Views of the US election from non-US folk

Thing is - the world sort of thought it had grown out of that sort of thing?

That - when the last obvious empire - the soviet one - released its charges - as the Brits had before them - we'd stop it.

Foolish hope, I think - big folk always want to push little folk around - sometimes nakedly and honestly "Cos we wanna and we can, and you have stuff we want." - and sometimes "for your good, and the world's good, and we oh so really don't wana, but we must" - striking noble attitude.

Allow me to point out one very large distinction, as I see it, in your analysis of "imperialists through the ages." England of old, if my understanding of history serves, was not threatened, nor did it even feel threatened by these savages. Thus, self-preservation, in the sense of fending off future attacks, was not high on its list of reasons for invading these "savage" lands.

You honestly think the US is simply trying to push "little folK" around? I have been lead to believe the US gives more money and resources in the form of food and humanitarian aid to third world countries than any other nation on this planet. Pushing them around? More like pushing a plate of food in front of them.

Tico, You will very quickly be told that, although in absolute terms the amount given may be larger, in terms of % of GDP it is less than that of most European nations.

Thanks :wink:

See Walter -- I listen.

The late Harry Johnson of the University of Chicago (a very great economist who died young) always advocated stopping all "aid" initiatives on grounds that they keep the recipients in beggar status.

It's true that the EU contributes more as direct aid, but the fact is we include much of our aid in form of subsidized exports of machinery, equipment, foreign language schools, books, clothes, medicines and the like which don't appear as "aid" items on our statistics: after they're included we actually contribute more.

In any event I'm a fan of Harry Johnson and believe all "foreign aid" to be "an instrument of imperialism" as observed indirectly by DLowan, so advocate an end to it.

It has been a hard work for us

Do you think I am talking just about Iraq?

If so, you are quite wrong. I am speaking of the last 60 years.

I also think the US is using a new form of imperialism - (as do many other far wiser folk than I) - a sort of hegemonic form - with few actual invasions, or obvious takings over - you guys move more via puppet regimes and economic power.

I think it extremely foolish to believe that the US does what it does without, generally, its own interests in mind.

If you are believing that the US, alone among nations, generally acts altruistically, then I think that supporst Blatham's thesis of US special blindness and hubris. Well, not hubris, actually, but a sort of scary hypocricy - a need to see itself as morally superior and right. I was arguing against that thesis - but I don't know - mebbe there is a touch of that.

I am amongst those who think thay yours is generally a more benign empire than usual, BTW - though I am sure lots of people would give me a run for my money on that. Most folk I know think me extremely pro-America

Economic Imperialism.

It's funded and ran by the globalist and free trade crowd, who, when they come into developing countries to offer advice and help lay the path for future business, always keep the interests of the big countries and businesses in mind.

This leads to small countries which essential become totally dependent on the larger ones; sort of a 'trickle-down' theory of foreign policy.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with Cycl also.

The Roman empire didn't last for a thousand years because of any foolish wish to export "aid" to Carthage. We're no more likely to export aid in the form of democracy to the Tigris-Euphrates delta than we were to the Mekong delta, so generally I support dropping all that cheap talk and saying up front we do what we do because we think it's in our interest.

Actually, Craven has managed to get me to see globalism and free trade as possibly very good things.

What worries me is a lot of the HOW of them...

Of course I didn't think you were just talking about the present day situation. It's truly a rare thing to get into a discussion with a liberal about US foreign policy without getting into a history discussion. Can we all try to live in the now?

More to my point is the fact that the US does engage in humanitarian aid efforts throughout the world. I would suppose the volume of our efforts in that regard make our recent "imperialistic" bents pale in comparison. My attempt was to remind some of you of that fact. It appears you need not be reminded, as you are quick to minimize our humanitarian efforts, both in scope and percentage to GNP. Perhaps HofT is right and we should cut off all "foreign aid" and be an island unto ourselves. Let the rest of the world fend for itself.

And we better be doing what we're doing because it's in our best interests.

Tico - this is unlike you.

How did we get into an aid discussion? What has it to do with empire?

And - how can a country be discussed without history?

How 'now" do you want to get?

May we discuss only this very day?


Today and yesterday?

Does this mean we may no longer put Al Quaeda down for that old, yesterday's news, attack on the US????

I honestly do not understand how you think history is irrelevant - it is most odd - and , it isn't like it is ancient history - when did you guys stop supporting bin Laden?

As for aid - well, yes, we all give aid. Oz governmentsgive more, percapita, than you guys do. The USSR gave aid. What relevance does it have?

I'm not sure how it's unlike me. Hmmm. Maybe I've had too much caffeine? Or not enough?

I'm not suggesting history is irrelevant. But I find hollow those arguments that attempt, for example, to suggest a current truth based on a historical event when the connection is not logical. Such as claiming Christianity is bad by pointing out the events of the Crusades. Or that the US is a terrorist state because it dropped a bomb or two in Japan 60 years ago. Or precisely like you just tried to do: "You guys supported bin Laden (or Saddam), and NOW you claim him to be an evil person and an enemy of the US?"

History can give perspective, but pointing out the prior assistance to bin Laden does not make him any less of an evil terrorist today.

But I do believe you were trying to point out that the US efforts in Iraq were part of an imperialist scheme. I suggest you not do that by mere reference to history, and an unwise comparison of the US to Imperialist countries of the past. Particularly when you are claiming that the brand of imperialism used by the US is "new and improved," with "fewer actual invasions."

And again, the US better have it's own interests in mind.

As far as the relevance of giving aid, it is merely a counter to your claim that the US is an imperialist pig. I don't care for what I have frequently observed as a "The US is an evil menace that must be stopped" out of one side of the mouth, and a "Thank you for feeding that starving country" coming out of the other. And, no, I'm not saying that's what you were doing.

And finally, I didn't claim Oz doesn't give aid. I live in Oz.

You live in Oz, Ticomaya?

Kansas, my friend. Kansas.

THAT's what I thought! I read that last line of your last post & thought: whaaaaaaaa? Oh, you live in the other Oz!

George Santayana rules 'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.'

The refusal of major powers to learn from even recent history is a source of wonderment to me. Can not anyone see the parallels between the US support of Saddam (not because they liked him but because of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic - he was a proxy for America's Iran anger/fear) and it's current support of a brutal regime in Uzbekistan (so they can have bases near current conflicts).

Politics is often (always) a compromise between pragmatism and the idealism. I think that recent history is littered with enough examples to show any spectator that the US regularly errs too far toward pragmatism (foreign policy-wise). And it's a false pragmatism, having short lived benefits and long term consequences.



True to a point. But...

The world is small (getting smaller), you can't swing your elbows without hitting your neighbour. If you want to live in a society where might is right then what the US is doing is fine. But even within the US you have democracy and laws to protect the interests of all. Why doesn't the US consistently apply these standards outside it's borders?

It's not a great analogy but if the earth was a school yard with 250 kid nations, the US is perceived as the bully. Now, bullies sometimes have good reasons for what they do, and extenuating circumstances (problems at home et al) but it doesn't excuse the behaviour.

I just hope for a time when we all grow up....

Ok - Tico - a lot of meat there. Where did I say that the US is an imperialist pig? I wonder if there is where some of these stupid arguments start - you guys reading any less than adulatory comment about the US as a blind hatred?

I BELIEVE that I said that big powers tend to behave in similar ways - and that the US is no worse (as Blatham, I believe, tried to say it was) in this regard than previous empires. In fact, I sort of said that I think it is probably better - though I have a real distaste for the kind of actions you guys took in Chile and the Congo and Iran and Nicaragua etc etc etc. - so it really DOES grate when the loony right here try to claim that the US is a sort of modern day saint nation - with only altruistic and loving intentions (other bits of the loony right say that you guys can do whatever you like because you CAN, and bugger anyone who says you can't - and that grates too - the loony left say that everything you do is evil, and that is nuts too).

Mebbe we get into constant over-correction loops here - where each side focusses on the negatives of the other, seeing this as a correction to over-focus on positives by the other - sort of like a sugar dump, where too much sugar promotes too much insulin, followed by low sugar, and a desire to eat sweets????? (I like digressions and odd thoughts.)

You see, as I said about the evils of the British etc empires, which do not tend to get highlighted much any more - (as with the evils of the soviet empire) - you guys are in our faces - and - as I have said a lot here, tend, prolly, to get more flak than you deserve, cos you are so big - and you become a sort of projection screen for people's anxieties. It prolly makes you feel picked on. Thing is, if we had apologists for the British empire, or the soviet one, or the Dutch one, here, then they would be copping it too.

That being said, the US has an irritating tendency wish to see itself as only good - and to promote itself as such (not sure if all empires have done this?) If I may quote Lady Macbeth:

"what thou wouldst highly,
That wouldst thou holily; wouldst not play false,
And yet wouldst wrongly win; thou'dst have,
great Glamis,
That which cries 'Thus thou must do, if thou have it';
And that which rather thou dost fear to do
Than wishest should be undone"

It is hypocrisy, I think, which irritates us most - not that most folk here claim you do no good - just that it rankles when Americans ignore the evil they do - or say that, while you condemn such behaviour in others, you were right to do it yourselves - and so often you guys seem absolutely ignorant of what your government has done in other countries.

As for your christian analogy - you see, I think that the crusades are part and parcel of what christianity IS. To segregate a part of christianity's history - the part where it has had little secular power - and say THIS is christianity - seems to me very foolish. For instance, it might lead us to drop our guard against the evils of theocracies - especially as we seem very capable of thinking that the bleeding obvious examples of this - namely a good part of the Islamic world - could NEVER apply to we nice christians - WE would never behave like those nasty, rabid Islamic people. Historical wisdom tells us otherwise. And I really wanna learn from it. This is just one example where we differ on the crucial nature of taking into account all available histotical knowledge.



I do consider Iraq part of a sort of imperialist US scheme - but not merely for historic reasons. Do you deny that it is? In fact, I don't really understand what you are trying to say there. And - you DO control - or try to - lots of countries - with few actual invasions. You didn't invade Iran or Chile - just set up a puppet government. This is an example of how you do things - as did the soviets - though they favoured invasion more than you guys do - at least just after the war they did. And when countries got frisky - like Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Again, you get all ariegated when I point out that the US follows its own interests.

I didn't actually criticise that - I just pointed out that it is irritating when your government pretends it isn't.

As I said, the aid thing is just nutso - I never said you were Imperialist pigs - I said you are Imperialist - in a somewhat different way (which even the right is acknowledging, now, I thought? I didn't realise it was a bone of real contention) - like human nations tend to be.

You put the pig in there.

I tend to think it is a nasty thing, generally - but natural - and something we keep innocently - or stupidly - thinking is over. We better recognize it, and discuss it openly and honestly, in my view.

As for the "evil monster" - "thank you for feeding the starving nation thing" - well, your size etc, as I said, means you cop a bit more of this - but you are no orphans in this - I just think it goes with the being rich, powerful and western, realities.

Not true, Japan gives more, in dollar amount.