Egypt

[bassrique]

Its only a matter of time befor thee american people wake up and see that there freedom is an illusion.

"just plastic soldgers in a miniture dirt war"

I might agree with you, but w/out perspective we have no bearings. A glance through history will show us how many societies have had such prosperity and relative liberty for generations? [I include parts of Europe in this computation.]

 

[anonymous122511]

Rome? You would like to compare and contrast US foreign policy with that of the Roman Empire?

IMO, a better answer would have been Britannia.

You don't think the expansionist policies of Rome carried out under the auspices of "security" of the homeland constitute a major similarity?

 

[bassrique]

It's something we thought we were gonna get at the point of purchase but if you look in the trunk under the spare tire you'll find it was never even there. I'm not cynical either..... just facing the obvious tale that even a cursory study of history tells.

You don't think the expansionist policies of Rome carried out under the auspices of "security" of the homeland constitute a major similarity?

If so, much of Western Europe and large parts of the Pacific would have been US territories after a bloodbath that would have rivaled Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

No, while the US empire has it's fair share of dirty deeds on it's ledger, the US has behaved better than any world power when we dolly back and see the bigger picture.

 

[Donny Bassman]

I might agree with you, but w/out perspective we have no bearings. A glance through history will show us how many societies have had such prosperity and relative liberty for generations?

I think its been a long time sence people were truly free. At least as a whole. Im not shure people know what freedom is. We've been slaves too long.

But something has to change in all of us first. We have to learn how to be one kind. And imbrace nature and our inviorment.

 

[bassrique]

one kind

I'd say just the opposite. I don't want any part of "one kind".

 

[anonymous122511]

If so, much of Western Europe and large parts of the Pacific would have been US territories after a bloodbath that would have rivaled Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

I see your point and that's where I would agree with you on the example of Britain's more economic based conquests. Another parallel though between Rome and the US is domination by thorough imposition of culture and values. That's significant and undeniable.

No, while the US empire has it's fair share of dirty deeds on it's ledger, the US has behaved better than any world power when we dolly back and see the bigger picture.

I'd split a hair and put it that perhaps they have behaved less atrociously. It's not so much the dolly move as lens on the camera.... (sorry, i'm a grip). In other words where you view from is not as important as what you are physically able to see and the two things are different. After the PR fiasco of Viet Nam what we are able to see is increasingly diminished. Don't ever forget the victors really do write (or re-write) the history.

 

[anonymous122511]

I'd say just the opposite. I don't want any part of "one kind".

If we don't agree on anything else we "shure" do agree on that.

 

[bassrique]

Jeff, If i had more energy, we could go back and forth with good points for all. I think tomorrow we can have some more fun.

It's cool that you are a grip. I used the term "dolly back" because I was listening to Steely Dan/Haitian Divorce at the time. I have no idea about dollying other than that.

 

[hrodbert696]

A couple of things have come up that I want to weigh in on, as far as the US' stance here goes and historical comparisons.

The world is full of people who will gleefully exploit sloppy, half-understood historical analogies in order to justify whatever BS soapbox they feel like getting up on at the moment. The Roman Empire is the classic example. EVERY major western world power since the fifth century has preened itself as the supposed heir of Rome, and every one has fretted over comparing its alleged problems to whatever supposedly brought Rome down. The whole exercise is nonsense. It only works if you over-generalize to the point of making comparisons meaningless.

Secondly, realpolitik. Politics are and always have been about power. That is not an immoral aberration, that is the definition of what politics is. The entire substance of "democracy" is not to make a country where the people in power are a bunch of saints. The substance of democracy is to create a system where they have some accountability to the people they govern. In international relations, the first responsibility of any government is not and never has been any high-flown ideals of democracy and justice for all, it is to prevent its own people becoming the victims of others' aggression, either by maintaining peace or by forming alliances that will assure success if a conflict does arise. That often means working with nasty characters who have convergent interests, including the likes of Mubarak.

What's rather extraordinary in the US' case is not its willingness to work with these characters, but the willingness even to entertain the idea that our foreign policy should pursue higher aims of justice and human rights as well. There's no point putting the cart before the horse here.

Finally, the comments about "freedom" and its alleged absence in the US. I would dearly like to know what golden age people have in mind when Americans (or anyone else) were more free than they are today. Or is this about some abstract fantasy of "freedom" that has never actually existed?

 

[Relic]

A couple of things have come up that I want to weigh in on, as far as the US' stance here goes and historical comparisons.

The world is full of people who will gleefully exploit sloppy, half-understood historical analogies in order to justify whatever BS soapbox they feel like getting up on at the moment. The Roman Empire is the classic example. EVERY major western world power since the fifth century has preened itself as the supposed heir of Rome, and every one has fretted over comparing its alleged problems to whatever supposedly brought Rome down. The whole exercise is nonsense. It only works if you over-generalize to the point of making comparisons meaningless.

Secondly, realpolitik. Politics are and always have been about power. That is not an immoral aberration, that is the definition of what politics is. The entire substance of "democracy" is not to make a country where the people in power are a bunch of saints. The substance of democracy is to create a system where they have some accountability to the people they govern. In international relations, the first responsibility of any government is not and never has been any high-flown ideals of democracy and justice for all, it is to prevent its own people becoming the victims of others' aggression, either by maintaining peace or by forming alliances that will assure success if a conflict does arise. That often means working with nasty characters who have convergent interests, including the likes of Mubarak.

What's rather extraordinary in the US' case is not its willingness to work with these characters, but the willingness even to entertain the idea that our foreign policy should pursue higher aims of justice and human rights as well. There's no point putting the cart before the horse here.

Finally, the comments about "freedom" and its alleged absence in the US. I would dearly like to know what golden age people have in mind when Americans (or anyone else) were more free than they are today. Or is this about some abstract fantasy of "freedom" that has never actually existed?

Great post! Agreed 100%

 

[anonymous122511]

The world is full of people who will gleefully exploit sloppy, half-understood historical analogies in order to justify whatever BS soapbox they feel like getting up on at the moment.

You do of course include yourself in this group? You'd hate to come off as a hypocrite I'm sure....you do raise some interesting point though. I wonder who of us really more than "half understands" understands history? Seems a tad arrogant to be going down that road here.

Wish I had more time to chat but I gotta go to work.

 

[hrodbert696]

You do of course include yourself in this group? You'd hate to come off as a hypocrite I'm sure....you do raise some interesting point though. I wonder who of us really more than "half understands" understands history? Seems a tad arrogant to be going down that road here.

Wish I had more time to chat but I gotta go to work.

There was not one single historical analogy in my post, so no, I have not violated my own rule. As for "half understanding" history, I'll be happy to post my CV if that's what you need to be satisfied that I have the credentials to speak from an informed viewpoint. So no, I do not think I have acted hypocritically in the slightest, and would appreciate your withdrawing the ad hominem insult.

Now, let's keep this on topic.

 

[burk48237]

A couple of things have come up that I want to weigh in on, as far as the US' stance here goes and historical comparisons.

The world is full of people who will gleefully exploit sloppy, half-understood historical analogies in order to justify whatever BS soapbox they feel like getting up on at the moment. The Roman Empire is the classic example. EVERY major western world power since the fifth century has preened itself as the supposed heir of Rome, and every one has fretted over comparing its alleged problems to whatever supposedly brought Rome down. The whole exercise is nonsense. It only works if you over-generalize to the point of making comparisons meaningless.

Secondly, realpolitik. Politics are and always have been about power. That is not an immoral aberration, that is the definition of what politics is. The entire substance of "democracy" is not to make a country where the people in power are a bunch of saints. The substance of democracy is to create a system where they have some accountability to the people they govern. In international relations, the first responsibility of any government is not and never has been any high-flown ideals of democracy and justice for all, it is to prevent its own people becoming the victims of others' aggression, either by maintaining peace or by forming alliances that will assure success if a conflict does arise. That often means working with nasty characters who have convergent interests, including the likes of Mubarak.

What's rather extraordinary in the US' case is not its willingness to work with these characters, but the willingness even to entertain the idea that our foreign policy should pursue higher aims of justice and human rights as well. There's no point putting the cart before the horse here.

Finally, the comments about "freedom" and its alleged absence in the US. I would dearly like to know what golden age people have in mind when Americans (or anyone else) were more free than they are today. Or is this about some abstract fantasy of "freedom" that has never actually existed?

Very well put, but I would have to disagree with you on one. point. While the US is certainly one of the most free countries on the planet when it comes to First amendment freedoms we have become far less free on the economic front. We're not Greece or the former Soviet union, but it is far harder to take an idea and turn it in to a successful business in this country then it was even twenty years ago.

As far as your analogy of the Roman Empire, I would like to add to that. I just finished a history of the Ottoman Empire and what blows me away about reading the History of the World from about 1000-1850 is that empire building isn't just something that happened in the West. It was what civilizations did. Any time leadership consolidated power they decided who to invade next.

Basically the history of the world in that period is the history of competing mini-empires. None of which really achieved any true hegemony. The Aztecs, Ottomans, Talisman, Cossacks, Brits, Safids, Shahs, Malmuks,, Hapsbergs, Hungarian-Prussians, Venetians, Spain, Portuguese, Mongols, Manchurians, and French all took turns expanding, contracting and acquiring or losing territory.

 

[Relic]

You do of course include yourself in this group? You'd hate to come off as a hypocrite I'm sure....you do raise some interesting point though. I wonder who of us really more than "half understands" understands history? Seems a tad arrogant to be going down that road here.

Wish I had more time to chat but I gotta go to work.

A little off topic but I just wanted to throw something out there for a moment -
I honestly think that far too many people fall firmly into the "half understanding history" category. Not, necessarily aiming at you Jeff but my point is that just because one knows the history of Nazi Germany, Rome, Colonial America, etc etc does not necessarily mean that they fully understand it.
If each entity in history were an isolated island unto itself then knowing the history of that entity may be enough to make an informed comparison or parallel , but the truth is that any given history is actually so complicated and unique, that it makes it almost pointless to try to make direct comparisons. You would need to take into account, religious beliefs, economics/trade + commerce, international relations, even things like weather and climate. That may sound odd but it's absolutely true.
That, plus a lot of folks lose sight of the fact that the lifestyle we enjoy right at this moment while we're typing away blissfully, is a result of the present actions and past history of our country(s), IMO..

 

[onosson]

I think, in reference to the topic of this thread, there's really only one question to ask: why would any large powerful country care about the wishes or desires of people in another country?

After you answer that question, ask yourself: why would the U.S./Canada/"The West" be any different?

 

[Lady Kayri]

But what happens in one country often affects other countries, and not always for the best. That's why we (as a country, not individuals) worry about what happens in other countries. I suspect that has always been true on some levels, and as countries (and peoples) become more and more interconnected, we are more and more affected by what happenes elsewhere in the world.

 

[onosson]

I wasn't saying one country wouldn't care about what happens in another... I asked WHY would they care? There are many answers to that question, but I'm suggesting that "because we want everyone to be free" is probably not one of them.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Secondly, realpolitik. Politics are and always have been about power. That is not an immoral aberration, that is the definition of what politics is. The entire substance of "democracy" is not to make a country where the people in power are a bunch of saints. The substance of democracy is to create a system where they have some accountability to the people they govern. In international relations, the first responsibility of any government is not and never has been any high-flown ideals of democracy and justice for all, it is to prevent its own people becoming the victims of others' aggression, either by maintaining peace or by forming alliances that will assure success if a conflict does arise. That often means working with nasty characters who have convergent interests, including the likes of Mubarak.

What's rather extraordinary in the US' case is not its willingness to work with these characters, but the willingness even to entertain the idea that our foreign policy should pursue higher aims of justice and human rights as well. There's no point putting the cart before the horse here.

This, plus:

Politics is the art of the possible.

plus

You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity

Personally, I see US foreign policy as a mix of naked self-interest, cold arithmetic, and an honest attempt to improve the world according to its own moral standards.

As were most empires since way before Rome.

 

[Relic]

I wasn't saying one country wouldn't care about what happens in another... I asked WHY would they care? There are many answers to that question, but I'm suggesting that "because we want everyone to be free" is probably not one of them.

Sure it is.
It also ranks up there with "we don't want them to starve", "we don't want them to kill each other" - the reality is that it's also balanced out with "but we like our own security" , "but we like cheap gas", "but we like our current lifestyle".
It's waaaaay more complicated than most people suspect.

 

[onosson]

Sure it is.
It also ranks up there with "we don't want them to starve", "we don't want them to kill each other" - the reality is that it's also balanced out with "we like our own security" , "we like cheap gas", "we like our current lifestyle".
It's waaaaay more complicated than most people suspect.

I agree it's complicated, but I honestly don't see much evidence that the "will" of many large countries is directed towards many concerns that don't, directly or indirectly, affect themselves. That is, if a country is concerned with humanitarian concerns somewhere else, it is largely because that other place has sone kind of economic, security, or other relationship with them.

This is much more of a factor, I believe, in a large country. A smaller more cohesive nation might be able to make a more humanitarian stand in a united manner ... perhaps. This is purely a matter of scale and momentum - a jogger can manoeuvre more adeptly than a 747.