Subscribe
But for many, like myself, that is the ultimate irony. It was the pressure from the intellectual left and the anti-war movement that resulted in a partial campaign. Once we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait, the left was howling that any further involvement was unnecessary. Then these same people point out that we abandoned the Kurds.
Out of one side of their mouths they claim that we should use diplomatic means to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan while out of the other side of their mouth they condemn sanctions against Iraq because it has imposed suffering on the Iraqi people.
The problem with the intellectual left is that they offer no solutions. All they offer is ideals. "Use diplomatic measures" but then not offer an acceptable diplomatic solution. "Eliminate the root causes" but then offer no details on how they can be eliminated without the US simply becoming the world welfare agency. They offer no solutions because they are usually ill-informed, pseudo-intellects who are much better at pontification than action. It is much safer to sit back and send letters condemning the war than it is to present solutions. Solutions can be proven wrong, ideals can never be proven wrong because there is always the out that they weren't implemented perfectly.
I don't blindly follow the government, nor am I prone to fits of jingoism but the US has done a wonderful job over the years. Not a perfect job, but considering how the US could have abused its power, it's been pretty fair. We had a 5 year period in which we were the sole country to possess the atomic bomb and we didn't use that power to blow every other country off the planet. We didn't punish Germany and Japan after WWII, rather we helped rebuild them. Did we have self-serving motivations? Sure, but you can't eliminate human nature. We're far from perfect but we're a long way from being "The Great Satan".
When the intellectual-left begins protesting the foreign aid workers being held under the umbrella of trying to preach Christianity, I'll give their arguments a little more credibility. When they protest the treatment of women by the Taliban, I'll be more open to their views. When they protest the attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, the US embassies, I'll consider opening my ear. Until then, they are simply a bunch of worthless cowards who blanket themselves in the US Constitution but would flee rather than to defend it.
posted by billman at 3:34 PM on October 13, 2001
Well, I think it depends on just what part of the outside world they're directly comparing themselves. For example, I could find a debate on "Which is a better place to live, the US or Australia" to be an interesting conversation. If the debate were "Which is a better place to live, the US or Iraq," I'd just roll my eyes and move on to another thread.
posted by aaron at 3:52 PM on October 13, 2001
I don't. But I do believe that without the US, a lot of those other countries either would not exist today at all, or would at least have far more repressive governments. And that does give us a bit more to crow about when this question comes up.
posted by aaron at 3:59 PM on October 13, 2001
I didn't necessarily mean "without the US" to mean "if the country did not and never had existed." It was meant to equally emcompass a scenario in which we simply remained isolationist. (For example, wondering what would Europe and Asia be like today if we'd completely ignored WWII and let Germany and Japan do whatever they wanted with the rest of the world.)
Because we don't even know why they hate us.
We know quite well why they hate us. It's all anyone's talked about for the last month.
Which question Aaron? The 'who's the most perfect nation?' question? It's the question I'm objecting to. It's the attitude I'm objecting to.
I was responding to the "Is my country better than [insert other country here]" question. Yes, I fully believe it's possible to rank countries on the basis of any number of things. To think that arrogant is to be a moral relativist, IMHO. Like I said, claiming that America is better than Canada or Australia might be a bit of a challenge to back up. To claim that America is better than almost any Islamic-governed nation (save for Turkey) is so obvious as be practically fact rather than opinion. We live better lives, we treat people better in almost every way one can think of, etc.
posted by aaron at 10:38 PM on October 13, 2001
Anyone that thinks the average American blindingly accepts anything and everything his/her government does is not at all aware of the average American.
posted by aaron at 10:20 AM on October 14, 2001
hate it when Americans seek impose their (inferior) values on them.
How often does this actually happen? I couldn't care less whether or not the average Norwegian (or anybody else) wants to eat at McDonald's or not. I don't care whether they view American movies. Our 'imposition of American values' is rarely more than the simple act of making American products available on the market. If the citizens of other countries clamor for these American products/values/ideas, why is that our fault?
and hate it when Americans dismiss as 'laughable' their assertion that they prefer their own value systems.
Well, one of the big problems is that whenever someone brings this up, they tend to do it not by merely stating that they "prefer their own value systems," but instead by praising their own system as arrogantly as the Americans everyone is knocking in this thread. (I.E, "We have socialized medicine, ergo we are better than the United States.") This isn't any more tolerable for us coming from you than it is for you when it comes from one of us.
posted by aaron at 10:32 AM on October 14, 2001
« Older Chinchillas crossed the Atlantic... | Officials think al Qaeda has s... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Thanks for the post, sharksandwich; I'd read it when it was initially posted (late Sept), but forgotten where it was.
posted by davidmsc at 11:54 AM on October 13, 2001