|
computer parts posted:It's less of a thing with Russia but when Libya was going down the Europeans wanted the US to take charge, which is a far cry from their criticisms of us as world police only a few years prior. Europeans didn't like it when the US did stupid poo poo like invade Iraq for no reason, and asked the US to do stuff that wasn't so stupid? You don't say.
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It's more like "oh hey we actually do like you being world police, just when it (explicitly) benefits us". Huh weird. It's almost like Europeans agree with some things the US does and not other things. What hypocrites, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I'm just saying the British Empire was already a world-spanning white supremacist empire seeking to wipe out or conquer the other races. White Supremacist is a bit unfair. After all, unlike the Irish, no one disputed that the Boers were white as can be and Britain had a grand old time putting them in concentration camps  Also they were pretty keen on continuing to blockade Germany for months after the armistice to get in another 100,000 dead civilians real quick before the Treaty of Versailles could be signed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Nah I think Britain's starvation campaigns are borne of jealousy and a deep-seated insecurity about English cooking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Given the constant trouble with rebellions and secessionist movements from those unruly Poles, it's perfectly understandable for Austria, Prussia, Russia, Nazi Germany, and the USSR to deny them political rights and/or contain them in ghettos and concentration camps. That's the price of civilization in that barbarous place, those empires Did Nothing Wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
I can't tell if you're being serious with this whole "yeah apartheid's not ideal, but the Swart Gevaar will kill us all without it" crap. Maybe I need to read GBS more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
davidb posted:I draw my line at rigged elections. Wait wait. Disenfranchisement and apartheid don't bother you, but rigged elections is where you say it's not a democracy finally? Well poo poo, I guess an absolute monarchy is a democracy as long as we're not lied to about how the king casts the one and only vote in the country. asdf32 posted:As human made institutions go, the U.S. has probably been one of the greatest positive forces in world history. For what it's worth. Well if you mean the stated ideals of the United States: that all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then yes that idealism has been a great positive force. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the violent and brutal nation-state that bears the same name. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Humans are violent and brutal. That's not an excuse for the intellectually lazy conclusion that all human institutions are equally bad or overall destructive. I never said all human institutions were equally bad. Intellectually lazy is being unable to handle any criticism of America without jumping to "Oh so you're saying America is just the same as Nazi Germany huh?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So what institutions/nations of similar influence have been positive in your book? This doesn't have an easy answer. Is it positive to be killed for your land, or have your democracy overthrown at the behest of fruit companies, or be shot by your own countrymen for trying to organize your labor? On the other hand if you're a Frenchman it is positive to be liberated by US soldiers who go home instead of USSR soldiers who stay for 50 years, and it is positive to have your country rebuilt with the Marshall Plan. Do they balance out? I don't know how you even begin to make a calculation like that. It's kind of meaningless question. Is America less pointlessly cruel and insane than the other Great Powers were when they were on top? Yeah sure, but "hey we're not the British or French colonial empire" isn't exactly high praise (and during the time of those empires we were busy committing our own genocide and borrowing the brutal colonial methods for our conquest of the Phillipines).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
davidb posted:you cant give a straight answer can you? are all countries evil incarnate? If not then which country do you think has been a more positive influence on the world? If you cant answer that then why are you arguing America isnt that country? You must have an alternate option or else your just wasting time Sorry the real world is more complex than "and then we blowed up the bad guys and got the girl and did barrel rolls into the sunset and then all the Muslims found Jesus the next day"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:why doesnt america help them? why wont the harbinger of "almost world peace" save these savages from themselves?! What do you think Iraq was? Selfless spreading of democracy. Of course those ungrateful Iraqis didn't even appreciate what we did because davidb posted:These people and muslims are sill too determined to self mutilate Kill all Arabs. #Notracist you see because I am an Arab. asdf32 posted:Only good critism is useful and that requires recognizing good and bad. Empires are bad full-stop. Asking who ran the "least bad" empire is asking who is the least bad murderer. The correct answer to "how do we be the best empire we can be" is "don't be an empire". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No they're not. Rome, Alexendander - definitely bad? Yes? The Romans were gigantic cocks, what are you talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
davidb posted:If it wasnt for america germany and japan would be under soviet control. So yes their democracy is thanks to america Why would Japan be under Soviet control? The USSR and Japan had a nonaggression pact, and the Soviets only agreed they would attack Japan at America's urging. The Soviets didn't give a poo poo about Japan overruning the colonies of the capitalist powers that had spent the previous decades trying to destroy the USSR. And what Pacific fleet are the Soviets using to blockade and invade Japan in this America-free counter-history? Why do all the biggest jingoists never know dick about history? asdf32 posted:The Romans conquered and pilliaged in an era when that was a season sport. Granted they tried a little harder than was "cool" at the time but they basically played the same game better (as opposed to say ghengis khan who wholesale murdered cities, this wasn't rome's style). Carthage and Corinth would like to have a word with you. And since the discussion we're having is nationalism in a postmodern world, it's not "postmodern BS" to say that nationalism and empire are bad and we know better now. Bringing up Rome of all things to defend colonialism in 2015 is some dumb poo poo. We have better ways of organizing society. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey, this empire is a majestic force for order and human development. Everyone has their place OK? Your place is getting raped to death by a donkey in an arena. As long as one good thing happened in an empire, it was worth it. Except for the USSR, they don't get credit for defeating Hitler because Stalin didn't know Hitler was coming when he let millions starve to industrialize the country. But when Mummius sold the whole city of Corinth into slavery he was totally thinking of the Greek and Latin scientific texts that would be passed down through the ages.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh my, what would modern society be without the staunch defender of liberty and democracy that is Plato. There's an interesting parallel between modern-day justifications for segregation and Plato's Noble Lie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The USSR did plenty of good things. You want democratic government and social justice, but you don't want to murder the darker races for their land and oil? Does not compute. ILLOGICAL. ILLOGICAL.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
I love the implicit assumption that there is no better way to help the global poor than to let the rich suck up all the money in this, The Best Of All Possible Worlds
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Exactly because democracy doesn't automatically lead to social justice. Neither does pacifism. Anti-imperialism and pacificism aren't synonyms. This is lazy even for this thread. Has a fascist party ever won a democratic election? Ever? But okay, say one did. So what? Are you saying we should go conquer it or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so is Rome so obviously bad if it's not war alone. Also remember: in many cases the conquered ended up better off. Ah yes, the white man's burden to conquer and raise up the benighted savages. Oh you won't mind harvesting rubber under the lash for your short lives, will you, considering how much better off you are now that you're conquered? Disinterested posted:Fascism seldom keeps itself to itself, so you had better at least get ready to invade it, even if you don't invade it straight away. Spain. Brazil. Greece. Portugal. Just a few fascist (or at least military juntas) that largely kept to themselves. How many wars do you want to start, anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also, ask yourself - why did they keep to themselves? It might be because of the vigilance of outsiders Once again, there is a difference between anti-imperialism and pacificism. We've got a guy in here who can't seem to tell the difference between slavery in the Belgian Congo and the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm not sure what your distinction has to do with it, since neither category is relevant, for example, to a genocide that takes place within your own borders (the problem to which I was alluding). You're not undertaking a directly anti-imperialist act if you stop German Jews being gassed in the same way you would be if you liberated the Belgian Congo Free State. Both seem to me to be reasonable criteria for military intervention of some kind. The USSR killed more Russians than Hitler killed Jews and that wasn't a reason to start world war 3. What is this hard-on for wars? Nobody in power gives a poo poo if Saddam is "killing his own people". That, and the rah rah USA flag-waving poo poo is just the excuse the rich and powerful use to trick the poor into dying for them. That you can look at the tyrants and mass murderers America buddies up with (and/or installs) and then say "oh but we should believe the politicians when they're very concerned with a genocide in one particular country" is astonishing. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Using World War 2 as an example of why nationalism and war are necessary is really odd, considering the conditions that created it were created by World War 1: the poster child for unnecessary war driven by national pride and imperial ambition, and colonialism was the main reason the war with Japan happened as it did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Nobody mentioned nationalism in the context of that argument (though it is what the thread is about). I certainly didn't, so I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Okay sure states aren't real after all and it makes little difference to the guy being shot whether the shooters wear his country's uniform or the uniform of the guys next foor, but earlier you said as a practical matter if the outcome would be horrible (like starting world war 3 to stop Stalin's purges) then we shouldn't do it. Now let's look at the history of American interventions to save people in South America or the Middle East or Asia from a "bad" government. Oh. Hmm. Well, okay those weren't so great before but this here Saddam guy sounds really bad, we have to take him out!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
davidb posted:So in mt view the term barbarian denotes a lower level of civilization between cultures. Romans might call germanics barbarians. And germanics would view mongols as barbarians. In other words 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Not an expert on Greek history here but let's copy Alexander, I bet an Empire like his is the perfect recipe for centuries of unity and stability.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Kill them until they stop. Not joking. Hey, the hongerwinter was just the price to be paid for bringing you German art, literature, and technology through the benevolent and uplifting institutions of empire and conquest. "Hey we bring you civilizing knowledge of wonders such as Panzers, boiled cabbage, and the letter 'y'. Marvel at our ligatures and Bach's sonatas. Well we'll be taking that food now, thank you!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:How close are we to the point where the counter culture position is patriotism? Hating America is getting pretty status quo in some circles. America is great and deserves better than to be led by the usual pack of ignorant racists, robber barons, bible-thumping dominionists, and war profiteers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Obviously American health care is expensive because Americans go to the doctor willy-nilly. There's certainly not a huge problem of people ignoring health issues out of fear of high bills until they become catastrophic and send them to the emergency room, no sir!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:39
|
|