.chomsky.info...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 10:46:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

Well starting in the 1890s the US started to expand. We did this because people felt that the US needed to participate in Imperialism just like the European powers were, so that's when the US expanded and took control of the Philippines, a couple of Caribbean islands, and the Panama canal. Once we went through this expansion, we felt pretty powerful and unchallenged until World War I. Once World War I was experienced, the US concluded that the outside world was too barbaric and practiced isolationism until world war II. Once the War was over, the US felt like we needed to be the world police men because if we left the European powers to themselves, they would cause World War III. Expanding our military to take up this new role, the military industrial complex was born which made us the most powerful nation on Earth. With this new power, we then felt it necessary to expand Republicanism and Capitalism all over the world to prevent dictators and politically extreme communist and fascist cause another world nightmare. By the time the soviet union collapsed 50 years later in the 1990s, the US was use to being leader of the world and decided to keep using its power to make the world a better place. (Fighting Terrorism, promoting democracy, etc.)

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 2:38:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:11:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 2:38:03 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.

Rather dumb thinking here. How about simply aspiring to a world sans imperialistic powers?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:10:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:11:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:38:03 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.

Rather dumb thinking here. How about simply aspiring to a world sans imperialistic powers?

Oh my god, you're absolutely right, how hadn't I thought about that before? Just why can't we all live without any big country telling us what to do? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all nations could just sit together and talk in friendly and loving terms to each other, and we could have a world of perpetual peace and everlasting harmony between all nations and creeds?

The only form of thinking that has to be left at the door is the sort of naive pacifism and idealism that you're advocating. The world is a hell hole, deal with it. Some countries are democracies, some are dictatorships. Some of those dictatorships go the extra mile of killing thousands of their own civilians, and not only that, are constantly seeking for an opportunity to invade and destroy their neighbors. We need a world police, an "imperialistic power" as you would say, the UN is supposed to be that, but it's been a bit of a fail, the next best thing we have is the US, not perfect, I know, but certainly much better than nothing.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 6:08:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:10:16 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 9/26/2014 3:11:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:38:03 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:45:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:38:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 8/25/2014 5:48:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:08:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I am wondering, just when the US had decided to replace England as the world most powerful superpower and a police state? (as in the state who do the policing of other state and not the state who policed its own people).

Come to think of it, this wasn't exactly the most prosperous position one could have claimed. You're effectively shouldered the defence budget of the entire world combined just to defend yourself. It is almost certainly more productive to develop your own wealth under the leadership of other state, or a collection of states. Just when and why did your government start to have this idea of ruling the world by themselves?

P.S. Yes, I knew that the US was transformed into Superpower after the conclusion of WWII. However, the trend of projecting military power oversea started far earlier than that. So I believe that it must be some sort of strategy that your government has been continuing for quite sometime.

1945 - before that it was the Monroe Doctrine and we were satisfied with just this half of the world.

You went to Japan as far as during the Meiji Restoration, and also annexed Hawai much earlier than 1945. As I said earlier, trend seem to start prior to WWII, possibly even WWI, 1945 is just its focal point.

You have a point ... Teddy Roosevelt certainly pushed us onto the world stage, but outside the Philippines, there was nothing really there. Much of the Post Roosevelt era though the acquisition of the colonies and resulting Moro Rebellion was a mistake. Post WWI, there were certainly appeals to be involved, but the League of Nations imploded precisely because America refused to take on a global role.

Much of the analysis thereafter propelled us onto the world stage. We were the only major industrial Nation left largely intact after WWII. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, were all solidly demolished. There was a need to use US economic and military might on the 'global stage' - which, for George Kennan meant Europe and Japan primarily, and to a lesser extent China. Truman, and the later Roosevelt constructed a Security Council in the UN that predestined the return of this order at some point.

Where exactly that over stepped itself into areas of true global dominance or at least dominion is an interesting question. Certainly our forays into former colonial failures points toward a lack of understanding of geo-political might. Yet the spirit of manifest destiny precedes all of that.

What is clear however is that, with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia clearly on the global scene again, it makes little sense to continue spending and behaving as if we are the sole power on the globe. How to manage that expectation when our culture believes that its the baddest hombre on the block? Uncertain.

Would be curious to see what you thought though?

I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.

Rather dumb thinking here. How about simply aspiring to a world sans imperialistic powers?

Oh my god, you're absolutely right, how hadn't I thought about that before? Just why can't we all live without any big country telling us what to do? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all nations could just sit together and talk in friendly and loving terms to each other, and we could have a world of perpetual peace and everlasting harmony between all nations and creeds?

Reductio ad absurdum.

The only form of thinking that has to be left at the door is the sort of naive pacifism and idealism that you're advocating.

You seriously misread me sir. I'm most certainly not a proponent of your cliched idea of pacifism. Rather, although I would prefer that people engage in nonviolent activism wherever and whenever possible, I'm in fact a revolutionary socialist who's not averse to the concept of resisting and ending imperialism by means of armed struggle.

The world is a hell hole, deal with it.

Thanks in no small measure to the U.S.' imperialistic and hegemonic MO.

Some countries are democracies, some are dictatorships.

Actually, there are no authentic democracies. Modern parliamentary democracy is an utter fraud and opiate of the people.

Some of those dictatorships go the extra mile of killing thousands of their own civilians, and not only that, are constantly seeking for an opportunity to invade and destroy their neighbors.

The neoliberal policies of, the poverty generated by, and the client regimes who keep their peoples in line for the capitalist world-system in fact cause millions of deaths every year, but you're apparently well-programmed to instead focus attention on the stereotype of the villainous anti-American, anti-Western dictatorship.

We need a world police, an "imperialistic power" as you would say,

Which as things currently stand would exist solely to enforce the rule of the abovementioned capitalist world-system.

the UN is supposed to be that, but it's been a bit of a fail, the next best thing we have is the US, not perfect, I know, but certainly much better than nothing.

Hardly.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.

Rather dumb thinking here. How about simply aspiring to a world sans imperialistic powers?

Oh my god, you're absolutely right, how hadn't I thought about that before? Just why can't we all live without any big country telling us what to do? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all nations could just sit together and talk in friendly and loving terms to each other, and we could have a world of perpetual peace and everlasting harmony between all nations and creeds?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Your original comment was absurd, that is not my fault, my response is still valid.

The only form of thinking that has to be left at the door is the sort of naive pacifism and idealism that you're advocating.


You seriously misread me sir. I'm most certainly not a proponent of your cliched idea of pacifism. Rather, although I would prefer that people engage in nonviolent activism wherever and whenever possible, I'm in fact a revolutionary socialist who's not averse to the concept of resisting and ending imperialism by means of armed struggle.


You're a socialist? So am I, in a sense. But you should probably be aware that socialism works better as a social critique than as a rival socio-economic system. Capitalism won that battle, communism, socialism, the sharing of the forces of production, that is just utopian. The imperialism that you rightfully hate has actually improved the lives of millions of people who used to live in feudal societies, any good socialist would know that, and would prefer capitalism to feudalism. Can capitalism be improved? be made more humane? Sure, but we can't overthrow it.

The world is a hell hole, deal with it.

Thanks in no small measure to the U.S.' imperialistic and hegemonic MO.

Like helping the Muslim Bosnians in Yugoslavia in the 90s? Or expelling Hussein from Kuwait? Or removing the Taliban from Afghanistan? Or removing Hussein from Iraq, thus freeing the Kurds and the Shia and even the Sunni from his despotic rule? Like helping Southern Sudan become independent and free from the brutal genocidal regime of Sudan? Get real, be serious, please.

Some countries are democracies, some are dictatorships.

Actually, there are no authentic democracies. Modern parliamentary democracy is an utter fraud and opiate of the people.


Is that based on the fact that the US Republican party opposed a 5% raise on federal income tax for high-income earners? a struggle it lost? Or because Cameron's conservatives oppose the same thing in the UK? If you think that is the equivalent to the dictatorships so common in the third world, you need to do some serious research.


Some of those dictatorships go the extra mile of killing thousands of their own civilians, and not only that, are constantly seeking for an opportunity to invade and destroy their neighbors.

The neoliberal policies of, the poverty generated by, and the client regimes who keep their peoples in line for the capitalist world-system in fact cause millions of deaths every year, but you're apparently well-programmed to instead focus attention on the stereotype of the villainous anti-American, anti-Western dictatorship.


What kind of hyperbolic piffle are you spouting there? Neoliberalism actually creates wealth even Marx acknowledged that, it's just not the last word of history. You sound like one of those would-be leftists who has spent years fighting in the underground twilight struggle against the Coca-Cola Company and McDonald's and Halliburton. When you stop masturbating your ego in this manner you can rejoin the debate as a serious contender.

We need a world police, an "imperialistic power" as you would say,

Which as things currently stand would exist solely to enforce the rule of the abovementioned capitalist world-system.


I find I can live with that.

the UN is supposed to be that, but it's been a bit of a fail, the next best thing we have is the US, not perfect, I know, but certainly much better than nothing.

Hardly.

Be serious.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 1:13:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:43:53 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
I would say that it still makes sense for the US to be the world's police. The US has not conquered any country since the second world war, Russia and China have done that, and while they might not intervene directly they are, currently, the main promoters of dictatorship and genocide. France only acts when one of its former colonies is involved so that narrows down their range of intervention, and even then they often do it reluctantly and sporadically. Germany is still ambivalent about foreign interventions, specially outside of Europe, for obvious reasons. Pretty much the same can be said for Japan. Which leaves us with the UK, the only other country that is willing to intervene in the world as a police force, which is what the UN is actually supposed to do, but they lack the scope and the power of the US, which is why they have become partners with the US. If the EU got is act together and became a superpower in its own right, as a real nation, and overcame the prickings of its bad conscience, then the US might well be able to size down its role as the world police.

Rather dumb thinking here. How about simply aspiring to a world sans imperialistic powers?

Oh my god, you're absolutely right, how hadn't I thought about that before? Just why can't we all live without any big country telling us what to do? Wouldn't it be wonderful if all nations could just sit together and talk in friendly and loving terms to each other, and we could have a world of perpetual peace and everlasting harmony between all nations and creeds?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Your original comment was absurd, that is not my fault, my response is still valid.

Let's see, you're advocating the view that the United States is a benevolent global hegemon even though through the well-documented historical evildoings of the CIA and the client regimes it's installed and kept in power it's caused a quite massive amount of repression, misery, and death worldwide; you're advocating American global supremacy because you buy into an ideological narrative that features the United States as a global force for goody-goodiness; you're essentially advocating American chauvinism and that the United States play the old game of projecting its hegemony around the world in the guise of assuming the white man's burden, or the "mission of civilization", as French imperialists used to call it; and you have the unmitigated chutzpah to call my views absurd!

The only form of thinking that has to be left at the door is the sort of naive pacifism and idealism that you're advocating.


You seriously misread me sir. I'm most certainly not a proponent of your cliched idea of pacifism. Rather, although I would prefer that people engage in nonviolent activism wherever and whenever possible, I'm in fact a revolutionary socialist who's not averse to the concept of resisting and ending imperialism by means of armed struggle.


You're a socialist? So am I, in a sense. But you should probably be aware that socialism works better as a social critique than as a rival socio-economic system. Capitalism won that battle, communism, socialism, the sharing of the forces of production, that is just utopian. The imperialism that you rightfully hate has actually improved the lives of millions of people who used to live in feudal societies, any good socialist would know that, and would prefer capitalism to feudalism. Can capitalism be improved? be made more humane? Sure, but we can't overthrow it.

And you persist in trying to justify imperialism. Now that's indeed pathetically absurd.

The world is a hell hole, deal with it.

Thanks in no small measure to the U.S.' imperialistic and hegemonic MO.

Like helping the Muslim Bosnians in Yugoslavia in the 90s? Or expelling Hussein from Kuwait? Or removing the Taliban from Afghanistan? Or removing Hussein from Iraq, thus freeing the Kurds and the Shia and even the Sunni from his despotic rule? Like helping Southern Sudan become independent and free from the brutal genocidal regime of Sudan? Get real, be serious, please.

Yeah, invading/occupying Iraq for selfish economic reasons, in the process causing perhaps as many as a million deaths, and creating the situation in which a terrorist army like ISIL could arise was quite the good deed.

Some countries are democracies, some are dictatorships.

Actually, there are no authentic democracies. Modern parliamentary democracy is an utter fraud and opiate of the people.


Is that based on the fact that the US Republican party opposed a 5% raise on federal income tax for high-income earners? a struggle it lost? Or because Cameron's conservatives oppose the same thing in the UK? If you think that is the equivalent to the dictatorships so common in the third world, you need to do some serious research.

It's based on the simple and axiomatic fact that under capitalism the money power of the economic elite inevitably and inherently corrupts and subverts a political system's trappings of democracy. What you end up with is a plutocratic polyarchy in which real power is dispersed among economic elites, and elections are quite the stage-managed affairs in which voters are limited to choosing among competing factions of the ruling class.


Some of those dictatorships go the extra mile of killing thousands of their own civilians, and not only that, are constantly seeking for an opportunity to invade and destroy their neighbors.

The neoliberal policies of, the poverty generated by, and the client regimes who keep their peoples in line for the capitalist world-system in fact cause millions of deaths every year, but you're apparently well-programmed to instead focus attention on the stereotype of the villainous anti-American, anti-Western dictatorship.


What kind of hyperbolic piffle are you spouting there? Neoliberalism actually creates wealth even Marx acknowledged that, it's just not the last word of history. You sound like one of those would-be leftists who has spent years fighting in the underground twilight struggle against the Coca-Cola Company and McDonald's and Halliburton. When you stop masturbating your ego in this manner you can rejoin the debate as a serious contender.

So, to your mentality recognizing the genuine cruelty, injustices, and evils of neoliberalism and the capitalist world-system is spouting "hyperbolic piffle"; but seeking to rationalize a global American empire policed by forces under the command and control of a not terribly benevolent economic and political establishment is an intellectual position deserving of respect. LOL indeed!

We need a world police, an "imperialistic power" as you would say,

Which as things currently stand would exist solely to enforce the rule of the abovementioned capitalist world-system.


I find I can live with that.

Such is your mentality.

the UN is supposed to be that, but it's been a bit of a fail, the next best thing we have is the US, not perfect, I know, but certainly much better than nothing.

Hardly.

Be serious.

Are you? Well, sadly, I believe that you are.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 8:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 1:13:44 AM, charleslb wrote:
Let's see, you're advocating the view that the United States is a benevolent global hegemon even though through the well-documented historical evildoings of the CIA and the client regimes it's installed and kept in power it's caused a quite massive amount of repression, misery, and death worldwide; you're advocating American global supremacy because you buy into an ideological narrative that features the United States as a global force for goody-goodiness; you're essentially advocating American chauvinism and that the United States play the old game of projecting its hegemony around the world in the guise of assuming the white man's burden, or the "mission of civilization", as French imperialists used to call it; and you have the unmitigated chutzpah to call my views absurd!


I would challenge you to find, sir, where exactly did I defend the campaign of sabotage of democratic regimes committed by the CIA, or any of the other errors in foreign policy committed by the US. What I did say was that given the geo-political situation the US is the best available force for keeping the world under control. As terrible as the CIA might have been it would be the height of absurdity to say, as professor Chomsky did and still does, that the actions of the US were morally equivalent to those of the USSR, or of Maoist China. Given the choices the US was better, I began by saying that the world is a hell hole, did I not? the US is not perfect, but it is the best we have. I do not believe in any grand historical narrative, I distrust all such distorted views of history, so I think I need not reply to the rest of your absurdities, I will not lower myself to reply to an unwarranted charge of racism that you implied in your last post, you've only assumed I am white, I could very well be black.

The only form of thinking that has to be left at the door is the sort of naive pacifism and idealism that you're advocating.


You're a socialist? So am I, in a sense. But you should probably be aware that socialism works better as a social critique than as a rival socio-economic system. Capitalism won that battle, communism, socialism, the sharing of the forces of production, that is just utopian. The imperialism that you rightfully hate has actually improved the lives of millions of people who used to live in feudal societies, any good socialist would know that, and would prefer capitalism to feudalism. Can capitalism be improved? be made more humane? Sure, but we can't overthrow it.

And you persist in trying to justify imperialism. Now that's indeed pathetically absurd.


Read carefully, I did not justify "imperialism," I said it was better than feudalism, calm down comrade and take your time.

The world is a hell hole, deal with it.

Thanks in no small measure to the U.S.' imperialistic and hegemonic MO.

Like helping the Muslim Bosnians in Yugoslavia in the 90s? Or expelling Hussein from Kuwait? Or removing the Taliban from Afghanistan? Or removing Hussein from Iraq, thus freeing the Kurds and the Shia and even the Sunni from his despotic rule? Like helping Southern Sudan become independent and free from the brutal genocidal regime of Sudan? Get real, be serious, please.

Yeah, invading/occupying Iraq for selfish economic reasons, in the process causing perhaps as many as a million deaths, and creating the situation in which a terrorist army like ISIL could arise was quite the good deed.


So you picked the only example that served to justify your position (the 2003 liberation of Iraq) and ignored all the others, how encouraging, I could even concede this particular example to you and my argument would still be valid. However, I will educate you a bit, first by informing you that most of the companies drilling oil in Iraq are Russian, European (mainly French) and Asian (mainly Chinese), the US got a small reward, which is why every paleo-con, like Pat Buchanan, opposed the liberation in the first place, because it was not in American interests to liberate Iraq. The fact is that the US invested more in Iraq than it got out of it. One million people did not die in Iraq as a consequence of the liberation of Iraq from a despotic genocidal tyrant, those estimates have been conclusively debunked. Finally, ISIS is nothing more than a group of rearmed baathists, that is, supporters of Saddam Hussein, the people who used to rule the country and oppressed the Shia majority of Iraq and the Kurdish minority as well. It is not my fault that Obama was too incompetent to further encourage the rebuilding of Iraq and who decided to obey the whining public and leave Iraq before it was ready. The US occupied Germany and Japan for close to ten years after WWII, and invested a lot of capital in both countries to ensure that they would become stable democratic countries, the same thing should have been done in Iraq.

Actually, there are no authentic democracies. Modern parliamentary democracy is an utter fraud and opiate of the people.


Is that based on the fact that the US Republican party opposed a 5% raise on federal income tax for high-income earners? a struggle it lost? Or because Cameron's conservatives oppose the same thing in the UK? If you think that is the equivalent to the dictatorships so common in the third world, you need to do some serious research.

It's based on the simple and axiomatic fact that under capitalism the money power of the economic elite inevitably and inherently corrupts and subverts a political system's trappings of democracy. What you end up with is a plutocratic polyarchy in which real power is dispersed among economic elites, and elections are quite the stage-managed affairs in which voters are limited to choosing among competing factions of the ruling class.


So now you have resorted to spouting unfalsifiable conspiracy theories. Well, rest assured no one will be able to refute that, just remember that people used to say exactly the same thing two years ago and thought that Obama was going to lose for that reason, yet he still won. If you think that is comparable to a third world dictatorship you need to do some research.


What kind of hyperbolic piffle are you spouting there? Neoliberalism actually creates wealth even Marx acknowledged that, it's just not the last word of history. You sound like one of those would-be leftists who has spent years fighting in the underground twilight struggle against the Coca-Cola Company and McDonald's and Halliburton. When you stop masturbating your ego in this manner you can rejoin the debate as a serious contender.

So, to your mentality recognizing the genuine cruelty, injustices, and evils of neoliberalism and the capitalist world-system is spouting "hyperbolic piffle"; but seeking to rationalize a global American empire policed by forces under the command and control of a not terribly benevolent economic and political establishment is an intellectual position deserving of respect. LOL indeed!


it is hyperbolic piffle to argue that millions of people die every year because McDonald's, say, has expanded its reach into South Africa, or some such nonsense. Most of the people around the world dying today are the victims of disease, the cures to which haven't reached them due to a lack of globalization, and of course, feudal and barbaric societies and customs. It is serious to say that given the geo-political situation the only country that can be depended upon to keep world peace is the US, which does not mean that it is perfect, but you seem unwilling to understand that, dear comrade.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:48:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 8:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

I would challenge you to find, sir, where exactly did I defend the campaign of sabotage of democratic regimes committed by the CIA, ...

But one has to face the disillusioning fact that this is what's entailed in global hegemony American style. American hegemony is most certainly not merely a matter of bringing order, democracy, and overrated American goody-goodiness to the rest of the world.

Read carefully, I did not justify "imperialism," I said it was better than feudalism,

Now you're soft-pedaling your position.

calm down comrade and take your time.

Dismissive and derisive.

So you picked the only example that served to justify your position (the 2003 liberation of Iraq) and ignored all the others,

Not quite, I simply picked the most outstanding and outrageous example of American mock-benevolent interventionism. As for your other examples:

Like helping the Muslim Bosnians in Yugoslavia in the 90s? ...

Strobe Talbott, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State: " It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform - not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians - that best explains NATO's war." Translation: Yugoslavia wasn't going along with the neoliberal program, therefore under the pretext of a humanitarian military intervention the West employed a bit of military force to induct the former Yugoslavia into the club of victims of neoliberal "reform".

Southern Sudan become independent and free from the brutal genocidal regime of Sudan? Get real, be serious, please.

I'll quote Kevin Funk (co-author of The Scramble for Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA) here: "When we in the West see China moving into Sudan, we immediately recognize they're doing it because they have economic interests and they really don't care whether the people in the region benefit from them,..." "But at the same time, we look at our actions and say, 'We actually want to help people, unlike China' -- that we're better people somehow. Our point is that we're doing basically the same thing."

"Sudan," "will never really see peace until world powers like the U.S. and China stop just treating it as a source of resources."

It's based on the simple and axiomatic fact that under capitalism the money power of the economic elite inevitably and inherently corrupts and subverts a political system's trappings of democracy. What you end up with is a plutocratic polyarchy in which real power is dispersed among economic elites, and elections are quite the stage-managed affairs in which voters are limited to choosing among competing factions of the ruling class.


So now you have resorted to spouting unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.

An absurd accusation designed to discredit and marginalize me as a lunatic-fringe conspiracist. However, there's nothing remotely conspiracist in my analysis of the American system. Indeed, there's no need for a B-movie type cabal or conspiracy when the economic elite is already the real power in our society's profoundly plutocratic power structure.

it is hyperbolic piffle to argue that millions of people die every year because McDonald's, say, has expanded its reach into South Africa,

And in your opinion this is as harmful as the projection of American economic power & hegemony around the globe gets? Btw, not to become an example of Godwin's law, but this is somewhat like portraying Nazi Germany's expansionism as relatively bloodless by focusing on the Anschluss with Austria and ignoring the Nazis' mass-murderous MO in Poland.

or some such nonsense. Most of the people around the world dying today are the victims of disease, the cures to which haven't reached them due to a lack of globalization,

Correction, due to the immiseration and economic disempowerment of Third-World nations in the current capitalist world-system. That is, the underlying factor remains poverty, poverty in fact imposed upon the peoples of the periphery by the core countries of a world-system geared for the economic dominance of the transnational capitalist class at everyone else's expense.

It is serious to say that given the geo-political situation the only country that can be depended upon to keep world peace is the US, which does not mean that it is perfect, but you seem unwilling to understand that, dear comrade.

And you seem to be altogether unwilling to examine the extent to which your views are influenced by the ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word) of our society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://books.google.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 1:48:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 8:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

I would challenge you to find, sir, where exactly did I defend the campaign of sabotage of democratic regimes committed by the CIA, ...

But one has to face the disillusioning fact that this is what's entailed in global hegemony American style. American hegemony is most certainly not merely a matter of bringing order, democracy, and overrated American goody-goodiness to the rest of the world.


Not necessarily. Just because one says that the US is the only country capable of being the world police does not mean that one should refrain from criticizing it when it does something wrong. It does not follow. You missed the larger point.

Read carefully, I did not justify "imperialism," I said it was better than feudalism,

Now you're soft-pedaling your position.

No I am not, that was my position to begin with, you just misunderstood it.

calm down comrade and take your time.

Dismissive and derisive.

I am sorry that you read it that way, comrade.

So you picked the only example that served to justify your position (the 2003 liberation of Iraq) and ignored all the others,

Not quite, I simply picked the most outstanding and outrageous example of American mock-benevolent interventionism. As for your other examples:

Like helping the Muslim Bosnians in Yugoslavia in the 90s? ...

Strobe Talbott, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State: " It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform - not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians - that best explains NATO's war." Translation: Yugoslavia wasn't going along with the neoliberal program, therefore under the pretext of a humanitarian military intervention the West employed a bit of military force to induct the former Yugoslavia into the club of victims of neoliberal "reform".

Sure, you can always find one member of an administration that was not willing to go to war in the first place, because of a lack of economic and military interest in the region, the same reason that Pat Buchanan and Peter Hitchens and their ilk opposed the intervention, go on to say that it was all done for economic interests in order to sell a few books or get applause. The fact of the matter is that Clinton was pressured to go into the war. Even if the US did get some sort of benefit out of it, is that a reason for us, the people, to stop supporting an intervention that saved thousands of lives? Or would you say that it would have been better to let the Serbian fascists wipe out the Bosnian Muslims, because at least that way neo-liberalism wouldn't have expanded and poor Bosnians wouldn't have to suffer under the absolutely evil conditions of having Burger King joints in Sarajevo? And what "club victims" are you talking about?



Southern Sudan become independent and free from the brutal genocidal regime of Sudan? Get real, be serious, please.

I'll quote Kevin Funk (co-author of The Scramble for Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA) here: "When we in the West see China moving into Sudan, we immediately recognize they're doing it because they have economic interests and they really don't care whether the people in the region benefit from them,..." "But at the same time, we look at our actions and say, 'We actually want to help people, unlike China' -- that we're better people somehow. Our point is that we're doing basically the same thing."

"Sudan," "will never really see peace until world powers like the U.S. and China stop just treating it as a source of resources."

Sure, and the US is actually not treating it that way, China is. The US does not have any vital interests in the region of South Sudan, it was mostly a matter of principle, as a matter of fact China is currently investing more in South Sudan than any other country, so they really don't give a damn about anyone. Comparing China, a totalitarian dictatorship, to the peaceful intervention into South Sudan by the US and other Western democracies, is the height of absurdity.

It's based on the simple and axiomatic fact that under capitalism the money power of the economic elite inevitably and inherently corrupts and subverts a political system's trappings of democracy. What you end up with is a plutocratic polyarchy in which real power is dispersed among economic elites, and elections are quite the stage-managed affairs in which voters are limited to choosing among competing factions of the ruling class.


So now you have resorted to spouting unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.

An absurd accusation designed to discredit and marginalize me as a lunatic-fringe conspiracist. However, there's nothing remotely conspiracist in my analysis of the American system. Indeed, there's no need for a B-movie type cabal or conspiracy when the economic elite is already the real power in our society's profoundly plutocratic power structure.


Re-asserting, without evidence, an unfalsifiable theory about a shadow government, does not prove that your conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory. I have no intention of marginalizing you or making you look like a "lunatic fringe conspiracist." I just said that you were spouting off conspiracy theories.


it is hyperbolic piffle to argue that millions of people die every year because McDonald's, say, has expanded its reach into South Africa,

And in your opinion this is as harmful as the projection of American economic power & hegemony around the globe gets? Btw, not to become an example of Godwin's law, but this is somewhat like portraying Nazi Germany's expansionism as relatively bloodless by focusing on the Anschluss with Austria and ignoring the Nazis' mass-murderous MO in Poland.

Well you just became an example of Godwin's law, seriously, comparing globalization, a lot of which isn't actually American, there are also French and British and Japanese and Chinese companies involved, with the crimes of the Third Reich, is absurd, it is self-discrediting, unless you can tell me when Nike or McDonald's or Hlalliburton or The Coca-Cola Company decided that the only way they could make a profit was through systematic campaigns of genocide.


or some such nonsense. Most of the people around the world dying today are the victims of disease, the cures to which haven't reached them due to a lack of globalization,

Correction, due to the immiseration and economic disempowerment of Third-World nations in the current capitalist world-system. That is, the underlying factor remains poverty, poverty in fact imposed upon the peoples of the periphery by the core countries of a world-system geared for the economic dominance of the transnational capitalist class at everyone else's expense.

The Third-World was poor even before Western companies started moving to those countries, they are poor as a result of corruption from the ruling classes of those countries. Now that western corporations have started to go there things are getting slightly better, not perfect, but better, perhaps if the trend of industrialization continues, they will be able to, eventually, begin campaigning to turn their countries into social-democracies, but we will have to wait a while.

It is serious to say that given the geo-political situation the only country that can be depended upon to keep world peace is the US, which does not mean that it is perfect, but you seem unwilling to understand that, dear comrade.

And you seem to be altogether unwilling to examine the extent to which your views are influenced by the ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word) of our society.

I am always willing to examine my views which is why I have moved on from the neo-marxist critique of the world, because I came to see it as inaccurate.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:51:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You two should have a debate.

I think that is what we have been doing, but thanks.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:34:21 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:51:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You two should have a debate.

I think that is what we have been doing, but thanks.

Oh, I mean an official one with rounds.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:43:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:40:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/29/2014 4:34:21 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:51:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You two should have a debate.

I think that is what we have been doing, but thanks.

Oh, I mean an official one with rounds.

Perhaps, if my opponent should show himself to be willing.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 8:06:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:28:39 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Well you just became an example of Godwin's law, seriously, comparing globalization, a lot of which isn't actually American, there are also French and British and Japanese and Chinese companies involved, with the crimes of the Third Reich, is absurd, it is self-discrediting, ...

A rather lame comeback, as I didn't actually compare globalization to the crimes of Nazi Germany. It's simply a quite simplistic, knee-jerk response to mischaracterize and dismiss an analogy that merely involves Nazi Germany as, or as tantamount to, a comparison of a modern evil to the incomparable historical evil of Hitlerism and the Holocaust. My point, in fact, was merely that downplaying the evils of the current world-system by facilely portraying globalization as involving nothing more dreadful than the establishment of McDonald's franchises in the Third World is as dishonest as portraying Nazi expansionism as bloodless by focusing on the Anschluss and glossing over the brutal invasion of Poland. And, btw, it's you who are guilty of insensitivity to history's victims here, to the victims of the history-in-the-making that some call globalization and that I and others less euphemistically describe as the evolution of a world-system of exploitation & domination. Yes, you appear to be quite appallingly insensitive to the very real plight of the Third World poor; in fact, you seem to be somewhat of an evils-of-globalization denier. Shame on you.

... unless you can tell me when Nike or McDonald's or Hlalliburton or The Coca-Cola Company decided that the only way they could make a profit was through systematic campaigns of genocide.

Halliburton and its interests we're in fact criminally complicit in the bit of mass murder (which cost perhaps as many as a million lives) in Iraq known as the American invasion/occupation of that country. And McDonald's and Coca-Cola are certainly complicit and key players in the obesity-diabetes genocide (and no, this isn't hyperbolic in the slightest) being waged against poor minorities. But I'm quite sure that you're a staunch and dismissive denier of this as well. Oh well.

(From Social Justice and the Urban Obesity Crisis: Implications for Social Work, by Melvin Delgado: "Obesity as Genocide? The reader may think that this statement is over the top. However, what could we call a situation in which groups of individuals have been targeted for slow extinction? That, I am afraid, is what is happening in inner cities across this country. No group of color, gender, or age has escaped the onslaught. Although the issue of excessive weight casts a cloud over the entire country, there is no denying that certain groups have a higher likelihood than others of being affected. With minor exceptions, government at all levels has stood by and allowed this situation to develop, citing personal choice, profits, and jobs as justifications for inaction.

The profound social, economic, political, and health consequences of obesity, and the techniques by which the corporate sector has purposefully targeted low-income people of color, support classifying the issue of obesity as genocide. The close relationship that the food industry has cultivated with these communities as consumers and employees stands as testimony to that industry's influence, and its systematic efforts at lobbying our elected officials further make this view even less sensational.

Labeling the problem of excessive weight in low-income urban communities of color as "genocide" will undoubtedly generate a great deal of discussion and debate, which in my opinion is one of the benefits of using such a label. It is not a label I have ever used before in any of my writings even though I have devoted my professional life to working with urban communities of color. Nevertheless, we are at a critical point, and I do not want to see another generation saddled with a host of consequences because we were afraid of calling this a form of genocide.")
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 8:41:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 8:06:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 4:28:39 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Well you just became an example of Godwin's law, seriously, comparing globalization, a lot of which isn't actually American, there are also French and British and Japanese and Chinese companies involved, with the crimes of the Third Reich, is absurd, it is self-discrediting, ...

A rather lame comeback, as I didn't actually compare globalization to the crimes of Nazi Germany. It's simply a quite simplistic, knee-jerk response to mischaracterize and dismiss an analogy that merely involves Nazi Germany as, or as tantamount to, a comparison of a modern evil to the incomparable historical evil of Hitlerism and the Holocaust. My point, in fact, was merely that downplaying the evils of the current world-system by facilely portraying globalization as involving nothing more dreadful than the establishment of McDonald's franchises in the Third World is as dishonest as portraying Nazi expansionism as bloodless by focusing on the Anschluss and glossing over the brutal invasion of Poland. And, btw, it's you who are guilty of insensitivity to history's victims here, to the victims of the history-in-the-making that some call globalization and that I and others less euphemistically describe as the evolution of a world-system of exploitation & domination. Yes, you appear to be quite appallingly insensitive to the very real plight of the Third World poor; in fact, you seem to be somewhat of an evils-of-globalization denier. Shame on you.


There you go again. Look, comrade, it is not my fault that my reply was lame, the comment I was replying to was a stupid and demagogic one, I think that it deserved a lame reply, I am not going to waste my wit on stupid and demagogic arguments. And you have replied with yet more demagogy, and I'm going to call Godwin's Law again, I am sorry, but if you keep comparing every minor problem to the Third Reich, you deserve it.

As for the rest of your post, I have actually lived in Third World countries, and I can tell you that globalization only makes life better for those people, it does not make them worse, I am not saying that globalization is all peachy over there, but I am not going to make the best the enemy of the good. If we were having an argument about globalization, we would probably agree on a lot, the only difference would be that I would argue that the solution to the problems of globalization is not to destroy everything and go back to living in farms (which sounds to me to be far too much like the agrarian romanticism common to all forms of fascism) but even more industrialization, the West did not get wealthy by stopping industrialization.

The problem of Third World countries is the fact that they have been unable to separate religion and state, and to encourage and adopt the mentality that one should think of oneself as an individual first and a member of a tribe or religion second, and finally a lack of modern values in favor of ancient tribal rituals.

In any case I am not going to compare the malpractices of companies in the Third World with the crimes of genocidal fascistic regimes like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Slovodan Milosevic's Serbia, or fascist China, that would be to take a morally bankrupt position, I am sorry if you keep missing that point, comrade.

... unless you can tell me when Nike or McDonald's or Hlalliburton or The Coca-Cola Company decided that the only way they could make a profit was through systematic campaigns of genocide.

Halliburton and its interests we're in fact criminally complicit in the bit of mass murder (which cost perhaps as many as a million lives) in Iraq known as the American invasion/occupation of that country...


I've already told you that those estimates have been debunked by everyone. As for the people who actually did die in the liberation of Iraq from a fascistic totalitarian and pornographically sadistic and genocidal maniac, most were the victims of nihilistic jihadist terrorists, not of American soldiers, and definitely not of Halliburton or any other American company, which -- as I already argued -- have a very small presence in Iraq. Most oil companies in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, are European (French and Spanish) and Russian, and Chinese. There are very few countries in the world where Exxon or Halliburton have a large presence, but you can always count on finding a Shell (Dutch) or Repsol (Spanish) oil station, unsurprisingly you seem not to understand that, but patience comrade, patience, you will one day.


And McDonald's and Coca-Cola are certainly complicit and key players in the obesity-diabetes genocide (and no, this isn't hyperbolic in the slightest) being waged against poor minorities. But I'm quite sure that you're a staunch and dismissive denier of this as well. Oh well.


This is the sort of stupid and demagogic arguments that I am really not going to bother wasting much time replying to with witty comebacks (apparently the standard of argumentation, according to you). Labelling the problem of obesity "genocide" is a banalization of both real genocides and obesity. There are black people who suffer from obesity and there are white people who suffer from obesity, as well as people from every other ethinic who suffer some form of malnutrition or other. Again you imply that I am a racist, you don't even have the guts to do it openly, but yet you can't demonstrate that I am white and not black, or Indian, or Japanese, or Arab, or Bosnian, or whatever.

Obesity is a problem, but if people choose to over-consume things that are bad for their health that is their fault, not the fault of McDonald's and The Coca-Cola Company. Every neuropsychological study about this topic has conclusively shown that "subliminal" messages in commercials are all bunk, no one is brainwashed into buying anything. And I don't know where you or anyone else gets the idea that corporations purposely target minorites, I have lived in very many countries and I have seen people of all ages, of all ethnic groups, and of all socio-economic groups, drink a lot of fizzy-drinks and eat fast-food like crazy. Anyway, I remember a time when members of the leftist intelligentsia used to masturbate themselves saying that corporations were racist because there were so few people of color in their ads, and that drinking Coke or going to Burger King was to defend white supremacy.

Only in the US are you going to get crazed conspiracy theorists who have nothing better to do than imagine that black people are being targeted by companies, if in the US most people with obesity problems are black, that is something unique to the US. This is what one expects of the morally bankrupt establishment of the intellectual left.

Meanwhile there are people in the world who are really suffering under the hands of real tyrants and who live in backward conditions due to a lack of infrastructure and a lack of Enlightenment values whose lives could be improved through globalization, so you should stop masturbating your ego in order to please your wounded vanity. My original argument still stands (that the US is the best we have right now, even if it is not perfect, for keeping the peace and protecting human rights) and I have refuted all your points, which have become increasingly demagogic as the argument has unfolded, but I don't mind, I take it that it is best you have, which is only to be expected when one takes the chomsky-ite position.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:38:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

There you go again. Look, comrade, it is not my fault that my reply was lame, the comment I was replying to was a stupid and demagogic one, I think that it deserved a lame reply, I am not going to waste my wit on stupid and demagogic arguments. And you have replied with yet more demagogy, and I'm going to call Godwin's Law again, I am sorry, but if you keep comparing every minor problem to the Third Reich, you deserve it.

You simply persist in refusing to be corrected and in mischaracterizing my analogy. Oh well.

As for the rest of your post, I have actually lived in Third World countries, and I can tell you that globalization only makes life better for those people, it does not make them worse, I am not saying that globalization is all peachy over there, but I am not going to make the best the enemy of the good. If we were having an argument about globalization, we would probably agree on a lot, the only difference would be that I would argue that the solution to the problems of globalization is not to destroy everything and go back to living in farms (which sounds to me to be far too much like the agrarian romanticism common to all forms of fascism) but even more industrialization, the West did not get wealthy by stopping industrialization.

Lol! Let me simply reply with a bit of hard truth. Globalization =/= industrialization and development in the interest of creating a higher standard of living for the poor masses of the Third World. Rather, it's the creation of a world-system of exploitation structured for the benefit of a transnational capitalist class and local comprador-elites.

The problem of Third World countries is the fact that they have been unable to separate religion and state, and to encourage and adopt the mentality that one should think of oneself as an individual first and a member of a tribe or religion second, and finally a lack of modern values in favor of ancient tribal rituals.

Yeah, the egoism fostered by American capitalism will save the Third World, because it's doing such wonderful things, sociologically speaking, for American society.

In any case I am not going to compare the malpractices of companies in the Third World with the crimes of genocidal fascistic regimes like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Slovodan Milosevic's Serbia, or fascist China, that would be to take a morally bankrupt position, I am sorry if you keep missing that point, comrade.

Hmm, so the world-system of the TCC (transnational capitalist class), arguably the worst "genocidal regime" in world history gets a free pass from you. Hmm.

I've already told you that those estimates have been debunked ...

Such debunking is utter bunk.

This is the sort of stupid and demagogic arguments that I am really not going to bother wasting much time replying to with witty comebacks (apparently the standard of argumentation, according to you). Labelling the problem of obesity "genocide" is a banalization of both real genocides and obesity.

This from someone who repeatedly claims that there's nothing more dreadful to globalization, i.e. neocolonialism and neoliberalism, than the establishment of McDonald's franchises overseas. If that is the banalization of the cruel effects of globalization...

Obesity is a problem, but if people choose to over-consume things that are bad for their health that is their fault,

I'm quite underwhelmed by your compassion. Yes, of course, take refuge in the fundamental attribution error and blame the victim.

Only in the US are you going to get crazed conspiracy theorists...

Hmm, although I've advocated no conspiracy theories whatsoever (and subscribe to none) you persist in trying to dismiss my point of view as conspiricist. This is quite weak.

Meanwhile there are people in the world who are really suffering under the hands of real tyrants ...

And the capitalist world-system.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:42:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Typo correction. "This from someone who repeatedly claims that there's nothing more dreadful to globalization, i.e. neocolonialism and neoliberalism, than the establishment of McDonald's franchises overseas. If that is the banalization of the cruel effects of globalization..." should of course read: "This from someone who repeatedly claims that there's nothing more dreadful to globalization, i.e. neocolonialism and neoliberalism, than the establishment of McDonald's franchises overseas. If that isn't the banalization of the cruel effects of globalization..."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 8:41:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:38:32 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

There you go again. Look, comrade, it is not my fault that my reply was lame, the comment I was replying to was a stupid and demagogic one, I think that it deserved a lame reply, I am not going to waste my wit on stupid and demagogic arguments. And you have replied with yet more demagogy, and I'm going to call Godwin's Law again, I am sorry, but if you keep comparing every minor problem to the Third Reich, you deserve it.

You simply persist in refusing to be corrected and in mischaracterizing my analogy. Oh well.


Excuse me, comrade, you have misinterpreted my position from the beginning. As it happens, you were the one who persisted in comparing globalization to the Third Reich, even if only by way of analogy, I just called you out on it.


As for the rest of your post, I have actually lived in Third World countries, and I can tell you that globalization only makes life better for those people, it does not make them worse, I am not saying that globalization is all peachy over there, but I am not going to make the best the enemy of the good. If we were having an argument about globalization, we would probably agree on a lot, the only difference would be that I would argue that the solution to the problems of globalization is not to destroy everything and go back to living in farms (which sounds to me to be far too much like the agrarian romanticism common to all forms of fascism) but even more industrialization, the West did not get wealthy by stopping industrialization.

Lol! Let me simply reply with a bit of hard truth. Globalization =/= industrialization and development in the interest of creating a higher standard of living for the poor masses of the Third World. Rather, it's the creation of a world-system of exploitation structured for the benefit of a transnational capitalist class and local comprador-elites.


Globalization, is the industrialization of the developing world, that is what it means. And it happens to have the effect of increasing the standards of life of the people in those countries, just as industrialization in the West (which also had the motive of enriching a small class) also improved the standards of living of the poor. That is simply one of the effects of having a capitalist system. It is not perfect, I agree, it tends to distribute wealth very unequally, but it is far superior to feudalism. You still fail to see that point.


The problem of Third World countries is the fact that they have been unable to separate religion and state, and to encourage and adopt the mentality that one should think of oneself as an individual first and a member of a tribe or religion second, and finally a lack of modern values in favor of ancient tribal rituals.

Yeah, the egoism fostered by American capitalism will save the Third World, because it's doing such wonderful things, sociologically speaking, for American society.


Egoism is natural and universal, some of its expressions should be checked, but you can't get rid of it. American capitalism, or rather, the malpractices of the stock market, have had an adverse effect on American society but it is still far better than the ancient medieval feudalism that it replaced. And as bad as things might be in the US life is still much better than in any other backwoods of the Third World. Anyway, I did not make a paean to egoism in my last post, I merely expressed the advantages of western values (secularism, democracy, belief in equality, liberty, etc) you just read what you wanted to read in my post and decided to attack a straw man.


In any case I am not going to compare the malpractices of companies in the Third World with the crimes of genocidal fascistic regimes like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Slovodan Milosevic's Serbia, or fascist China, that would be to take a morally bankrupt position, I am sorry if you keep missing that point, comrade.

Hmm, so the world-system of the TCC (transnational capitalist class), arguably the worst "genocidal regime" in world history gets a free pass from you. Hmm.


Another assertion without a single shred of evidence, so I am going to discard it. You insist on making a banality of genocide and of the problems of the capitalist system by conflating the two.


I've already told you that those estimates have been debunked ...

Such debunking is utter bunk.

This is the best that you can do? Oh well, it is to be expected of a chomsky-bot who cannot be bothered to stop spouting the nonsense that he has learned at the knees of the master and actually look up the studies that have been made of the casualties in Iraq. In any case you have not responded, because you can't, to my larger point that the vast majority of the people who died in Iraq were the victims of the terrorists not of American soldiers and corporations, which is why you had to resort to this tripe.

This is the sort of stupid and demagogic arguments that I am really not going to bother wasting much time replying to with witty comebacks (apparently the standard of argumentation, according to you). Labelling the problem of obesity "genocide" is a banalization of both real genocides and obesity.

This from someone who repeatedly claims that there's nothing more dreadful to globalization, i.e. neocolonialism and neoliberalism, than the establishment of McDonald's franchises overseas. If that is the banalization of the cruel effects of globalization...


I've never said that globalization has no problems, I conceded that in my previous post, I only said that the solution was reform not destruction of globalization.




Obesity is a problem, but if people choose to over-consume things that are bad for their health that is their fault,

I'm quite underwhelmed by your compassion. Yes, of course, take refuge in the fundamental attribution error and blame the victim.


Well I have always thought of compassion as an overrated virtue, I am neither a buddhist nor a christian. I think that solidarity is much better than compassion, nevertheless I am not going to start a campaign of defamation against corporations because some of their consumers abuse their products, just as I am not going to campaign against breweries and the tobacco industry just because some people drink and smoke too much, even if I do feel sorry for the people who abuse these substances. If this sort of demagogy is the best that you can offer to my rebuttal, then it shows the weakness of your position.


Only in the US are you going to get crazed conspiracy theorists...


Hmm, although I've advocated no conspiracy theories whatsoever (and subscribe to none) you persist in trying to dismiss my point of view as conspiricist. This is quite weak.


You said, in your previous posts, that corporations had rigged the electoral system (no evidence of that), that corporations were committing genocide in the Third World (no evidence of that), and that the obesity problem (a problem that exists mostly in the First World) was the result of a campaign by corporations to make people obese (no evidence for this). Now, comrade, these assertions you've made all sound to me like conspiracy theories, I am not to blame for that, I call a spade a spade, I am sorry if it offends you.

However, I did take time to refute your nonsense about obesity being a form of genocide, to which you have been unable to respond (for obvious reasons). You've only been capable of pointing out that you're hurt by my calling your absurdities by their rightful name.


Meanwhile there are people in the world who are really suffering under the hands of real tyrants ...

And the capitalist world-system.

Yet more demagogy, but I understand, it is what you are best at, comrade.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.