Stupid patriotic Americans

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I didn't change the subject, I changed the players.

As did I. All great nations go through an expansionist phase so all of them are guilty. Still doesn't make it wrong to criticise it.

What I am getting at is that I find it hipocritical that you say the US should have acted out more firmly against Japan's expansionism, when the US itself was guilty of the same crimes just a few decades before.

So we got over our imperialist leanings and wanted to help others see the error of their ways. I'm still not seeing anything terrible here. What I see today is heavy criticism any time the US acts anywhere today. Yet, in the 1930's through 1941, the US hardly acted at all on the world scene - as if there's something uniquely repugnant about America acting in world compared to other nations. I see heaps of criticism from you about America but not a peep against expansionst Japan or Iraq (a clearly expansionist nation under Saddam) or against France propping up a dictator so that rich French corporations can rake in the cash.

Look, I'm no Bush supporter and I didn't support his stupid war. But American uber-patriots are no worse than French or Russian ones.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned, we "stuck our nose" into Japan's actions in the Pacific pre-Pearl Harbor because we saw ourselves as the big dog in the Pacific, and Japan was trying to rival us. We weren't pleased to have a strategic rival, and I'm sure on some level there was concern about the aggressive militarism Japan was displaying. So we embargoed them.

Principled? No. Power politics.

-Arrian

Actually, I did my on analyis of the diplomatic traffic in this time frame. Until Japan joined the Axis, Roosevelt was more interested in settling the conflict than forcing Japan out of China. Roosevelt assumed the stance of a neutral third party the mode of Teddy Roosevelt who helped settle that Russo-Japanese conflict in 1905/6. After Japan joined the Axis, Roosevelt's demands became almost unreasonable, and he backed them up with an oil embargo so severe as to be an act of war.

No, our hostile stance against Japan was related almost entirely to their relationship with Nazi Germany.

[Arrian]

I am arguing somewhat for Jimmy Carter's foreign policy

If I were the "use OT quotes as sig material" type of guy...

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ming


You can find morons and idiots sprouting nonsense in every country... why should America be any different

Because the morons and idiots in the other countries usually don't start wars of aggression just because they feel the urge to kick some ass to increase their national confidence. Not very recently at least.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The US only imposed an embargo on japan after their moes into french Indochina in 1941, not when they were invading China, and we only went to war when the happened to bomb US installations and invade overseas US holdings. One did not hear many cries in the US to stop the rampaging Japanese before dec 7.

Correct. The invasion of Indochina coincided with Japan joining the Axis. They said they did this in order to cut off military supplies flowing into China from Indochina. But when they moved forces south to threaten Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the British the Dutch and United States all demanded that Japan withdraw from Indochina. In fact, apparently Japan had agreed to withdraw from Indochina in its last proposal to United States in an effort end the embargo. But by then we were also demanding that they pull out of China.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by gunkulator
... or against France propping up a dictator so that rich French corporations can rake in the cash.

Look, I'm no Bush supporter and I didn't support his stupid war. But American uber-patriots are no worse than French or Russian ones.

Well how many french uber-patriots do we have here? When I called Chirac a moronic pompous *******, nobody disagreed. And afaik no one has claimed any idealism on the side of Chirac, that would be just too funny.

[Q Classic]

ok, seriously ted? britney spears offends me because she really isn't that bright....

and i'd rather have america be known as an intellectual nation rather than a place filled with bimbos...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Ned has been brainwashed

He actually believe countries do things for noble idealistic reasons!!!

I find it interesting that the left criticizes the United States for having a foreign policy that only protects its economic and perhaps security interests, and is willing to prop up corrupt dictators who happen to be pro American. The implicit argument is that the United States foreign policy should be more interested in advancing democracy and human rights.

Now I would agree that our foreign policy in the past has not entirely been solely based upon democratic ideals. During the Cold War, for example, security issues became paramount so that we would often, it appears, look the other way when a dictator abused his people, provided that that same dictator was pro American or against a common enemy (Saddam vs. Iran in the '80s.)

But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead. The implicit argument is that American foreing policy should only be based upon interests and national security and should not involve idealism. But this realpolitik foreign policy is the very thing for which they so strongly criticize America.

There appears to be nothing Americans can do to satisfy the left. We should, according to the left, understand that the world does not want us involved in advancing democracy and that we should simply bug out out and let the dictator's and Communists do their thing. I believe this is your argument, isn't it, Master Zen?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Stopping History (or at least fundamentally changing the way nations interact) is pretty attractive to the countries at the top.

Hell, look at the "Security Council" and its approach to nukes. Hmm, we have them. They're terrible weapons which also provide almost total security against conventional attack. But they're terrible weapons... Oh, I've got it: no one else can have them! Yeah, that's the ticket. We get to keep ours, though, in case space monkeys attack us."

-Arrian

p.s. Gold Star for anyone who picks up the Eddie Izzard reference.

We have an obligation to negotiate our way to zero with other nuclear nations. We have been doing this.

[HershOstropoler]

"But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead."

That's beside the issue. But apparantly, you believe the Iraq war was really about liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq.

[Arrian]

We have? News to me, Ned. We, and the other major nuclear powers, still have enough collective nuclear firepower to obliterate humanity several times over. Not good progress.

Having said that, I do seem to recall Bush talking about unilateral reduction. Has he done that yet? If so, by how much? If not, why?

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"But I when I argue that the people of the United States feel most proud when their foreign policy is directed in advancing liberty, the left continues to criticize America and Americans who think this way for being brain-dead."

That's beside the issue. But apparantly, you believe the Iraq war was really about liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq.

Clearly, HO, that was a significant part of it. American security and economic interest were also aligned with getting rid of the Saddam regime.

But while we were forced to act because of the regional threat Saddam posed that could mushroom into a world threat if he took over all the Gulf Oil deposits, we are still most proud of having liberated an oppressed people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
We have? News to me, Ned. We, and the other major nuclear powers, still have enough collective nuclear firepower to obliterate humanity several times over. Not good progress.

Having said that, I do seem to recall Bush talking about unilateral reduction. Has he done that yet? If so, by how much? If not, why?

-Arrian

I think the most recent deal with the Russians cut our stockpile by two-thirds. Clearly we have to continue to lead the world in reducing and eliminate nukes. Otherwise the arguments of many that it is hypocritical for us to argue non proliferation would be valid.

[Arrian]

Ned, the liberation of Iraq is only something to be proud of it down the road, Iraq is a better place for its people. As of this writing, it is unclear whether or not that will happen. If it ends up under another dictator, or a Theocracy such as Iran (or worse), I don't think it will go down as a "liberation" at all.

Aw, ****it. I feel like I'm talking to a wall anyway. edit: we can lead the world in eliminating nukes because we have one of the largest (and most high-tech) stockpiles. So a massive reduction still means we can turn large countries into radioactive heaps of rubble.

-Arrian

[HershOstropoler]

"American security and economic interest were also aligned with getting rid of the Saddam regime."

Security has about zero to do with it. Saddam 2003 was no threat even to his neighbours. and neither would Saddam 2010 be.

Economic, there we're getting closer.

Liberation - as Arrian says, that remains to be seen. The current approach would form a perfect excuse to establish a gaspump colony there.