Is war ever justified? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Lol I agree.
The Americans were only as influential as the latinos let them be.
Castro anyone?

+ Chavez
+ Burnham
+ Morales

 

[Freedom_]

Lol I agree.
The Americans were only as influential as the latinos let them be.
Castro anyone?

The establishment NEVER represents the views of its citizens. NEVER.

 

[Freedom_]

Empirically, taking the twentiet and twenty first century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States. Such a statement is bound to shock many, butIt should be no great surprise, that, a democratic and relatively far freer United States has been more aggressive and imperialistic in foreign affairs than a relatively totalitarian Russia or China.

 

[moll.]

Empirically, taking the twentiet and twenty first century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States. Such a statement is bound to shock many, butIt should be no great surprise, that, a democratic and relatively far freer United States has been more aggressive and imperialistic in foreign affairs than a relatively totalitarian Russia or China.

It also happens that no single other country, including China and Russia, has had the financial, military or political means to become as involved in world affairs for such an extended period as the United States. Their sheer amount of economic and political power dictated that, despite their isolationist tendencies in the first half of the century, they did in fact have a wide and strong relationship with most countries in the world, simply because that much unrivalled power cannot be contained within set geographical borders. Hence, they were forced to intervene in affairs which few other countries had interest in, simply because they in fact did have economic and political interests.

This of course makes them look like warmongers and aggressors in your eyes, as all you can see are the absolute figures of their intervnetions, and not the relative reality.

A similar thing can be seen in it's early stages in modern China. The Chinese have recently become the go-to guru and the economic underwriter of many fledgling African nations, despite these nations beng geographically distant, simply because their demand for minerals is outpacing the growth in supply. Next comes the spreading of the Chinese military beyond their immediate borders, as has begun with the sending of a fleet to halt piracy of the Horn of Africa, as the Chinese begin to worry about the security of these new investments.

In fact, the exact same thing happen to Europe during the imperial age. The industrial Revolution meant that there were excessive supplies of funds and high demand at home, so this money was invested in the half-hearted colonies that had been established. As their neighbours colonies grew bigger and stronger, they required defending, which meant military imperialism, not just economic imperialism. Eventually, this system collapsed when the funds were all withdrawn to pay for the First World War, which was also coincidentally caused by these rivalries.

Fingers crossed the growing China/America rivalry doesn't turn out similar.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

This of course makes them look like warmongers and aggressors in your eyes, as all you can see are the absolute figures of their intervnetions, and not the relative reality.

No. We see the relative reality. It's called utilitarianism, and hundreds of thousands of lives is not worth some puny economic interest, you mindless delinquent fuck.

 

[spyro14]

No. We see the relative reality. It's called utilitarianism, and hundreds of thousands of lives is not worth some puny economic interest, you mindless delinquent fuck.

pffft Utilitarianism...USA.... that'll be the day. I personally would argue that Utilitarianism isn't compatible with democracy, any attempt to better mankind in the longterm with heavy short term costs leads to a party being voted out of power. Utility being the sole standard of morality and the rectitude of actions being determined by there usefulness, well, that just isn't going to happen when there is any sort of inequality and superficial desire. Get rid of either of those and you either have a screwed up commy nation or a body of citizens undriven by their desires. Those superficial desires by the way are what make the world go round, cause it certainly isn't love.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

i agree: democracy isn't the answer.

 

[spyro14]

i agree: democracy isn't the answer.

I disagree: Democracy is the best answer available. Unless you would rather me as a dictator.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

pffft Utilitarianism...USA.... that'll be the day. I personally would argue that Utilitarianism isn't compatible with democracy.

I would agree with you that, under Bush, America was very far off utilitarianism, but I think Obama's going to be the closest they get. I would also argue that democracy as an ideal is the epitome of utilitarianism in that it is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and democracy should do this, by, in theory, allowing the person who would most greatly benefit the majority, to be voted in. However, of course ideals in their implementation are almost always a far cry from their original good intentions. But, in the end, I agree with this:

I disagree: Democracy is the best answer available. Unless you would rather me as a dictator.

And, spyro, you'd make a great dictator.

 

[spyro14]

spyro, you'd make a great dictator.

Splendid, my first action as dictator is to give all AUsTRalIANs a volkswagen, ohhh I mean...Holden.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Can we choose what colour?

 

[spyro14]

Anything but red or pink

 

[DavidBenGurion]

I disagree: Democracy is the best answer available. Unless you would rather me as a dictator.

If it works, and if it doesnt result in war, pain, suffering...

 

[six demon bag]

A nice game of chess would be a much better solution.

 

[moll.]

If it works, and if it doesnt result in war, pain, suffering...

I think you'd be more suited to a bubble-wrapocracy.
Or would you prefer to be in a land of emotionless drones?

 

[yoddle]

It deserves noting that these right-wing dictatorships you speak of were not headed, nor carried out by citizens of the United States. They only funded and supported them. Lets reveiw the nationality of these dictators:
Torrijos = Latino
Noriega = Latino
Pinochet = Latino
Videla = Latino
Banzer = Latino
Stroessner = half Latino, half German
Emilio Medici = Latino
Alvarez = Latino

And the list goes on.
Now please point out the Americans in this list of human rights abusers.
Oh, that's right, there are none. Probably because all the human rights abuses were carried out by Latinos against Latinos.

Thanks Captain Obvious. I wasn't suggesting Henry Kissinger was marching about Chile shooting Pinochet's political opponents.

I was making a point that you confirmed: that America funded and supported right-wing dictatorships that made enormous human rights violations. If standing by while someone is being murdered is considered an act of moral evil, then what the hell is giving the murderers the training, money, guns and pats on the back?

The fact remains that the whole notion of the U.S. freeing nations from their oppressive dictators is the biggest crock ever, because the U.S. spent half of the twentieth century making sure that millions lived under ruthless dictatorships that opposed all of the U.S.'s ostensible morals because they served the U.S.'s economic interests and anti-communist ideology.

The U.S. only supports democracy when it is convenient for them.

I'm not even a leftist, I'm not overly taken with modern democracy personally but the myth that the United States is a freedom-loving and democracy-spreading altruistic nations is just that: a myth. And i hate to see it purported by intelligent people.

 

[murphyad]

+1

 

[moll.]

Thanks Captain Obvious. I wasn't suggesting Henry Kissinger was marching about Chile shooting Pinochet's political opponents.

I was making a point that you confirmed: that America funded and supported right-wing dictatorships that made enormous human rights violations. If standing by while someone is being murdered is considered an act of moral evil, then what the hell is giving the murderers the training, money, guns and pats on the back?

Oh yes, cos installing right-wing dictators all over South America is part of the United States' evil master plan for domination of the universe. It's so obvious now.

The fact remains that the whole notion of the U.S. freeing nations from their oppressive dictators is the biggest crock ever, because the U.S. spent half of the twentieth century making sure that millions lived under ruthless dictatorships that opposed all of the U.S.'s ostensible morals because they served the U.S.'s economic interests and anti-communist ideology.

The U.S. only supports democracy when it is convenient for them.

And why wouldn't they? The democratically elected President of the United States has to answer only to the 350 million American citizens cum voting time, not the poor and destitute denizens of South and Central America. Of course it's going to act in it's own interests.

I'm not even a leftist, I'm not overly taken with modern democracy personally but the myth that the United States is a freedom-loving and democracy-spreading altruistic nations is just that: a myth. And i hate to see it purported by intelligent people.

The original point to this entire argument was whether South America has a worse human rights record than the United States. Now please point out to me the nation south of the Rio Grande which can say that it has enjoyed unfettered democracy, an unequivocal rule of impartial law, equal rights for all it's citizens (or at least since the abolition of slavery) and a complete freedom of the press for over 200 years?
Yes, the United States hasn't always acted on the international stage as the martyr and hero of democracy and freedom. But if you honestly expect any nation to do so, you are living a pipe dream.
If indeed the US had put ideology first and practicality second, it would have been ruinous to the country. They would still be suffering under the yoke of a continuous oil embargo, would have as their allies only a dozen or so nations, they would be victim to an inflationary spiral from a lack of outsourced goods and would most likely have gone to war with several other undemocratic great powers over the past 100 years, which would have resulted in their eventual defeat or nuclear annihilation.
You honestly expect any nation to do this? "We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf."

 

[murphyad]

Oh yes, cos installing right-wing dictators all over South America is part of the United States' evil master plan for domination of the universe. It's so obvious now.

Your sarcasm belies the relevance of this point. In fact, you more or less accept this position when you say:

Of course it's [the US] going to act in it's own interests.

Chyeah.

And why wouldn't they? The democratically elected President of the United States has to answer only to the 350 million American citizens cum voting time, not the poor and destitute denizens of South and Central America.

The US has a lot to answer for on the international stage and in this respect your statist assertion is disappointingy accurate. This is the fundamental view of past (and possibly present) American governments in that they view themselves justified in unilateral power projection simply because they are the biggest and the strongest. Unfortunately this leaves a lot of pain in it's wake; pain that you dismiss as irrelevant.

The original point to this entire argument was whether South America has a worse human rights record than the United States.

It's about cause and effect. I suggest you consider that the United States has been indirectly responsible for much of this human rights record.

Now please point out to me the nation south of the Rio Grande which can say that it has enjoyed unfettered democracy, an unequivocal rule of impartial law, equal rights for all it's citizens (or at least since the abolition of slavery) and a complete freedom of the press for over 200 years?

Many of these are disputable in the case of the US.

If indeed the US had put ideology first and practicality second, it would have been ruinous to the country. They would still be suffering under the yoke of a continuous oil embargo, would have as their allies only a dozen or so nations, they would be victim to an inflationary spiral from a lack of outsourced goods and would most likely have gone to war with several other undemocratic great powers over the past 100 years, which would have resulted in their eventual defeat or nuclear annihilation.

A poor slippery slope argument. May I ask, where did you obtain the crystal ball?

You honestly expect any nation to do this?

Not when they're being run by folks like you.

You attempt to discuss international issues in overly statist terms. According to you, the US is justified in it's actions simply because it is a (powerful) state with a particular set of interests and also infallible because it is a (powerful) state. It has a right to exist because it is a state and a right to persecute others because it is a state. However, I suggest you look beyond this narrow prism of thought and consider the rights and responsibilities of states in their interactions with other national entities. It is this inability to think in 'inter-national' terms that so undermines the legitimacy of your argument.

 

[moll.]

The US has a lot to answer for on the international stage and in this respect your statist assertion is disappointingy accurate. This is the fundamental view of past (and possibly present) American governments in that they view themselves justified in unilateral power projection simply because they are the biggest and the strongest. Unfortunately this leaves a lot of pain in it's wake; pain that you dismiss as irrelevant.

No pain is ever irrelevant. But it is mostly unavoidable.
If you truly desire the US - or any other country, for that matter - to take a foreign policy stance which doesn't favour some over others, then you will be sorely disappointed. It doesn't matter what any state does in the world, every single one of their actions is going to leave a big "what if" dangling overhead as people wonder what the alternative outcome could have been.
"Maybe if the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan thousands of lives would have been saved and the world would have been different. Or maybe al-Qaeda would have struck again and thousands more would have been killed." The simple fact is we do not know what would have happened in the alternative. It may have been better. It may have been worse.
So for you to deride the US' actions as leaving a lot of pain in their wake, fundamentally assumes that if they hadn't done what they did, this pain would have been spared, and yet you have absolutely no way of knowing the alternative. Ironic, given you pointed out my slippery slope argument.

On another note, I would much prefer the democratic government of the United States having unilateral international power than China, Russia or most other aspiring superpowers.

Many of these are disputable in the case of the US.

And you'd be an idiot if you didn't dispute them.
But just because the US isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not ahead of the competition south of the Rio Grande.

Not when they're being run by folks like you.

You attempt to discuss international issues in overly statist terms. According to you, the US is justified in it's actions simply because it is a (powerful) state with a particular set of interests and also infallible because it is a (powerful) state. It has a right to exist because it is a state and a right to persecute others because it is a state. However, I suggest you look beyond this narrow prism of thought and consider the rights and responsibilities of states in their interactions with other national entities. It is this inability to think in 'inter-national' terms that so undermines the legitimacy of your argument.

I never said that the US was justified in it's actions. I simply said that it's power projection was perfectly understandable given it's economic, political and military weight and that I would personally prefer the US in this position than most other powers.
Now, some may assume that I meant it is justified, but this in turn begs the question of it being justified by what means?
On humanitarian grounds, it is certainly not, but humanitarianism far too often involves a degree of selflessness on the part of certain parties which is entirely unrealistic.
If instead you meant that the continual intervention of the United States is justified by Realpolitik considerations, then by all means, it truly is.

As for the rights and responsibilities of states on the international stage, I'm afraid you are very much mistaken here. The simple fact is there are no such thing as rights and responsibilities between states, only mutual self-interest which so happens to occasionally intersect and demand cooperation.
If there are indeed certain rights which states have, they must either be natural/universal or legal/civil rights. They are not the former, simply because the modern state is not a natural construct but a man-made social creation for the organisation of a population and therefore cannot have natural rights. Nor are they the latter, as this imples there is some higher power which can give these rights to the states, of which there is none (I'm ignoring theocracies here for obvious argumentative reasons).
Furthermore, there are no such thing as responsibilities of states towards each other, simply because there is neither a guiding moral principle to their works, nor an overseeing body to force these responsibilities onto the states.