America, love it or leave it -- or post!

[E. Blackadder]

Is America great?

If so, what makes it great?

If we assume that America has done some bad things, are these part of American policy?

Are they consequential?

Can we do better?

How?

Is it necessary for America to be perfect?

Or just better than everyone else?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Intents]

Yesterday the world turned around us. Today we realize more and more that we are being treated as a chess piece.

To me, your question is based in the wondering of the day, "Is Islam a possible alternative structure?" Being open-minded enough to consider this question thoroughly will lead us to better understand the horrors inflicted and perhaps even point a solution on how we can help Islamic peoples feel fully welcome and integrated into the future we envision.

[Laocoön]

America is the caretaker for some great ideas, but, like the priests of a religion for which the rituals and pagentry have left the underlying, core beliefs neglected, we haven't always been very good caretakers for those ideas.

I am particularly dismayed that we are losing a war for the hearts and minds of a big section of the world, and we are losing it to an ideology that is, even in its purest form, incoherent and ugly, and that beyond even that has been corrupted into something worse. We should completely eradicate and replace our current foreign policy apparatus.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-09 10:08 ]</font>

[golgo13]

On 2001-10-08 23:40, E. Blackadder wrote:
Is America great?

Its certainly a "great" power.

It might be great for its own people, in terms of providing a high standard of living, and substantial human rights. Its disappointing, however, that it doesn't view the rest of the world's populace as being equally deserving of human rights. (e.g. its support for murderous right-wing regimes in South America & Asia.)


If so, what makes it great?


Its financial power.


If we assume that America has done some bad things, are these part of American policy?


Some were part of deliberate policy. Others were unintended. (e.g. the initial US support for the Taliban, as a supposed counterweight to Iran & Russia, as well as a means to supress Aghan poppy production.)

Are they consequential?

Every action, even the smallest, has consequences. Present circumstances depend on the result of actions in the past, and future circumstances depend on actions in the present.

Can we do better?

How?

For starters, by not supporting regimes which oppress their peoples, or political movements which are likely to cause suffering & oppression if they obtain power.

Is it necessary for America to be perfect?

Or just better than everyone else?

Being better would be a nice start.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-09 10:06, Laocoön wrote:
We should completely eradicate and replace our current foreign policy apparatus.


What would you replace it with? It's easy to see blunders we've made in hindsight, but far more difficult to suggest a viable alternative.

[Anonymous]

An interesting counter-view, by someone reported to be a scholar in international law, can be found at

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1009-04.htm

His view is that the attack on Afghanistan violates international law, and is, therefore, in itself a terrorist act.

I'm not sure if his argument leads to a true condemnation of the retaliatory action, since the UN has been shown to be pretty toothless. It is, however, something to think about.

[Anonymous]

From the headline: "This War is Illegal"

Didn't even get to the body of the piece, and already he doesn't make sense. Much as I might hate to quote Al Gore, there is "no controlling legal authority".

[Mr. Grim]

The article is written by a Canadian - enough said. Can't think of a wimpier country.

We should consider bombing Canada for harboring terrorists. They can't even control the French Canadian imagine how they will handle some real religious zealots.

[Patience]

"Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defense, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defense Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defense does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped"

Why would one assume the attack has stopped? I believe 9/11 was a first wave, regardless of whether we retaliated or not. It has become obvious many more waves of terror were planned. So if they wait a month between attacks, we can't retaliate since we are not currently being attacked at that time?

[E. Blackadder]

Some excerpts

A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter. Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defense under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security...

Has Lao been notified of this?

...The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it. Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force....

So the resolutions are designed to give the appearance of doing something

True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defense, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defense Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defense does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped...

How dow we know the attack has stopped? Is there even a presumption of this?

Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Just as Blair's government detained Pinochet!

Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism....

Run that by me again, please.

...We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

Perhaps the UN will just look out the window instead. They ARE based in New York City.

...The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11...

I must be dense. :sad:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-09 15:42 ]</font>

[Senor]

Hey Grim,

Your comments on Canada are amusing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but these terrorists lived and trained in America before committing these acts. They didn't enter from Canada contrary to earlier suggestions. Seems to me America was harbouring these idiots not Canada.

[Oracle]

Also, Grim, what about the terrists (sic) in Northern Ireland? What does Tony Blair say about them?

[Mr. Grim]

They are no threat to America - why the hell should we care.

Tony Blair is the now the leader of America?

[anon789]

"We should consider bombing Canada for harboring terrorists. "

Our air force (1 cessna, bush configuration with pontoons) and navy (3 canoes, cedar strip) may be a little more than YOU CAN HANDLE!

[Anonymous]

Message to Grim:

Feel free to vent your spleen on Canada if you wish--there's no law against dumb things, after all--but remember the 400-odd international flights which were diverted to Canadian airports on September 11. Where would they have landed if you bombed that "wimpy" country?

Problem with getting too angry is that your friends end up getting hit with the same club you want to use on your enemies.

Let's see, Canada has had French Canadian terrorists-- killed one person, kidnapped another. The U.S. had good ol' boy Timmy McVeigh, killed 168 people.

Yep, the U.S. should bomb that terrorist haven to the north. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mr. Grim]

Come on. I was half-joking - bombing would not solve anything. I think a simple invasion makes more sense. Are you really going to defend yourselves? Most Canadians are American wanna-be's anyhow.

[Extreme Extremist]

On 2001-10-08 23:40, E. Blackadder wrote:
Is America great?

If so, what makes it great?


This is a tough one. The ideals that this country was founded on are the greatest this world has ever seen. The direction we have gone since has steadily worsened over the last 200 years or so. We never realized the ideals, but now the vast majority of the citizenry and almost every single member of the government don't understand or agree with and/or understand those ideals. We have become a welfare/warfare state bent on building empire.


If we assume that America has done some bad things, are these part of American policy?


Yes America has done bad things, and they are a part of policy.


Are they consequential?


Of course. Not only is an expansionist foreign policy bad for foreigners, it is bad for America. America's emergence as an empire is directly correlated to its becoming a welfare state. If you give governemnt power in one sphere it will use the precdent and the actual power to expand its reach in other areas. Plus it is part of the inherently flawed and evil "do-gooders" philosphy which drives most wanna-be social and political engineers. "There's injustice in the world, so that allows me to do whatever I want and "need" to do to correct it. If you don't support me and agree with my views, you are for, and most likely, a cause of injustice." The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


Can we do better?

How?


We could hardly do worse. That's a stretch, but there is much to change. Bring the troops home. Dismantle the welfare state. Allow individuals to run their own lives. Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Become a beacon for freedom, tolerance and self-determination to all nations around the world


Is it necessary for America to be perfect?


No, and pursuit of someone's idea of "perfection" is the problem, not the solution.


Or just better than everyone else?


They can adopt the same approach any time. Individual freedom is the ideal, not international dominance. Live and let live.

[42]

On 2001-10-09 16:51, Grim wrote:
Come on. I was half-joking - bombing would not solve anything. I think a simple invasion makes more sense. Are you really going to defend yourselves? Most Canadians are American wanna-be's anyhow.

Hey!! I resemble that remark!

On Sept.11, my sister called from Canada, worried that Canada might be the next target. I told her they were the least likely target, since it could lead to the U.S. coming to Canada's defense. The last thing the terrorists want is additional U.S. focus on that long, unguarded border that currently provides them easy access to the U.S.

What really burns me up is the way the Gestappo agents the INS hires as border guards like to give us U.S.-tax-paying professionals (a.k.a. the riff-raff) as hard a time as possible crossing the border, while letting terrorists merrily waltz on by in the express lane, courtesy of the CIA!

[Actuary321]

I think I remember the ayatollah delaring a jihad or holy war on the US way back when. And almost every terrorist from the Middle East has done the same, including Bin Laden. So to say we can't retaliate because they are no longer attacking doesn't make any sense. They have declared war on us and this was a stike in that war. They continue to claim they are at war with us. Does this not obligate us to defend ourselves? We have retaliated when they have struck before and it has not detered them. We have finally decided that the only way to fitfully defend ourselves is to declare war on them and that war will go on until they are defeated or the UN can provide assurance that they will not attack again (which of course they can not do).

[Rockhound]

Is America great?

You betcha. America is the greatest country the world has ever seen. It's influence over the rest of the world surpasses that of Ancient Rome, it's technological marvels surpass the ancient Egyptians, it's ideas surpass the Ancient Greeks and its wealth surpasses the Spanish Conquistadors.

If so, what makes it great?

The capitalist system, coupled with a governmental system that allows that system flourish, and western values as to work, respect for life and property. SOme of those systems: Starting a business in America is child's play compared to many other countries. Going bankrupt is not the end of you economic career. The ability to patent ideas has incalculable benefits.


If we assume that America has done some bad things, are these part of American policy?
They are part of our legacy, but they do not have to be part of our policy. Policy can be changed whenever we want.

Are they consequential?
They shouldn't be, but perception is sometimes reality--if someone believes something you did in the past will be repeated, you need to deal with it.

Can we do better?
Some, but not much. We have 250 years of nearly uninterrupted success. If the US were a stock I'd still be investing.
How?
Go back to what got us to where we are. Strong values, a comittment to capitalism.

Is it necessary for America to be perfect?
Of course not. Just as good as we can be.

Or just better than everyone else?
No. It would be fine if others were "better", in fact that would be great for the world, since we've already set the standard so high.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-09 13:39, Weatherman wrote:

On 2001-10-09 10:06, Laocoön wrote:
We should completely eradicate and replace our current foreign policy apparatus.


What would you replace it with? It's easy to see blunders we've made in hindsight, but far more difficult to suggest a viable alternative.


In my adult lifetime, US foreign policy has been directed by "realpolitik," or the goal of increasing the power of our state relative to the power of other, rival states (especially the Soviet Union). By whatever means it occurred, the goal of realpolitik has been largely realized: the US has no real worries about other states rivaling our power and authority.

In this situation, even the proponents of realpolitik should acknowledge that we can afford to conduct a foreign policy based upon principles. There have been occasions when we have done this in the past, and it has reaped excellent dividends for us.

A highwater mark of US foreign policy was in 1956, when Great Britain, Israel, and France conspired to steal the Suez Canal (Britain and France) and the Sinai Peninsula (Israel) from Egypt. Earlier, Egypt had nationalized the Canal, which had been owned by a British-French company. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles reviewed applicable law (what a concept!), and decided that Egypt had every right to nationalize the Canal, provided that it reasonably compensated the owners, which indeed Egypt was doing. Accordingly, in response to the military action, the US told Britain, France, and Israel to get their troops out of the Canal Zone and the Sinai, and used its Security Council position to enforce the issue.

While we in the US have very little memory of this incident (if anything, we might have an awareness that Israel invaded the Sinai "in response to continued attacks originating from there and in response to the naval blockade of Aqaba"), the Egyptians remembered very well that the US at one time had accorded them respect and dignity, which went a long way toward gaining their trust in 1973 and thereafter, when we (and Israel) needed their cooperation in our Middle East designs.

We don't have very much to gain by following the traditional realpolitik pattern of trying to weaken everyone we might have to contend with: we've already won that battle. We do have a lot to gain by acting according to principles and showing the rest of the world -- people as much or more than states -- that they benefit when they cooperate with the US. Machiavelli himself saw a need for a prince to deal fairly with others, and the US should reform its foreign policy to make sure that no one can reasonably claim that we are screwing them undeservedly. We've made some progress in this, whether by design or by chance: we are no longer helping to screw the Philipine people or the South African people, just to name two. We should make sure that we're also not undeservedly screwing any of the Arab people, particularly (for the moment) the Iraqis and the Palestinians.