Is the US a warlike country?

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh


Well, let's add it up:

Foreign interventions since 1945, by country:

Britain: Korea, Malaya, Egypt (Suez), Argentina (Falklands), Iraq X2, Serbia

France: Korea, Indochina, Algeria, Egypt (Suez), Congo (others in Africa?), Iraq, Serbia

China: Korea, Tibet(?), Vietnam

USSR/Russia: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afganistan

Total 19

Very incomplete list, specially given that:

France’s investment in Africa is five per cent of its external trade, and Paris has, since the 1960s, intervened militarily in at least nine African countries.13 France intervened in Mauritania, Senegal, the Congo, Gabon, Cameroon and Chad in the 1960s; in Chad again, as well as in Djibouti, Western Sahara, the Central African Republic and Zaire in the 1970s; and in Chad twice more in the 1980s; in Togo in 1986; and finally—-and most controversially—-in Rwanda in the 1990s. These interventions earned France the title ‘the gendarme of Africa.’14

http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Monographs/No105/2French.htm

Then there are the Comoros, just for the French:

The remaining Comoros islands declared themselves independent on July 6, 1975, with Ahmed Abdallah as president. A month after independence, he was overthrown by Justice Minister Ali Soilih. This was only the beginning of Comoros's chronic instability: the country has gone through more than 20 coups since independence and has experienced several attempts at secession. Orchestrating at least four of these coups was a group of white mercenaries known as Les Affreux (The Terrible Ones), and their notorious leader, Frenchman “Colonel” Bob Denard. Denard fled Comoros in 1989, when 3,000 French soldiers were sent after him.

Again, yes, the US has intervened repeatedly-but again, to claim we have done it more thanh ANYONE else is false- heck, the French themselves probably get to 15 interventions on their own, including their current mission in the Ivory Coast. Would you call France war mongering based on that record?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


From republicans.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
Again, yes, the US has intervened repeatedly-but again, to claim we have done it more thanh ANYONE else is false-

No, anyone else is correct. Everyone else is incorrect.

[techumseh]

Ok, fair enough. But I left open the possibility that there were French interventions in Africa that I wasn't aware of, oui? I probably missed a number of British interventions as well, and undoubtably some American ones have been missed too, eg. Philippines.

Still, I think I made my point. The US has a very long list of countries it has sent it's armed forces into since WWII, not including CIA coups. The fact that the former imperial powers Britain and France also invade third world nations regularly doesn't minimize the US role as an aggressive, militaristic power.

[Odin]

I bet Gian gets all his "facts" from divine revelation from Lord God Pinochet and Lord God Franco.

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh
Ok, fair enough. But I left open the possibility that there were French interventions in Africa that I wasn't aware of, oui? I probably missed a number of British interventions as well, and undoubtably some American ones have been missed too, eg. Philippines.

Still, I think I made my point. The US has a very long list of countries it has sent it's armed forces into since WWII, not including CIA coups. The fact that the former imperial powers Britain and France also invade third world nations regularly doesn't minimize the US role as an aggressive, militaristic power.

This is the crux of the discussion I see- if the behavior of the US is the same as that of any late capitalistic power, then we can;t single out the US as "warmongering", since that implies behavior above and beyond that of a state in its position driven by some deeper cultural traits. The US then is simply acting as a state such as the US would act.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
This is the crux of the discussion I see- if the behavior of the US is the same as that of any late capitalistic power, then we can;t single out the US as "warmongering", since that implies behavior above and beyond that of a state in its position driven by some deeper cultural traits. The US then is simply acting as a state such as the US would act.

I am precisely interested in the cultural traits. The behaviour of the US diplomacy is fairly easy to assess, and the US goverment has shown much more restraint in using its power than any superpower of the past.

The attitudes of the American people, their acceptation for war, their opinion about the military etc., are the real interesting thing IMHO.

Do you think, GePap, after reading DanS', El Freako's, Colon's, Ozzy's, Chegitz's and my posts, that the American people are warlike? DO you think these posts are wrong in some aspect or another, and do you wish to correct them? How are the Americans warlike? How are they not? I think that's the point that is more worthy of debate

[GePap]

No, the American people are NOT warlike- the idea of isolationism is very strong in this country, but there is one notion that is open to abuse widely shared by Americans:
The self image as a special nation- even the people who do not see it in religious terms do accept the US as exceptional, and having some sort of universal message to teach the world- to a minor extent, they are right, given the unprecedented polyglot nature of the American polity and how it came to be (through involuntary or voluntary immigration, as opposed to territorial acquisition, like the polyglot British empire at its height)-hence to a certain degree not found in more established and until now more homogenous nations, American believe that if they go to war, they are doing it for certain moral reasons, and don;t in general accept the idea that we are conducting the same old type of policy other states carry.

This greatly affects the ability of a regime to take actions without much disagreement, even with our free press. People in the US are unwilling to view American intervention around the world as being motivated by the same sort of petty national interests that they assign to other states- look at the endless Republican hoopla about "oil for food"- it plays so well because in the minds of many Americans it paints a difference between corrupt, money seeking old world vs. chivalric crusading America- we fight for freedom, all they care about is money!

So American regimes are given a huge latitude by our people to carry out actions overseas as long as they are couched in the lofty rhetoric of American exceptionalism- this is fact is a basis of Neocon thought- they want America to be aggressive but since America is special, our aggression is not bad aggression-heck, its not even aggression, its saving the world!

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the neocons would gladly build a superhighway to the 9th level as long as they think they are saving the world. They are our new overmen, fighting for "truth, justice, and the American Way".

Does this classify as Warmongering? I don't think so-its not war or aggression for its sake- at the bottom is always a belief, correct or incorrect, that we are doing what we do because no other possibility of doing the right thing is left. This is what the American people think. And American leaders know this- and whether those leaders act out of the same belief, or cynically exploit that belief, the result is the same.

[Colon™]

I think what you're describing is very typical to the nation-state. I'd say it was just as common in Europe before the idea got discredited by WWII. Maybe it's rather Europe that's the odd case out there because the idea of being exceptional appears to remain just as lively outside western Europe. (China, Japan, Russia...)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Do they really consider that good? If they where people close to them, if they where faithful muslims, would they think it is good to kill them? Was their intention to kill lots of people, or to 'punish heretics' and bring redemption (at the point of a sword)?

Obviously, their intention was to "kill lots of infidels", not just people. Forgive me for being imprecise

Now, what if the blindman knew before hand that there was a "Big Red Button" right beside the one for room service, and while feeling very confident that he knew which one was for room service, he tried to press it... but hit the red button instead?

There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Obviously, their intention was to "kill lots of infidels", not just people. Forgive me for being imprecise

Infidels = evil. Kill them = good
Insurgents = evil. Kill them = good

As I said before, good or evil is decided by the perception of the victims, not the motive of the killer

There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

The victims will still be dead. You have a moral and juridical obligation to avoid being thoughtless.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

In such a scenario, I don't think there is. Willful ignorance or overwhelming arrogance can not be used as a shield of righteousness.

[DinoDoc]

This is an absurd discussion that has degenerated into the surreal.

[Colon™]

And isn't that just great?

[Odin]

Part of our county's arrogance comes out of the "Land of the Free" nationalistic propaganda people here are fed, which is insulting to every other western democracy.