Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing joseph, I wanna see just how deeply you've drunk from the koolaid. How would you characterize our response to the Iraqi resistance? Does it differ, morally, from how the Nazis responded to the resistance it faced in Eastern Europe?
Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing You're living in a leftist's fantasy land culled from guerrilla propaganda in the form of books written by white Americans. These Latin American countries have only themselves to blame for their foully corrupt systems. The American government is to blame for exploiting these systems, but to lay the blame for the systems themselves on America is overkill. And at no time did the U.S. "pretty much" control a Latin American country. You need a reality check.
Moral eugenics Congratulations - it only took you one post to apply an obviously general statement that expanded the topic to an inapplicably narrow definition. I expect that kind of crap from manny or Ian, not you. So which gene makes me more moral just because I'm American? Is it from my mother's side or my father's side? Can we splice that gene into other populations so they can be just as inherently saintly and selfless as we always are? I'm sorry that this bursts your bubble, but we as a people ignore or even support evil all around the world. Sometimes, when we're denied the luxury of letting other people act as our proxies, we get our hands dirty ourselves. We kill, cheat, rob and rape each other just like other people. Yeah, our leaders are smart enough to tolerate a limited amount of dissent, but when push comes to shove, will crush dissent, too. Just ask Joe Hill or the Wobblies, to name but two examples. We still have problems with racism here just like other people do elsewhere. Our soldiers have committed atrocities just like other countries' soldiers. If we appear to be nicer than anyone else, it is because we have the luxury of being on the top of the global heap and we can afford some noblesse oblige that a peasant or a sweatshop worker or a third world street person can't (largely because we've set up a global system that ensures that they can't). And almost nobody here in the USA gives a crap about that system or the misery it causes around the globe. Oh yeah, that's so moral. You don't have to have read Nietzsche to recognize what's going here. But it helps. Anyway, I've made my point and I'm glad to see that it is provoking such heated denial. That means it is hitting too close to home which in turn means its truth has been recognized, even if we dare not admit it openly. I'll have to live with that backhanded acknowledgement as I don't expect anyone's ego to allow them to explicitly say "Yeah, you're right. Running a global empire does entail a certain acceptance of evil in oneself." If anyone wishes to continue the denial, have fun.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. Hmm... Overall, I think there are probably is a tendency toward general differences in values between people in economically developed "entrenched democracies" and people elsewhere. But I also think that this difference is fragile - it depends to a great extent on the existing political and economic conditions. In other words, if our stable and prosperous democracy suddenly disappeared, most of those moral standards would also disappear pretty quickly. I seem to remember that, following the 9/11 attacks, some people on these boards were arguing that we needed to go nuke some Arab country right away, even before figuring out who did it. And, as wrenching as it was, my sense is that the fear and insecurity that Americans felt after that attack simply doesn't compare with the daily insecurity that people in some poor, conflict-ridden countries suffer. In other words, when you're living in a society that's relatively stable, comfortable, and secure, it's easy to stand up for human rights and democratic values. The real test is whether you can maintain that commitment when that security and stability break down. And I'm certain that many, if not most, Americans would fail that test. That's why when you put American troops in places where that stability and security are so remote as to become meaningless, there's a good chance that at least a few of them will commit atrocities, in the absence of adequate controls from above - even if those same people were law abiding and responsible in peacetime. And, as you know, in many cases our leaders have been openly tolerant of atrocities committed both by US soldiers, and (more often) by our friends and allies. Does Reagan's assertion that Rios Montt was getting a "bum rap" ring a bell? How about Al Haig's claim that the American nuns who were raped and murdered in El Salvador may have been shot while trying to run a road block? Given our supposed superior morality as Americans, why exactly didn't we hold the government accountable for stuff like that? I assure you that, despite our apparent democratic values, there are conditions under which American forces will commit atrocities, the American government will tolerate those atrocities, and most of the American public will not object. Unfortunately, this is one of the unpleasant side issues that goes along with getting back into the third world counterinsurgency business.
Hey Joe, Whew, the doublespeak from you is precious. You've just spent the last several months telling us how wrong it is that the U.S. has gone after Saddam. And now, you just spent the last two pages telling us how the U.S. always turns a blind eye to tyranny and human suffering. Which is it? And before you come back with your pre-packaged answer of "The U.S. did not go to Iraq to free its peoples." I'll just rebutt with, "Bullcrap. I say we did".
Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing So, you're saying that I am inherently more moral than my German equivalent because of what his grandfather did? Oh, that's nice. Hey, let's go back a little farther, then. How is the deliberate slaughter of the American Indians more moral than the Nazi response to the resistance it faced in Eastern Europe? Your question also ducks the question of how our soldiers got into Iraq in the first place. And also the help we gave Saddam over the decades before he got too big for his britches. How was our selling Saddam chemical weapons such a wonderfully moral deed again? I seem to have forgotten. Now, let me see how deeply you've drunk from the kool-aid. How is your average Iraqi, who likely just wants to be left alone to live as well as he can and practie his religion as he sees fit, differ from your average Amercian who, oddly enough, just wants to be left alone to live as well as he can and practie his religion as he sees fit? Answers on a postcard, please. Are individuals different in their moral qualities? Yep. We BigSoccer posters are likely all individually more moral than, say, Saddam or Hitler not that that's saying all that much for us. But as a people, are Americans inherently more moral than Iraqis? I bet some Iraqis could point at several facets of our society that they would see as immoral.
Re: Moral eugenics Really? We have the same problems as what they have in Rwanda? PS...you weren't content going back to Pinochet, you had to go back to the friggin' Wobblies? Next stop: slavery.
Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Oh, come on. The idea that US meddling is responsible for all the trouble in Latin America is clearly a massive distortion of reality, no doubt. But I honestly can't understand how you can look at something like the 1954 coup in Guatemala and claim that the Guatemalans "have only themselves to blame" for the nightmare that followed it.
And you're wrong, as usual. If we were so horrified by Saddam's cruelty, why did we help him all those years? Why did we sell such a monster chemical weapons? Or did he just become cruel in 1991 when before that he was a little angel? And how come we're not out exterminating other evil regimes? Please tell me the SLORC in Burma or several regimes in Africa aren't ripe for a regime change. But thank you for your exercise in craven apologetics and pathological denial. It is very instructive to anyone with a brain in their head.
Re: Moral eugenics You'r the moron who gave Godwin a quicker blow than a whore in Boystown. Own up to it. Being American means you've been influenced and defined by our unique social system. By claiming that all nations are morally equivalent, you're positing either that 1) all socio/political sytems are morally equivalent (asinine) or 2) socio/political systems do not define the morals of the populace (also asinine). Yes, all countries in the world have problems. If that's your proof of world-wide moral equivalency, give up now. Here we go again with the bullsh!t that the U.S. is the cause of third world misery. People in Latin America were poorer a hundred years ago before there was U.S.-sponsored "World System" than they are now. "All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community." -Rush Limbaugh
How did many get dave's password? Ah, so the passage of time affects the moral worth of actions. Ann evil action committed ten years ago is less evil than one committed last year. I see. So that means Saddam really was worse than Hitler because his crimes were more recent! Thank you for clearing that up for us while ducking and dodging the overall point like manny does when you've got him cornered in some absurd statement.
Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Why are you answering a question with a question? Is it because you've been punked and can't think of a way out? Magic 8-ball says, signs point to yes. How is this relevant to a discussion of morality today? See, when it gets down to it, discussions like this are exactly why I don't think joseph is a smart person. Or even has average intelligence. He reads alot, but he's so invested in his ideology that he can't use the facts he knows to inform himself. He uses them as bludgeons, but he swings wildly and creams a bunch of innocent bystanders, but leaves his intended target untouched. He's not smart enough to comprehend anything other than absolutes. In his world, it's not possible for modern democracy to create a feedback loop with its citizens, and create a more moral person. Because to joseph, there's only perfect and not perfect. No gray. joseph isn't smart enough to understand a non-binary world.
Re: How did many get dave's password? No douchebag, I'm saying you can't make statements about America today based on America 90 years ago. But you're not smart enough to figure that out.
Re: Re: Moral eugenics And in 1973, Chileans had been "influenced and defined" by one of the strongest and most enduring traditions of democracy anywhere in in the world. Didn't matter. Like I said, those differences exist - but they're a lot thinner and more fragile than you seem to think.
It's been nice playing with you kids. And educational to boot. I thought the myth of inherent American moral superiority to all other peoples was just a right-wing phenomenon. I had no idea that such silly ego-mongering was so deeply entrenched in otherwise sensible heads. I guess the cynical world leaders are right. If you want to turn an otherwise educated, civilized populace into fire-breathing engines of self-righteous destruction, just play the nationalist card. Convince people that they're somehow inherently better than the rest of humanity and you can get most of them to do damn near anything. I mean, who doesn't secretly want to believe that they're really superior just because they were born somehwere? They'll be primed for any cynical flag-waving and moral platitudes to convince them to invade any country or commit any action out of their self-righteousness. I gotta go now, though. You boys keep on letting the kool-aid flow. Laters.
Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Guatemala was a corrupt, murderous system long before 1954. I'm not trying to deny or absolve America's guilt in the maelstrom of Central American politics. I am claiming that our government's exploitation of C.A. (unknown by the American public at the time) does not make our system the moral equivalent of theirs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. ???????????? Gringo, I can only chalk this up to the major dose of heroin you just mainlined. Otherwise, I KNOW that you are well aware of the huge hypocrisy in our system regarding whom it benefits: namely, democracy and human rights at home, exploitation and lack of human rights abroad. There is nothing "inherently moral" about such a system--quite the opposite in fact. And that's even assuming that morality and democracy are inherent bedfellows, also a specious assumption. Morality long predates current U.S. capitalist republicanism, and it will surely continue to evolve and develop in future systems.
Re: Re: Re: Moral eugenics No, Chileans were "influenced and defined" by a corrupt American president and a questionably psycho Secretary of State.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. I'm not denying hypocrisy, corruption, or exploitation in our system. Why does everybody feel the need to point these things out to ME? I'm saying that the U.S. and other entrenched democracies are much more moral than other systems. Really, have any of you people spent time in or lived in any of these other systems? In today's world, morality and democracy ARE bedfellows. I agree that that wasn't true in the past, and it may not be true in the future, but unless you're willing to argue that morality no longer exists, then I can't possibily see another alternative.
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to kick-off this thread with the analogy that American Exceptionalism is responsible for Manifest Destiny and Pre-Emptive War doctrine. At least it would periodize the moral superiority of United States liberal democracy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Arbenz was democratically elected. No way of knowing what would have happened if he hadn't been overthrown, but it's hard to imagine it would have been worse than what actually did happen. Are you being sarcastic here? Didn't you just get done arguing that Latin Americans have themselves to blame for authoritarianism? Chile is a case where the primary causes of democratic breakdown pretty clearly came from within (although the Nixon administration did their best to push it along).
Nobody said that. That's your distorton/projection, because you're not smart enough to understand any thoughts containing nuance.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Obviously, or so I thought.