: : Like most people everywhere, I would like to take pride in everything my country does. : Why? Its not your cpountyr- do you own it? Disreali, that ol' tory got it spot on- there are two nations- the rich and the poor. The American national interest is always the interest of its ruling class. Further, can you tell me the difference between nationalism and racism- coz I've never spotted one. Personally, I always like to see the white race do well.
I'm NOT FUCKING WHITE, how can I be a racist? It is my country, because I was born there and I grew up there. there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism means having pride in your country, nationalism means privileging your country in the international arena and using its power to teh detrmient of other countries.
: : I immediately answered that the use of atmoic bombs was eminently justified.
: Yes, lets kill some more civilians- don't you think they could have chosen a military target- and Japan had allready long lost the war...
1. Japan had committed atrocities at Nanking, had tortured and worked to death American, British and Filipino prisoners of war, had converted Korean women to slave prosititutes, had invaded and annexed much of China. Japan's war crimes were far greater than America's.
2. Japan had not already "lost the war".
3. 60,000 died at Hiroshima; far more than that died in one night during the firebombing of Tokyo. Why is teh atmoic bomb, per se, the object of so much oppobrium?
: : However, the US has also done many good things that must be considered alongside teh bad things it ahs doen.
: But, we should ask teh question- did it do these 'good things' on teh exact same power basis as that which it used to do wrong. Rather, like a tyrant who dispenses munificence and clemency at special times of teh year, can we seperate the rights from the wrongs?
OK., by using teh word "tryant", you're already stacking the deck. And you can't call teh US an evil power, since it has also done a lot of good. By the way, I forgot to mention the Peace Corps, which ahs doen a lot for development in Africa, S. America, and other places, and which is strictly apolitical.
: : 1) The US defended Nasser's claim to the Suez canal and threatened war with Britain and France, thus defending self-determination against the evil of colonialism.
: What, it defended one bunch of nationalists against anotehr bunch of nationalists- not long after it denied self-determination (whatever that means) to italy and greece...
Our intervention in teh Italian elections was wrong, I already admitted that. I don't know how good the Greek guerillas were, but I know that we ended up supporting an expansionist military junta that tried to take over Cyprus. However, the afct remains that we did the right thing in Egypt. You know what self-determination means, teh opposite of colonialism. There's no way you can tell me that an Egyptian government ruling over Egyptians is not superior to a British regime. It's a basic right that all huamn peopels have, to govern themselves. otherwise, why do you defend Ho Chi Minh's war of independence against teh French?
: : 8) America defends the cause of taiwan, which wants to be separate from mainland China.
: Erm, no, just last week the US was carefully telling Taiwan to shut up and stop antagonising China.
Yes, but we stopped teh Chinese when they shelled Quemoy and Matsu, and we thretened to intervene if China invaded Taiwan after the elections a few years back. If we ahdn't had links to taiwan, China would have taken over long ago.
: : 10) America brought aid and protection, at least fro a time, to war-torn Somalia out of humanitarian interest.
: And public relations interest- after much of the disaster was allready over.
you can always find a cynical explanation of anything. my point is, did they not do teh right thing in Somalia?
: : 11) We stood up to the murderer of Halabja, Saddam Hussein. Sure, we did fund him for a while, then we realized it was wrong and we took action against him. Knowing what he did, how can any leftist defend him?
: What, gassing kurds, yes, preserve of Winston Churchill that one.
wINSTON cHURCHILL was a jerk off. Does that mean that Saddam was not also a murderer? because we didn't stop churchill, does that mean we shouldn't stop Saddam? after all, Churchill WAS our necessary ally against Hitler?
: Don't you think teh US has a big interest in using Iraq to ensure a strong military presence in teh Gulf- hence why they are basically ensuring they can stay, and that he stays in power?
believe me, I for one would be glad if Saddam was in hell, so would plenty of other Americans.
: : 12) World War II. Enough said.
: Erm, not really- one group opf imperialists against another.
Come on. Are you postulating a moral equivalency between FDR (a great man, by teh way) and Hitler? FDR was a noted anti-imperialist by teh way, especially with regard to Mexico, teh Philippines, India, and British colonies in Africa like the Gambia.
: : This evidence should be enough to convince anyoen that teh US is NOT an evil monolith that always does the selfish and oppressiev thing. Often it does teh right thing, as these examples should show.
: Not, because:
: 1:Did it stop these murderers out of humanitarian interest?
: 2:Was it doing so under the rule of law?
: 3:What was the power basis for its intervention?
: Look at it this way- British troops ostensibly went into the North of Ireland to save the Catholics, and ended up defending the British state there- sometimes good things happen despite the bad intentions. Even if you could call some things it does good, that doesn't make its rule right.
You are aguing, if i understand correctly, that these actiosn were not ":good" because they were motivated by pragmatic self interest. But then, you can't call nanything the US does "evil" either, sinec again teh motivation is generally pragmatic self-interest, which is morally neutral. The operative thing is not the intention, but the quality and the result of the action.
