Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thezeppo
It seems we need to make clearer distinctions between 'America' and the people who live in it.
Perhaps. When I refer to "America" or "The United States," I'm referring to the collective whole, most of which involves the people who live in it. If I'm referring to the U.S. government or ruling class, then I make that distinction.
quote:
I don't doubt that politicians rallying support for a war would evoke the goodwill of the people, or guilt them into support. I would suggest that the reason presented to the people is not necessarily the accurate, total reason for an intervention (the most recent Iraq war for example).
I agree, although if they're lying about the reason for military interventionism, then that begs the question: What IS the reason for the U.S. government's activities around the world? I think many people tend to assume that the U.S. government is acting in America's interests, but that's just an assumption. We don't really know this for a fact, and no one can prove anything at that level (and even if anyone could, they'd likely end up like Snowden).
quote:
Similarly, 'in America's national interest' and 'of benefit to America' are distinct from one another. How many McDonald's are there in South Vietnam? In the world? It's not in the national interest but it is of benefit.
This Wiki entry says that there are over 33,000 McDonalds worldwide, but none for Vietnam. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, though.
If you're talking about "benefit" in this context, then it seems we're talking about the kind of indirect "benefits" touted by the advocates of trickle-down economics, which I don't agree with. I also believe that the current conditions of our economy have revealed the trickle-down theory to be a fraud, and that being the case, the notion that America benefits from global interventionism is equally fraudulent, in my opinion.
The only visible way of determining benefit is by asking the question, "Are we better off now than we were before we intervened in [insert name of country or conflict here]?" We can look at the costs vs. benefits, as well as other leading indicators such as our budget deficit, trade deficit, national debt, etc. and try to determine if there really is some sort of "benefit."
Even from a strictly business point of view, the question has to be asked: Are American taxpayers getting a worthwhile return on their investment?
quote:
I think Chomsky has an interesting perspective on the perception of decline in America.
Everyone and his uncle seems to be putting in their two cents as to what they think is causing the decline in America. But few people seem willing to admit to their mistakes.
quote:
As regards Sweden, they attempted to bed a colonial power as well, they just didn't succeed.
Perhaps so, but the fact that they and other non-colonial powers still achieved a high standard of living and ostensibly maximized their benefits, it clearly proves that colonialism/post-colonialism/imperialism/interventionism (or whatever one wants to call it) is NOT necessary for a nation's benefit or interests. So, if a country does involve itself in colonialism or interventionism, then one should look for other possibilities as to the motives.
quote:
If you don't mind my asking, why would America have become the worlds policeman after ww2 if they saw no benefit?
Possibly out of fear and paranoia. While America was largely untouched by WW2, we could see what was happening elsewhere in the world, and from our point of view, we had just cause to be wary and suspicious of the intentions of other nations. The lessons from that war seemed to be that if you're not proactive enough in putting out the little fires that start, then the little fires can turn into a huge conflagration - which is what happened in both WW1 and WW2.
Yet, we were still tied in with the Allied Powers and felt we had a common interest in maintaining the global system that was already in place. It wasn't really our system, but it was believed that by helping our fellow Allies, we were helping ourselves at the same time.
My opinion is that, if America really was acting in its own interests and wanted to benefit only America, then I think we would have done a lot of things differently. As the leading industrial power and resource producer in the world after WW2, we had many options and directions we could have taken. We could have occupied Western Europe in the same way that the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe. We could have taken the remnants of the French and British Empires by force, if we wanted to. We could have listened to Patton and attacked the Soviet Union. We could have followed MacArthur's advice and invaded China during the Korean War.
Likewise, we would not have yielded half of Korea and Vietnam to the Communists, if we really were the big, bad, evil, imperialist power which acts solely in its own interests. As for the Middle East, we could have just taken that over and made it into America's colonies, rather than letting the Arabs keep all the oil wealth. We could have even taken Israel for ourselves and made ourselves the rulers of the Holy Land.
So, my question to you is (and Politesub and Peon, if they wish to continue supporting their position), why didn't America do all these things, if we were only interested in our own benefit and national interests?
quote:
It's not a purely political question, and its one which is very hard to define 'influence' or indeed measure it. If you are suggesting America would be better off today had they never intervened then you may be right, but if you are suggesting that America intervened for purely altruistic purposes, with no intention of benefiting from the situation then I think you need to widen your definition of 'benefit'
There may be incidental benefits that come about from world events. For example, America did not cause World War II, but we probably would have benefited from it whether we participated or not. As the only standing major industrial power at the end of the war, it was clearly a position of advantage and benefit to America, regardless of our alliances or actual military involvement in that conflict.
Compare America's involvement in WW2 and the post-war world with our national perceptions and objectives during the 19th century. However horrible and atrocious we might have been, one could pragmatically argue that Manifest Destiny and our lust for land and expansionist glory may have benefited America in the long run. We were horrible, but it can be argued that America (or at least its ruling class) was working solely for its own national interests and benefit. But coming out of that period were loud voices for progress, reform, civil rights, and these movers and shakers may very well have had altruistic reasons for believing as they did. I think they did influence America in a positive manner to some degree. There actually were Americans who had a sense of honor and cared about our nation's reputation, although they weren't politically strong enough to change everything - only some things - and very slowly.
I'm not arguing that America's interventionism has been done for purely altruistic reasons. However, assuming for a moment that America did involve itself for purely altruistic reasons and that the American people believed it to be true, then there may be some intangible "benefit" that comes with that. If you help someone purely out of the goodness of your heart, don't you get a good feeling from it? Don't you feel good about yourself and feel that there's some self-benefit to that? Isn't there a sense of honor, chivalry, and personal satisfaction at being the heroic white knight slaying the dragon and saving the damsel in distress?
There may also be an intangible benefit just by being powerful, the "glories of empire" and all that. The original conquerers of this continent were into "Gold, Glory, and God," not just gold. Practically from birth, Americans are spoon-fed the idea that America is the greatest nation on Earth and that we should thank God that we are Americans. I've seen more than a few British here speak with irritation about Americans' puffed up pride and arrogance - such as those who go on and on about how America saved Britain during World War II.
Since this sub-topic got started with Tweakebelle's question about the possible benefits of the U.S. supporting Israel, it should be noted that many Americans believe that it is God's will that America support Israel, and that, in and of itself, is enough for them. Even if it may be harmful to us and our national interests, we still support Israel only because we don't want to incur God's wrath against us. From a certain point of view, that might be regarded as a "benefit" to America, but only if you believe in that sort of thing. I don't believe in it, but lots of Americans still do. That may or may not be deemed "altruistic," depending on how one defines that term.
I also agree that the definition of "benefit" is important here. If international looting and plundering somehow benefits U.S. corporate interests, then does that mean that the country itself actually benefits? One would have to subscribe to the theories of trickle-down economics to make a case along those lines, especially since a lot of this plundered wealth may be kept in offshore accounts.
In terms of the overall status of the collective whole of America at present, taking into consideration the major economic indicators and our general health, productivity, and well-being as a nation, it would seem that America's leaders have done a pretty crappy job of "acting in America's interests." That's why I have reason to doubt whether they're acting in America's interests at all. It doesn't mean that their motives are purely altruistic either, as I never argued that. As I said above, there could be reasons of sentiment, or possibly just plain simple bribery or blackmail. The U.S. political system is vulnerable to that, so I recognize that as a distinct possibility, especially considering our cozy and kissy-poo relationship with nations like Saudi Arabia. I wonder about things like that. Who is actually benefiting here, them or us?
|
RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread