I like to categorize this as "you'll miss us when we're gone." I know, I am as shocked as you are that CNN would post something vaguely positive about the USA. But then I read the comments and I am reassured.
America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier By Robert Kagan, Special to CNN (CNN) -- We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom, the unprecedented global prosperity (even despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers.
In 1941 there were only a dozen democracies in the world. Today there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty.
The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind, and in prior centuries war among great powers was almost constant. But for the past 60 years no great powers have gone to war.
This is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit their interests and preferences.
Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great power autocracies. Both China and Russia already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power.
What about the free market, free trade economic order? People assume China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But China's form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal being preservation of the ruling party.
Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power it brings. They might kill the goose because they can't figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive.
Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Many people imagine that American predominance will be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither stable nor peaceful.
War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated, however, by major wars among great powers and culminating in World War I, the most destructive and deadly war mankind had known up to that point. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand.
Many people view the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior, and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government -- forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. But there was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II.
International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others -- in America's case, the domination of liberal free market principles of economics, democratic principles of politics, and a peaceful international system that supports these, over other visions that other nations and peoples may have. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.
If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms American power has supported will decline, too. Or they may collapse altogether as we transition into another kind of world order, or into disorder. We may discover then that the United States was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe -- which was what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.
I'm wondering when this "long peace" happened. The Soviet Union fell in 1991, prior to that there were all kinds of wars, and near wars; plus the threat of an impending nuclear holocaust. Not very peaceful.
After that, we get Iraq 1, Bosnia, Iraq 2, and numerous other armed conflicts throughout Asia and Eastern Europe. Even if we write all that off, its still only 21 years absent a conflict between two great powers.
Moreover, unless the US was the only great power during that period (making great power peace irrelevant) how is the order "American"? Reads more as "Western" to me.
Of course, I don't mean to claim America is "bad" or anything like that, its just good to keep a firm grip on perspective.
Yeah, and bears gak in the woods.
Only morons think a world dominated by China would be better than a world dominated by America. I doubt the Chinese would send millions of men overseas to fight for the liberty of others.
Frazzled wrote:
He do send carrier groups and the military to help after major disasters (Tsunami, Haiti...)
That's a better example, but still possibly a case of rational self interest.
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.
Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.
I generally do.
The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.
Well, and cute girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.
Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.
"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."
*gun shots*
"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."
Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.
Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.
I generally do.
The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.
Well, and cute girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.
There we differ.
Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.
"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."
*gun shots*
"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."
Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.
Kilkrazy wrote:Could America come over here and make me a bit wealthier?
I'm about to buy a house and need some extra money.
I'll send you a check. Can you go ahead and deposit. It may take some time. In the interim, I'm a bit cash tight. Could you wire me some money? The proceeds from the check should more than cover it.
While I agree with Dogma that little of America's foriegn policy is benevolent, I really don't care why people do things. I'm a results oriented guy, at least with regards to public and foriegn policy.
Why does it matter why the US is giving food to North Korea? We're helping people not starve.
corpsesarefun wrote:How can you possibly know this?
Do they have a secret portal to an earth without america to check?
I agree. in this alternitive-verse is the British Empier is still around? It would own a good 60% of the planet.
Would it make a better world policeman?
Some of the comments on that page are just crazy. Is it not possible to have different views without automatically hate all that the other person holds dear?
FFS...
Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.
When I saw the topic name. It took me a lot of effort to click on it. I like the average American but the way they are governed is just... wow. (I'm not talking about Obama or his administration but mainly the right wingers and conservatives)
What the American Government has bin doing to countries world wide is preatty much another form of terrorism. Now I'm not saying the troopers are committing terrorism. There just following orders and have no say, well pretty much have no say. America has no right to be in anyone's borders unless they have bin directly and visually attacked. Most people who are in the said country hate Americans because they have "Invaded them" and "striped them of their dignity". Most Americans think otherwise. But it's not their fault. They get bombed by the media *cough* *cough* Fox News (Which I might mention is not allowed to be portrayed has a New Channel here in NZ, because it actually has to bring "NEWS" to the table). And most people in the States think their Government and troops are doing the right thing, but their not....
Why does America have a policy to enter foreign lands and commit acts of terrorism (my main of example this is pretty much the whole Iraq war) that did nothing to their own country or people (directly). The American Government has broken so many laws of war thats it stop being funny.
Prior to the Cold War America could move freely in Central and South America because of military and naval superiority in that hemisphere. During the Cold War only the USSR was a legit rival. Post Cold War America can do whatever they damn well please because of military superiority. Only China and perhaps Russia can really challenged the US military and neither of those two countries have any reason to engage in a direct confrontation.
SilverMK2 wrote:Some of the comments on that page are just crazy. Is it not possible to have different views without automatically hate all that the other person holds dear?
FFS...
Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.
Or just as the Great Cartman often said: "Screw you guys. I'm going home."
Amaya wrote:Post Cold War America can do whatever they damn well please because of military superiority.
Well, that's the myth anyway.
We can do more than most, but anything that we want. In part because we don't know what we want, but also because some things are beyond us. It was easier during the Cold War because there was a clearly defined opponent. This made FP choices produce predictable results.
Well, American can't simply waltz over and take over half the world, but it has no desire to do so.
It is free to interfere where it is not wanted thanks to a very powerful and fast military that can make life hell for your country in a matter of days.
Joey wrote:Yeah, and bears gak in the woods.
Only morons think a world dominated by China would be better than a world dominated by America.
How about a world dominated by no-one?
dogma wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.
I generally do.
The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.
Well, and cute girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.
Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.
"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."
*gun shots*
"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."
Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.
Dogma, you are easily the single most cynical person it has ever been my pleasure to encounter... I mean that as a compliment, by the way
Killing, lots and lots of killing (Middle East) or not (South America).
You don't believe it's possible (someday) for the world to achieve balance? I'm not even gonna begin to think about how that might happen... but i'm an optimist!
Blackskullandy wrote:
Dogma, you are easily the single most cynical person it has ever been my pleasure to encounter... I mean that as a compliment, by the way
Blackskullandy wrote:
Dogma, you are easily the single most cynical person it has ever been my pleasure to encounter... I mean that as a compliment, by the way
My personal anthem:
That was pretty damn fine earcandy. Throughly approved... Although I now have a mental image of you running around in a black suit, tophat and cane, tying damsels up on railway tracks...
There is no reason why a dominant China would not make the world a fairly safe place. History tells us that empires like to maintain the status quo. Yes they have a terrible human rights record, but if you can overrun a country with cheap consumer goods, you don't need to send in the Panzer divisions (or chinese equivalent)
You don't need tanks for violence and deaths. I don't think tanks would perform well in most of South America anyways.
You're going off the rails on a crazy train. My point was that there are regions now where there is no dominant power. Sometimes that means endless wars, sometimes it doesn't.
Youy may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
South America does suffer, to an extent, endless wars and is influenced more by a world power (America) than Africa is so comparing the two regions is a mistake.
I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
Amaya wrote:South America does suffer, to an extent, endless wars and is influenced more by a world power (America) than Africa is so comparing the two regions is a mistake.
Really? Outside of that Falklands thing, what was the last major war in South America?
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
Amaya wrote:So the constant drug wars and powerful cartels are meaningless because South America doesn't routinely have massive, overt wars?
I guess the US maintains a constant SF presence down there for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
You're confusing "not nearly as bad" with "not bad at all."
That latin america suffers internal strife is undeniable. But it hasn't led to the true problems of war, such as economic collapse, food insecurity, etc.
I'd rather live through a drug war than an ethnic cleansing or a famine.
Amaya wrote:South America does suffer, to an extent, endless wars and is influenced more by a world power (America) than Africa is so comparing the two regions is a mistake.
Really? Outside of that Falklands thing, what was the last major war in South America?
Well I'm sure that WE may not consider it "major" but the last real war in south America was around 1995. There were some military incursions into Ecuador by Columbia in the 2000's: 2007 or 08 IIRC.
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
You can't. Which is why the article was listed as opinion, not the result of sociological study.
You can make the argument. America has been a world superpower for 65 years, and the world is much better off now than previously. Maybe the US had nothing to with it. Maybe the US directly or indirectly caused nearly all of it. It's probably somewhere in the middle.
You could also look for the actions of various world actors, and try to track the consequences.
Amaya wrote:So the constant drug wars and powerful cartels are meaningless because South America doesn't routinely have massive, overt wars?
I guess the US maintains a constant SF presence down there for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Here's something I've never done before. Why don't you put me on your "ignore" list. It will save us both a lot of trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Polonius wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
Germany and Japan both are no longer dictatorships, make excellent cars, and are generally polite.
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
Germany and Japan both are no longer dictatorships, make excellent cars, and are generally polite.
They weren't dictatorships before the US came into existence either
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
Germany and Japan both are no longer dictatorships, make excellent cars, and are generally polite.
Well actually...Japan was. They weren't dictatorships before the US came into existence either
Amaya wrote:I have some great real estate to sell you in Venezuela.
You're fixated on Venezuela. That is wrong. You should be fixated on Brazil. In the game of who can party like a rock star, Brazil is a world power. Venezuela is merely second tier.
corpsesarefun wrote:How can you possibly know this?
Do they have a secret portal to an earth without america to check?
I agree. in this alternitive-verse is the British Empier is still around? It would own a good 60% of the planet.
Would it make a better world policeman?
Pax Brittanica ignores the fact that there were innumerable colonial wars during the 19th century as well as good sized armed clashes between European nations, plus the Mexican-American war (1848) and the Spanish-American War (1898).
None were as destructive (to Europe) as the World Wars or the earlier 30 Years War and Napoleonic Wars.
But...
It was far from an era of sweetness and light, is my basic point.
Killing, lots and lots of killing (Middle East) or not (South America).
At what point do we reach lots and lots of killing?
When we hit the level of a nice European or Middle Eastern bloodbath. We need bombs, and tanks, and great armies clashing, massed flying drop bears, cats and dogs living together, CHAOS UTTER CHAOS!!!
Or one short Corsican. (No Santa Anna doesn't count).
Killing, lots and lots of killing (Middle East) or not (South America).
At what point do we reach lots and lots of killing?
When we hit the level of a nice European or Middle Eastern bloodbath. We need bombs, and tanks, and great armies clashing, massed flying drop bears, cats and dogs living together, CHAOS UTTER CHAOS!!!
Or one short Corsican. (No Santa Anna doesn't count).
To be fair, I think Frazzled is a persistent troll
corpsesarefun wrote:
Polonius wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
it's not exactly something you can measure with a ruler, but there are plenty of metrics. How many people have access to free elections, free speech, religious or economic freedoms, etc.
By nearly any measure, the world is freer now than in 1939.
And how can you accurately measure the impact of america on world freedom?
Well without the United States, Germany would almost certainly have conquered Europe. The help the USA gave to the Soviet Union was huge, and pretty one-sided. The Americans aided the Soviet Union for no other reason than to stop Germany.
And, obviously, that was that huge American army that pretty much curb stomped the Germans. It's not a myth that Europe would be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans. The entire continent would be a German puppet and the Russian people would essentially have been destroyed.
So yeah I think the USA has been a force for good. From a European standpoint, anyway. And remember that the US is, at heart, a European nation.
My point is if america had never existed the world would be completely different, for example the world wars may have never even happened, so claiming "america makes the world more free" is an odd point.
corpsesarefun wrote:My point is if america had never existed the world would be completely different, for example the world wars may have never even happened, so claiming "america makes the world more free" is an odd point.
Really?
Because America was the root cause for both world wars? Go on...
corpsesarefun wrote:My point is if america had never existed the world would be completely different, for example the world wars may have never even happened, so claiming "america makes the world more free" is an odd point.
Except if the US nevere existed, it's likely that the enlightenment ideals behind the revolution would not have been "field tested" as early, and liberal democracy as we know it would have been delayed and/or squashed.
Two of the primary factors in the French Revolution were the influence of American writings and the National debt left from helping in the American Revolution. The French revolution, of course, spurred liberal change (of a sort) throughout Europe.
At least prior to WWII, the US has been one of, if not the, freest country on Earth. Maybe I'm missing something, but taking the influence, example, and sheer existence of a big ass free nation away would probably make the world as a whole less free.
According to chaos theory the tiniest changes can have a huge impact over time, huge changes such as removing america and it's population from history would render the world completely unknowable.
corpsesarefun wrote:It wasn't the root cause to my knowledge, my point is we can't know what the world would be like without america.
I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
corpsesarefun wrote:My point is if america had never existed the world would be completely different, for example the world wars may have never even happened, so claiming "america makes the world more free" is an odd point.
Except if the US nevere existed, it's likely that the enlightenment ideals behind the revolution would not have been "field tested" as early, and liberal democracy as we know it would have been delayed and/or squashed.
Two of the primary factors in the French Revolution were the influence of American writings and the National debt left from helping in the American Revolution. The French revolution, of course, spurred liberal change (of a sort) throughout Europe.
At least prior to WWII, the US has been one of, if not the, freest country on Earth. Maybe I'm missing something, but taking the influence, example, and sheer existence of a big ass free nation away would probably make the world as a whole less free.
The presence of a powerful liberal democracy, yes. For the record the USA is not a beacon of democracy, at least not in Europe. Victorian England looked down on the Americans because of the continuation of slavery, for example. And in the latter half of the century all eyes were on Germany anyway.
Anyway, modern liberal democracy arose in France, the UK and Scandinavia, not the USA.
corpsesarefun wrote:It wasn't the root cause to my knowledge, my point is we can't know what the world would be like without america.
I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
You can't guarantee that, if you are assuming america never existed you can't gaurantee much at all as it would require an alternate timeline prior to the formation of america as a nation AND then an alternate timeline from the non-formation of america to the present. The world would be too different to make any logical conclusions.
corpsesarefun wrote:It wasn't the root cause to my knowledge, my point is we can't know what the world would be like without america.
I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
You can't guarantee that, if you are assuming america never existed you can't gaurantee much at all as it would require an alternate timeline prior to the formation of america as a nation AND then an alternate timeline from the non-formation of america to the present. The world would be too different to make any logical conclusions.
I can posit that the likelihood remains so high that the outcome remains the same. The butterfly effect is all well and good, but the American Revolution didn't change a whole lot in Europe. Certainly the other British Colonies remained unchanged. There was no revolution in Canada,Australia, or the Bahama's in sympathy to the American one. Thomas Payne would have still been writing, the Rothschilds would have still pushed to abolish slavery; in fact the only real difference that America losing the Revolution really would make is who RULED the colonies, not whom it produced.
As Joey rightly points out France and the UK rather than the US are the birthplaces of European democracy. Saying that no America would change the course of European history radically is simply a bridge too far. The truth is that whether Americans would find it palpable or not Europe's course was relatively unchanged by the colonial backwater across the Atlantic.
Joey wrote:[The presence of a powerful liberal democracy, yes. For the record the USA is not a beacon of democracy, at least not in Europe. Victorian England looked down on the Americans because of the continuation of slavery, for example. And in the latter half of the century all eyes were on Germany anyway.
Anyway, modern liberal democracy arose in France, the UK and Scandinavia, not the USA.
I think you're misunderstanding the term "liberal democracy." It has nothing to do with modern liberal thought, but rather the idea that while the people should hold the power, the government must be limited. Basically the concept of the bill of rights.
And Victorian era Britain also looked down on America because it allowed non-land owners to vote. It wasn't until 1867 that working class men got to vote.
Joey wrote:[The presence of a powerful liberal democracy, yes. For the record the USA is not a beacon of democracy, at least not in Europe. Victorian England looked down on the Americans because of the continuation of slavery, for example. And in the latter half of the century all eyes were on Germany anyway.
Anyway, modern liberal democracy arose in France, the UK and Scandinavia, not the USA.
I think you're misunderstanding the term "liberal democracy." It has nothing to do with modern liberal thought, but rather the idea that while the people should hold the power, the government must be limited. Basically the concept of the bill of rights.
And Victorian era Britain also looked down on America because it allowed non-land owners to vote. It wasn't until 1867 that working class men got to vote.
Right, which is around the same time the slaves got the vote.
I'm not arguing that America is not a liberal democracy, but its democracy is copied from Europe, it is not an American invention.
When the Weimar Republic was formed, it was not inspired by America, nor was any other fledging democracy.
Except... there wasn't really any country with as liberal a democracy as the US had, even in 1792.
HIstory shows a slow progression in the UK towards liberal democracy, but it took nearly 1000 years for the vote to extend from the Lords to the working man.
I'd argue that having a running, functional liberal democracy with wider suffrage was a big influence on Europe. Not in form, clearly, but there's a difference between saying "Free speech can't work" and "free speech can't work here, even though it works in the US."
And slaves are, more or less by definition, not citizens. Free blacks had suffrage sporadically throughout american history.
Joey wrote:You're confusing Free Speach with elections. The UK was perfectly free even before the American revolution. Anti-government pamphlets were widespread.
Well, it was just an example.
But even now, British free speech laws are different from US ones, partiularly with regards to libel.
Polonius wrote:Except if the US nevere existed, it's likely that the enlightenment ideals behind the revolution would not have been "field tested" as early, and liberal democracy as we know it would have been delayed and/or squashed.
Or acted as an overflow causing radicals to move to the American colonies rather than tackle reactionaries at home. Effectively preventing change in Europe by a form of radical brain drain. This is not a rebuttal more of an 'also ran' for a hypothetical world.
Polonius wrote:At least prior to WWII, the US has been one of, if not the, freest country on Earth.
That rather depended on what colour you were and where exactly in the US you lived.
Polonius wrote:Except if the US nevere existed, it's likely that the enlightenment ideals behind the revolution would not have been "field tested" as early, and liberal democracy as we know it would have been delayed and/or squashed.
Or acted as an overflow causing radicals to move to the American colonies rather than tackle reactionaries at home. Effectively preventing change in Europe by a form of radical brain drain. This is not a rebuttal more of an 'also ran' for a hypothetical world.
Polonius wrote:At least prior to WWII, the US has been one of, if not the, freest country on Earth.
That rather depended on what colour you were and where exactly in the US you lived.
Indeed. An English judge in 1772 degreed:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."
Hell even 1569 ".one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in".
George Spiggott wrote:]That rather depended on what colour you were and where exactly in the US you lived.
Joey wrote:Indeed. An English judge in 1772 degreed:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."
Hell even 1569 ".one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in".
yeah, the US is always going to bear the stigma of slavery. I hear that. But... let's not pretend that there weren't serious problems in the UK at the same time. Life was worse there for the Irish, non-anglicans, and the working poor.
So, yeah, we had chattel slavery, but in a lot of other areas we were very free.
Joey wrote:Indeed. An English judge in 1772 degreed:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."
Hell even 1569 ".one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in".
I was thinking more of segregation in the post slavery to 1960s period since it falls closer to the 'pre WWII' period Polonius specified than slavery does.
The comparison has been made historically between American slavery and Russian serfdom. As slavery goes American slavery could vary from "pretty good" to "fething awful" at least American slaves were expected to receive food and shelter, and in not particularly rare occasions were paid for their labor outside of their owner's needs and maintained a peculium.
Russian serfs by contrast could expect absolutely nothing from their title holder and conditions ranged from "really bad" to "starving to death."
George is right that post war America was no picnic if you happened to be black,brown, or yellow. My maternal grandfather as a point of fact was often the subject of racial discrimination: for being Portuguese and from Massachusetts. America was the land of milk and honey as long as you were white, Protestant, English speaking; or looked like you could be.
Nearly all of which modelled themselves on the British Parliament. The Indian Parliament in particular is blatently based on the British system, as are Canada and Australia's.
Can't speak for Africa, I'm afraid.
I actually pretty sure that nearly every modern democracy that is ACTUALLY a democracy is based on the British Parlimentary system. I was thinking particularly of Israel as "not a colony" but let's be honest they brought thier ideas about government from Euoropa.
So Harry: probably.
Joey wrote:You're confusing Free Speach with elections. The UK was perfectly free even before the American revolution. Anti-government pamphlets were widespread.
And many of their writers were free to spend time at his majesty's pleasure, in the prisons of England or exiled to her colonies.
AustonT wrote:George is right that post war America was no picnic if you happened to be black,brown, or yellow. My maternal grandfather as a point of fact was often the subject of racial discrimination: for being Portuguese and from Massachusetts. America was the land of milk and honey as long as you were white, Protestant, English speaking; or looked like you could be.
Indeed. For some the deal was very good indeed. What America lacked was equality not freedoms per se.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
dogma wrote:That was rational self interest, not benevolence.
I would make the argument that a political and economic system that makes it an act of rational self-interest to work to improve the freedom and liberty available in other countries is a great system, and one that, in the case of the USA, has greatly improved the overall welfare of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm still confused as to how anyone could claim america has "made the world more free", how would you measure the contribution of america towards global freedom? for that matter how would you go about measuring global freedom at all?
By comparison to other periods in history, looking at how many people live in democracies, and have effective civil rights protection. It's really not that hard.
You can consider America's effect towards such by looking at how it actions have impacted other countries. For instance, it's fairly obvious that if the US hadn't entered WWII, then Russian tanks wouldn't have had any reason to stop in Berlin, and would have rolled right through, stopping at the channel at the very least. As I don't think it's very hard to say West Germany was a nicer place to live than East Germany, and France was a much nicer place to live than Albania, then it's fair to say the US could be thanked greatly for their efforts.
Then you can look at Japan and South Korea. It is through special relationships with the US that each of these countries became democratic (the first being made so after WWII, the latter through open trade and close military support).
Adding up all the people of Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, and well you get a hell of a lot of people living under governments that are much better than they would have been, absent US support.
That doesn't mean the US is an absolute force for good and nothing else. What they've done to various democratic movements in South America is appalling. But on the balance there's a lot more good than bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I guess the US maintains a constant SF presence down there for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
That's so they can pick and choose which side to support in coups, to ensure favourable governments in as many South American countries as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:Well without the United States, Germany would almost certainly have conquered Europe. The help the USA gave to the Soviet Union was huge, and pretty one-sided. The Americans aided the Soviet Union for no other reason than to stop Germany.
And, obviously, that was that huge American army that pretty much curb stomped the Germans. It's not a myth that Europe would be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans. The entire continent would be a German puppet and the Russian people would essentially have been destroyed.
So yeah I think the USA has been a force for good. From a European standpoint, anyway. And remember that the US is, at heart, a European nation.
As I pointed out in the other thread, that's completely and utterly wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
One could propose that absent America, the French might have fared better in their rivalry with the English, and not suffered a financial crisis. From there you might not have the French Revolution, and from there you might not have Napoleon. Without his ruinous campaigns, France might have remained the great power in Europe. If that is the case, there is no need for Britain to switch it's traditional allegiance away from Prussia (and/or Germany which may or may not have even existed) and towards France.
Perhaps a great European war was inevitable, but the make up of the sides and therefore the eventual winner was not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:The presence of a powerful liberal democracy, yes. For the record the USA is not a beacon of democracy, at least not in Europe. Victorian England looked down on the Americans because of the continuation of slavery, for example. And in the latter half of the century all eyes were on Germany anyway.
Anyway, modern liberal democracy arose in France, the UK and Scandinavia, not the USA.
It's a really weird thing to pretend that the American Revolution had no impact on the politics of France. Ridiculous really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I can posit that the likelihood remains so high that the outcome remains the same. The butterfly effect is all well and good, but the American Revolution didn't change a whole lot in Europe.
The French Revolution?!
It's kind of famous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:Right, which is around the same time the slaves got the vote.
I'm not arguing that America is not a liberal democracy, but its democracy is copied from Europe, it is not an American invention.
When the Weimar Republic was formed, it was not inspired by America, nor was any other fledging democracy.
Seriously people, the French Revolution. It's important.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
Oh wow, I didn't know someone said that without the US the Allies would have lost Europe. Sigh, that's the whole reason I made that other thread.
And Sebster, SF are used to help initiate coups as well. They're also used (or at least were) to train local forces, including those used to combat the drug cartels.
I do think that people who say that without the US, Europe would be speaking German are a little silly. As Sebster pointed out, they would be speaking Russian.
Amaya wrote:Oh wow, I didn't know someone said that without the US the Allies would have lost Europe. Sigh, that's the whole reason I made that other thread.
He made the same claim in that thread of yours. I corrected him in that as well. Doesn't seem to have done any good.
And Sebster, SF are used to help initiate coups as well. They're also used (or at least were) to train local forces, including those used to combat the drug cartels.
These days it seems they're pretty much there just for activities that benefit the local nations, so that's a plus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:I do think that people who say that without the US, Europe would be speaking German are a little silly. As Sebster pointed out, they would be speaking Russian.
And, to be fair, Soviet rule would be hardly any better than Nazi rule. So Europe has a lot to be grateful for there.
AustonT wrote:I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
One could propose that absent America, the French might have fared better in their rivalry with the English, and not suffered a financial crisis. From there you might not have the French Revolution, and from there you might not have Napoleon. Without his ruinous campaigns, France might have remained the great power in Europe. If that is the case, there is no need for Britain to switch it's traditional allegiance away from Prussia (and/or Germany which may or may not have even existed) and towards France.
Perhaps a great European war was inevitable, but the make up of the sides and therefore the eventual winner was not.
You are KIDDING?!?!? The French Revolution was important? The Seven Years War left France's finances in ruins, there was still a famine, the Bourbons were still in power, radical leftism was still on the rise in France, the Jews were still agitating for emancipation. All the players were intact. It's reasonable to say that without the debt of the American Revolution paid in kind in grain by the Americans that financial ruin and starvation were even MORE likely. Locke and RDepending on how far you'd like to go with this socialism, which finds it's roots in the Revolution (hence the towering mass of scholarship both in support of the left and right), was inevitable especially in France in the 18th century. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were all unaffected by the American Revolution. Your position does a great disservice to the overarching concerns of the French and the influence of starvation and radicalism not just in Paris, but in the countryside.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
Macro scale, my friend.
Yeah, I guess a conflict spanning 20 years, an estimated 3 million civilian deaths, many many more wounded or displaced, and with regular people, 40 years later, still dealing with the concequences is not macro. I can cite other examples but with a little research you can do the same. Education, my friend. Its a good thing. Try it out.
America is great for starting wars they cannot finish and leaving the rest of the world to clean up the pieces. Funny part is the wars in southeast asia were fought for 'freedom, capitalism, and democracy'. All things which America seems to be lacking these days...Guantanamo Bay, bailouts of large corporations who made bad bets (THIS is a socialist policy if I ever saw one), supporting puppet governments such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If anything, post-WW2 the United States has made the world a more dangerous place. Not just in war but in many of the ridicuous social and political ideas coming out of the United States these days.
I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
AustonT wrote:You are KIDDING?!?!? The French Revolution was important? The Seven Years War left France's finances in ruins, there was still a famine, the Bourbons were still in power, radical leftism was still on the rise in France, the Jews were still agitating for emancipation. All the players were intact. It's reasonable to say that without the debt of the American Revolution paid in kind in grain by the Americans that financial ruin and starvation were even MORE likely. Locke and RDepending on how far you'd like to go with this socialism, which finds it's roots in the Revolution (hence the towering mass of scholarship both in support of the left and right), was inevitable especially in France in the 18th century. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were all unaffected by the American Revolution. Your position does a great disservice to the overarching concerns of the French and the influence of starvation and radicalism not just in Paris, but in the countryside.
My position no doubt does a great deal of disservice to many things, but you're really only making the case that the line up of the major players on each side in WWI could not be assumed to be the same if there were no America, and therefore it's outcome, and therefore WWII are by no means certain.
And when you claim the Bourbons were still in power you're ignoring a great deal of political complexity, about as much as saying England is still a monarchy, so nothing has changed since 1066.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote:I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
AustonT wrote:You are KIDDING?!?!? The French Revolution was important? The Seven Years War left France's finances in ruins, there was still a famine, the Bourbons were still in power, radical leftism was still on the rise in France, the Jews were still agitating for emancipation. All the players were intact. It's reasonable to say that without the debt of the American Revolution paid in kind in grain by the Americans that financial ruin and starvation were even MORE likely. Locke and RDepending on how far you'd like to go with this socialism, which finds it's roots in the Revolution (hence the towering mass of scholarship both in support of the left and right), was inevitable especially in France in the 18th century. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were all unaffected by the American Revolution. Your position does a great disservice to the overarching concerns of the French and the influence of starvation and radicalism not just in Paris, but in the countryside.
My position no doubt does a great deal of disservice to many things, but you're really only making the case that the line up of the major players on each side in WWI could not be assumed to be the same if there were no America, and therefore it's outcome, and therefore WWII are by no means certain.
And when you claim the Bourbons were still in power you're ignoring a great deal of political complexity, about as much as saying England is still a monarchy, so nothing has changed since 1066.
Amazing. First it's the French Revolution, now it's WWI and II. You disagree simply to be disagreeable. Further discussion would be a waste of my time.
Polonius wrote:While I agree with Dogma that little of America's foriegn policy is benevolent, I really don't care why people do things. I'm a results oriented guy, at least with regards to public and foriegn policy.
Why does it matter why the US is giving food to North Korea? We're helping people not starve.
Well, if you don't mind me extrapolating that into stupidity, it could be extended to "why does it matter that the US is offering free vasectomies and abortions to Haitians? We're helping poor people not to have children they can't afford."
AustonT wrote:You are KIDDING?!?!? The French Revolution was important? The Seven Years War left France's finances in ruins, there was still a famine, the Bourbons were still in power, radical leftism was still on the rise in France, the Jews were still agitating for emancipation. All the players were intact. It's reasonable to say that without the debt of the American Revolution paid in kind in grain by the Americans that financial ruin and starvation were even MORE likely. Locke and RDepending on how far you'd like to go with this socialism, which finds it's roots in the Revolution (hence the towering mass of scholarship both in support of the left and right), was inevitable especially in France in the 18th century. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were all unaffected by the American Revolution. Your position does a great disservice to the overarching concerns of the French and the influence of starvation and radicalism not just in Paris, but in the countryside.
My position no doubt does a great deal of disservice to many things, but you're really only making the case that the line up of the major players on each side in WWI could not be assumed to be the same if there were no America, and therefore it's outcome, and therefore WWII are by no means certain.
And when you claim the Bourbons were still in power you're ignoring a great deal of political complexity, about as much as saying England is still a monarchy, so nothing has changed since 1066.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote:I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
just my two say.
Is this a joke?
No it's not. OH and look an Austrailian, America's twin. What does mentioning America commiting terrorism make you butthert? I'm sorry but when people start going on about how America is number one. It just really sets me off. I like Americans, but the way their country is run, I'm not attacking the people of the states, just the way they think because of all the right wing bull that has bing going around since Sep 2001.
AustonT wrote:Amazing. First it's the French Revolution, now it's WWI and II. You disagree simply to be disagreeable. Further discussion would be a waste of my time.
What? You said this; "I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well."
In response I thought of one example of the top of my head that would be immediately impacted by the absence of a USA, and used that to speculate on some ways in which the the march towards WWI and then WWII isn't as inevitable as you first assumed.
And then you pretend that I'm just bringing up WWI and WWII out of nowhere. Did you read your own post?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote:No it's not. OH and look an Austrailian, America's twin. What does mentioning America commiting terrorism make you butthert? I'm sorry but when people start going on about how America is number one. It just really sets me off. I like Americans, but the way their country is run, I'm not attacking the people of the states, just the way they think because of all the right wing bull that has bing going around since Sep 2001.
I thought you might be mocking people who are so into the 'boo USA' thing they are silly enough to say 'yay China'. I mean your reasoning for the position was 'Cause they can... they just can.' That reads like a joke post.
Anyhow, you've basically made two mistakes. The first is in thinking that there's something uniquely American about what they've done with their power. Look any major power, their record sucks. Look at what the British got up to when they ruled the world. Look at them now and they talk of global citizenship and international community and all that and you'd never know they killed 10 million or more Indians with economic policies that were both cruel and utterly stupid.
The second mistake is that when you picked a country to replace them, you pretend China would somehow be so much nicer than the US in flexing their muscle. That position requires complete ignorance on China's record with ethnic minorities within China, and complete ignorance on China's record with neighbouring countries.
AustonT wrote:Amazing. First it's the French Revolution, now it's WWI and II. You disagree simply to be disagreeable. Further discussion would be a waste of my time.
What? You said this; "I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well."
In response I thought of one example of the top of my head that would be immediately impacted by the absence of a USA, and used that to speculate on some ways in which the the march towards WWI and then WWII isn't as inevitable as you first assumed.
And then you pretend that I'm just bringing up WWI and WWII out of nowhere. Did you read your own post?
It's almost as if I was answering this post in which you say things like:
sebster wrote:
The French Revolution?!
It's kind of famous.
or
sebster wrote:
Seriously people, the French Revolution. It's important.
To which I answered: about the French revolution. In fact despite your incredulous "The French Revolution?!" if we go back and look at my WHOLE quote:
AustonT wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:It wasn't the root cause to my knowledge, my point is we can't know what the world would be like without america.
I think we can virtually guarantee that the Austrio-Hungrian Empire would remain unchanged and the path to WWI remains clear. So unless you are prepared to say that without America the Allies would have lost WWI the path to WWII remains clear as well. Unless you can hypothesize some sort of different outcome perhaps in France in the late 18th century, which probably would have happened anyway. America hasn't really affected Europe so much to change the course of European history until the post war era...which is pretty much the time period in which the US became a superpower and relates to the thread title.
That's a reference to the French Revolution in the large letters in case you were wondering, the bigger ones are a hint towards the inevitability of said event.
Either you want to talk about the French Revolution, or you want to talk about the world wars. Until you can provide a more feasible chain of events that disproves the inevitability of the French Revolution further discussion on my part, with you, is a waste of my time.
AustonT wrote:That's a reference to the French Revolution in the large letters in case you were wondering, the bigger ones are a hint towards the inevitability of said event.
Either you want to talk about the French Revolution, or you want to talk about the world wars.
Exactly, you asked for a way in which it might have played out differently, I gave one and then you got angry that I did it. Weird.
Poppabear wrote:I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
just my two say.
Do you think the people of Tibet would agree with you here ?
According to a UN report, "The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been characterised by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment; torture and cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale. The number of Tibetans killed after the Chinese occupation -- a period marked by torture and starvation -- now exceeds a million. According to a document captured by the guerrillas fighting the Chinese army, 87,000 deaths were recorded in Lhasa between March 1959 and September 1960. More than 6,000 monasteries, their belongings -- the priceless jewels of Tibetan culture, precious Thangka paintings and other valuable documents were destroyed by the Chinese army."
And this is what you think will be better than what we have now yes ?
Poppabear wrote:I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
just my two say.
Do you think the people of Tibet would agree with you here ?
According to a UN report, "The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been characterised by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment; torture and cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale. The number of Tibetans killed after the Chinese occupation -- a period marked by torture and starvation -- now exceeds a million. According to a document captured by the guerrillas fighting the Chinese army, 87,000 deaths were recorded in Lhasa between March 1959 and September 1960. More than 6,000 monasteries, their belongings -- the priceless jewels of Tibetan culture, precious Thangka paintings and other valuable documents were destroyed by the Chinese army."
And this is what you think will be better than what we have now yes ?
To be fair some pretty horrific stuff has been implemented by US policies as well, people have already noted South America. The major difference was that it was never actual US troops doing the killing.
I don't see anyone here seeming to claim that America is whiter than white, flawless and taint free as if it's a gift from God.
I do see people making claims that China will somehow be magically better because... I dunno.. they don't wear stetsons ?
Have a look at their human rights records. You think that gay people have a rough time in western style countries ? You ain't seen anything yet.
You know there's presumption of innocence in Chinese law yes ? And confessions are routinely..."taken"..... from "suspects" prior to them having access to lawyers.
Can't say that I'm a massive fan of their "re-educational labour camps" either really.
I'm not saying China is a picnic, or even comparable, to a US dominated world. But personally, I like the current balance. So long as the leave us alone.
You know there's presumption of innocence in Chinese law yes ? And confessions are routinely..."taken"..... from "suspects" prior to them having access to lawyers.
Japan has that as well. I think they're allowed to keep "supects" in an interrogation room for 48 hours or until they get a confession. Most convictions in Japan happen to be from confessions.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.
You should take a look at what our soildiers do where they go. I've personally helped put in schools, clinics, water wells, been involved in innoculation programs, helped move tons of building and school supplies... I've helped set up deployments into areas hit by floods and mudslides to bring medical aid, water, and food to folks, and then get roads and other infrastructure rebuilt. I've seen ODAs deployed for no other purpose than to run clinics in some crappy places where the local government couldn't or wouldn't provide services to some very needy people. All this well before 9/11. We've done more since then.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
I agree with this, And I think there are several Latin American countries that has few good things to say about US involment, Chille is a good exampel on this point.
Killing, lots and lots of killing (Middle East) or not (South America).
At what point do we reach lots and lots of killing?
When we hit the level of a nice European or Middle Eastern bloodbath. We need bombs, and tanks, and great armies clashing, massed flying drop bears, cats and dogs living together, CHAOS UTTER CHAOS!!!
Or one short Corsican. (No Santa Anna doesn't count).
Didn't he get his arse handed to him?
Which one (oh wait thats a yes to both).
"You will settle for blood. I want Texas." Houston, restraining fellow Texicans, on the capture of General Santa Anna, found in a private's uniform.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair, I think Frazzled is a persistent troll
I am just an advocate for truth, justice, and rights of mountain lions to be free from percsecution by naked British people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barksdale wrote:A safer place? What a joke.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
How'd that Pol Pot thing work out? Yep. USA was evil all right...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:I do think that people who say that without the US, Europe would be speaking German are a little silly. As Sebster pointed out, they would be speaking Russian.
Agreed. Most of Asia however, would still be speaking Japanese.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
I agree with this, And I think there are several Latin American countries that has few good things to say about US involment, Chille is a good exampel on this point.
Interesting. Sitting right next to my computer is a really nice carved wood note holder given to me by a Chilean colonel at the end of a combined exercise we participated in back in the 90's. It seemed we got along pretty well at the time.
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
How'd that Pol Pot thing work out? Yep. USA was evil all right...
Actually, Pol Pot was in Cambodia. Thanks for pointing out another example though. There is a wide consensus among historians that the US carpet bombing campaign let to a tremendous increase in support for the Khmer Rouge regime. USA wa evil all right...
Just one minor example I guess they just forgot to mention:
The deaths of thousands of civilians during the cluster bombing campaign in Laos and other countries in southeast asia. All in the name of freedom and democracy I suppose?
There is still a very serious problem here with unexploded ordnance from that era. Thanks America!
How'd that Pol Pot thing work out? Yep. USA was evil all right...
Actually, Pol Pot was in Cambodia. Thanks for pointing out another example though. There is a wide consensus among historians that the US carpet bombing campaign let to a tremendous increase in support for the Khmer Rouge regime. USA wa evil all right...
Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
Odds are, even if Japan had conquered and secured all of South East Asia, they wouldn't want their new territories adopting Japanese culture. Second-class citizenship would be more likely than learning Japanese.
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
And I do thank the United States for their service to the world during WW2 and prior. Post WW2, however, I have to say the country's proposed values, freedom capitalism and democracy, have deviated significantly from reality. This is especially the case today...
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
And I do thank the United States for their service to the world during WW2 and prior. Post WW2, however, I have to say the country's proposed values, freedom capitalism and democracy, have deviated significantly from reality. This is especially the case today...
Thats our values for us. I could give a about yours.
SilverMK2 wrote:Some of the comments on that page are just crazy. Is it not possible to have different views without automatically hate all that the other person holds dear?
FFS...
Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.
As long as they are trained to shoot at the bastards shooting at them/their charges, I 100% agree.
sebster wrote:
I would make the argument that a political and economic system that makes it an act of rational self-interest to work to improve the freedom and liberty available in other countries is a great system, and one that, in the case of the USA, has greatly improved the overall welfare of the world.
Sure, but that's a fairly recent idea. Historically we haven't been above looking the other way regarding issues of democracy and human rights when it has suited us.
Bromsy wrote:I do think that people who say that without the US, Europe would be speaking German are a little silly. As Sebster pointed out, they would be speaking Russian.
No, the Wermacht would have crushed the Red Army without overt US aid.
Even in 1945 75% of Soviet trucks were American.
Even taking away that Soviet infrastructure would have been impossible without US aid, the thread of invasion in Western Europe/Italy tied up a huge amount of German troops. If Germany could have concentrated all their forces on the Soviet Union in 1942 they would have smashed the Russians.
You're ignoring so many factors in the war its amazing.
By the time lend lease and supplies to the Soviets really kicked off the Germans had failed to take Moscow and their campaign into Russia was probably already lost. By the time D Day opened a legit second front for the Germans to deal with (in 1944), Germany was in such dire straits that they no longer had any real hope of winning. The best they could hope for was a truce at that point.
Only about 23% of America's aid to the Allies went to the USSR and Allied aid to the USSR did four things; it supplied them vital goods, it allowed them to focus their production on other goods (esp. tanks), it allowed them to commit more manpower to the front, and it hastened the end of Germany. It is debatable as to whether or not the USSR could have won without Allied effort, but to say they certainly would have lost without American effort is false.
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
And I do thank the United States for their service to the world during WW2 and prior. Post WW2, however, I have to say the country's proposed values, freedom capitalism and democracy, have deviated significantly from reality. This is especially the case today...
Thats our values for us. I could give a about yours.
You know Fraz, I was expecting an intellectual debate with someone like you. I couldn't have been more wrong. I guess you really are a socialist who likes to bail out large corporations with taxpayer money and keep suspects under arrest without trial in offshore jails while supporting puppet governments with no claim to power if it were not for the US military.
Sucks to be you man.
Real Americans have real values and want to share these with the rest of the world. Not this bull your type is trying to sell to everyone. Your values for yourself my . Seriously man, listen to yourself. Shameful.
Amaya wrote:You're ignoring so many factors in the war its amazing.
By the time lend lease and supplies to the Soviets really kicked off the Germans had failed to take Moscow and their campaign into Russia was probably already lost.
Whoops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue I have no idea how many men the Germans had in the West, not how much their industrial capacity suffered as a result of allied bombing.
I suggest you try out Hearts of Iron 2 for an idea of how divided Germany's strength was in having to garisson Western Europe, Italy, the African campaign, Norway et al.
Frazzled wrote:Again, if you're not speaking Japanese, thank an American.
And I do thank the United States for their service to the world during WW2 and prior. Post WW2, however, I have to say the country's proposed values, freedom capitalism and democracy, have deviated significantly from reality. This is especially the case today...
Thats our values for us. I could give a about yours.
You know Fraz, I was expecting an intellectual debate with someone like you. I couldn't have been more wrong. I guess you really are a socialist who likes to bail out large corporations with taxpayer money and keep suspects under arrest without trial in offshore jails while supporting puppet governments with no claim to power if it were not for the US military.
Sucks to be you man.
Real Americans have real values and want to share these with the rest of the world. Not this bull your type is trying to sell to everyone. Your values for yourself my . Seriously man, listen to yourself. Shameful.
Must have hit a nerve. Oh wait, you're went off about the US being evil after bombing Laos. Lets look at what happened in South East Asia after we left. Pol Pot, re-education camps, massed exodus of people fleeing. But e're the bad guys. I think I understand where you stand as well.
Edit: The Kursk Offensive is the best example of how depleted the German forces were. It was their last major offensive and it was launched in 1943. When it failed, Germany was on the defensive for the remainder of the war and doomed to a slow death.
Poppabear wrote:I would much rather a Chinese run world then an American. Lol I also cant wait to see some guy quote this and say. LOL DERP AMERICA #1, how can China run a world better then us!
Cause they can... they just can. And they don't want to commit terrorism to 1/3 of the world...
just my two say.
Do you think the people of Tibet would agree with you here ?
According to a UN report, "The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been characterised by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment; torture and cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale. The number of Tibetans killed after the Chinese occupation -- a period marked by torture and starvation -- now exceeds a million. According to a document captured by the guerrillas fighting the Chinese army, 87,000 deaths were recorded in Lhasa between March 1959 and September 1960. More than 6,000 monasteries, their belongings -- the priceless jewels of Tibetan culture, precious Thangka paintings and other valuable documents were destroyed by the Chinese army."
And this is what you think will be better than what we have now yes ?
I honestly could almost say the same thing about the American "occupation" of Afghanistan and Iraq.
lo, I'm sick of talking about this stuff, makes my blood pressure go through the roof.
actually no. The only reason you think I'm wrong is because you refuse to get off your high horse and won't admit America's occupation in the middle east is and will be and absolute travesty. AND YES, there have bin cases of U.S Marines/Army Soldiers raping, torturing, murdering, inhuman acts against the Afghans and Iraqis, who in fact did nothing to arm the Soldiers.
Poppabear wrote:AND YES, there have bin cases of U.S Marines/Army Soldiers raping, torturing, murdering, inhuman acts against the Afghans and Iraqis, who in fact did nothing to arm the Soldiers.
Citation?
There have been a very few, isolated incidents. But, the perpetrators have faced punishment.
And there 's been some terrible incidents and far too many deaths, don't think many people are disputing that.
... and ? Cause you'll note in the vast majority of these cases the people who've done this are locked up and it's quite clear that this isn't what we want done or doing there.
Just as it is wrong to claim that Muslims are evil murderous so and so's because some -- a very small minority thankfully -- commit terrible deeds it is also wrong to claim that the actions of a small minority of soldiers somehow means that they are all like that.
But you appear to be seriously claiming that the official policy of the USA govt,, enacted through the medium of its own and allied armed forces, continuing through two directly opposed Presidential offices, is the persistent and irreversible eradication of the indigenous inhabitants of the region through a policy of murder, rape and ethnic cleansing.
Because that is what China's policy is with regards to Tibet.
It's frankly laughable to suggest that America, and its allies who are or have been fighting there as well, wish to carry out genocide given the policies and actions that have been used. Take a look at the pictures of Dresden and the like from WW II. Now add in another 70 years of technological advancement and total control of the airspace and think what America on its own to do to Iraq/similar if they really wanted or needed to. There's a lot of jokes and macho BS about "bombing X/Y/Z back to the stone age". Which, for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that the leaders of America and its military commanders aren't in fact characters from Black Library novels -- as well, of course, due to things like a ( fairly) free press that we have, something else there isn't in China -- and therefore aren't warped pyschopaths .. ( well... alright maybe Karl Rove I'll give you ) out to drown the world in blood, hasn't happened.
But they've definitely got the means.
Hell technically the entire area could well be an irradiated wilderness populated only by radioactive cockroaches for the next X thousand years.
While Tibet and Afghanistan are both serious problems, but comparing the two shows a fundamental understanding of the issues involved in either. For starters the US doesn't claim that Afghanistan is part of the United States. We have a presence there whereas China has a full blown occupation that dwarfs our force projection.
Is America a force for good in the world? I guess so.... Some of the most evil people around like Osama, Sadam and Pol Pot owed their success to the US. And the US is not shy about installing or proping up a dictator if it suits them but still look at the alternatives. The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. Churchill said America will always do the right thing after they've exhausted all other possibilites. That's still more than can be said for those other guys.
reds8n wrote:
Just as it is wrong to claim that Muslims are evil murderous so and so's because some -- a very small minority thankfully -- commit terrible deeds it is also wrong to claim that the actions of a small minority of soldiers somehow means that they are all like that.
That minority, especially in Iraq, is unfortunately much larger than you might think. Much in the way a lock only keeps an honest man honest Iraqis that thought they could get away with it began to kidnap their neighbors, torture them, kill them, and dump them in the streets. A bare fraction of the perpetrators in the murderous spree that the media dubbed "sectarian violence" were ever caught and punished. If you can imagine your Catholic or Jewish neighbors dragging you out of your house, or picking your child up off the streets (for the sole crime of being say a Protestant) and taking you to the local police station to hook you up to a car battery and cut swathes of your flesh off; you are about half way to one day on the streets of Baghdad in 2006. The amount of "extra judicial killing" in just Baghdad and it's outlying suburbs was staggering. Large scale intervention by US forces set back plans to turn over other areas to Iraqi governmental or even just local control back by years. I know you weren't defending or attacking the merits of any particular group, but while it's all well and good to say that people are tortured, raped, and killed in Iraq and blame America, but you have to look at who was doing a majority of the torturing, raping, and killing. Blaming America for what Iraqis do is like blaming Michael Bloomberg for every burglary, assault, rape, murder, and card game in New York.
Frazzled wrote:America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier
Of course it has, just look at the oil prices, economic recession and that whole situation with Iran and North Korea.
I feel all warm and tingly inside every time I think about all the ways that the American interventions in the past 10 years have made the world a better place...
What are you talking about? Gas is so cheap, they are talking about giving it away some days, and Iran and North Korea, gak we just had a BBQ with them last week.
Bromsy wrote:I do think that people who say that without the US, Europe would be speaking German are a little silly. As Sebster pointed out, they would be speaking Russian.
No, the Wermacht would have crushed the Red Army without overt US aid.
Even in 1945 75% of Soviet trucks were American.
Even taking away that Soviet infrastructure would have been impossible without US aid, the thread of invasion in Western Europe/Italy tied up a huge amount of German troops. If Germany could have concentrated all their forces on the Soviet Union in 1942 they would have smashed the Russians.
I gave you the numbers of wartime production that showed the overwhelming advantage the Soviets held. You ignored this, in order to repeat your own little factoid again.
You want to be ignorant? Be ignorant. But don't fething do it here.
I agree. in this alternitive-verse is the British Empier is still around? It would own a good 60% of the planet.
about yours.