Self Recrimination and Hand-Wringing

Recommended Videos

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Before you dismiss what will soon appear to be pure American apologism, please give it a fair chance. Yes, I am an American, but I've also studied enough of history, politics (contemporary, classical, and comparative, to be alliterative about it), anthropology, and sociology to not be a biased git.

So, with that in mind, let's dive in:

When compared to any other empire at its apex, America has behaved laudably. Whether America is an empire, whether America is at its apex or past it, and whether America is as "powerful" as say the Romans, is irrelevant. For the past fifty years (maybe even seventy) America has been the preeminent country on the planet. We have been the giant, holding the big stick. We have had the military might, and economic wherewithal, to conquer the world like Charlemagne if we so chose.

And yet we didn't. We could have used our military might to simply take what we wanted of the world's resources (like Persia, or Rome, or the Ottoman Empire, or Japan, or really everyone else when they've had the big stick). Instead we traded for what we wanted, and even built up the very countries we had vanquished, making them strong economic competitors and strong rivals. We rebuilt Germany after we bombed it into the ground, we rebuilt Japan after we bombed it into the ground. We even rebuilt England and France after they were trampled under Hitler's war machine (though the latter never seems to give us credit for this).

We were instrumental in setting up the Nuremberg War-Crimes Trials, and in setting up the rules governing armed conflict that lay out the most stringent policies for warmaking and conduct during war that have ever existed. And we have (generally) kept peace in the world without having to resort to the draconian measures of any previous empire. The Romans created Pax Romana by making it clear that they would kill anyone and everyone even partially related to people who were in the vicinity of a Roman citizen being hurt. We could have bombed all of Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying both countries in their totalities, but we didn't. Yet if we were truly analogous to any previous empire, we would have, because they did.

The Ottoman Empire (the descendants of whom are the residents of the country we're currently wringing our hands about having bombed, and still trying our best to avoid killing civilians) expanded massively into both Europe and Asia, killing and subjugating people on its way.

Yes, we treated the Native Americans poorly, and we did bad things to Africans, but every country has a sordid history with its aborigines. Similarly, the history of slavery is far too diverse to be a purely American invention. Take the shots you like, but judge not lest ye be judged.

Name me a country that has not abused its power when it had it, and that country gets to complain about American foreign policy. For everyone else, we have shown more restraint with the power that we wield than you ever did. We stand astride the world like a collosus, and yet we put fewer people under our heel.
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
While I admit that US actions in regards to rebuilding Europe immediately after WWII were laudable, I still must strongly object to three things.

First off: no. We did not have, and never have had the ability to take on the entire world. Especially not immediately following WWII. America has been the sole superpower in the world for just about two decades, where before there were us and the USSR. Further, should the US have actually tried to militarily take whatever we wanted, it would only be a question of whether we'd have driven the entire world to the Soviet Union's side, or if they'd simply band together and kick our overbearing asses themselves. This still holds today, now that everyone has essentially rebuilt and several more countries have become nuclear.

Second off: the last time we had an "empire" of any kind was when we controlled the Phillipines. Or maybe when we still owned the Panama Canel.

Third off: you're giving us far too much credit. Our actions during the Cold War may not have been open conquest, but the US has been responsible for many, many atrocious actions. Just because we haven't threatened to beat people with sticks doesn't mean we haven't paid other people to do so, or thrown rocks when they weren't looking.
 

JC175

New member
Feb 27, 2009
1,280
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
*snip*

Name me a country that has not abused its power when it had it, and that country gets to complain about American foreign policy.
But America HAS abused its power. How about the Vietnam War? Or Iraq, even?

I don't really care, I'm not anti-American at all, but I think this is a pointless thread. It will only encourage flaming.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
First off: no. We did not have, and never have had the ability to take on the entire world. Especially not immediately following WWII. America has been the sole superpower in the world for just about two decades, where before there were us and the USSR. Further, should the US have actually tried to militarily take whatever we wanted, it would only be a question of whether we'd have driven the entire world to the Soviet Union's side, or if they'd simply band together and kick our overbearing asses themselves. This still holds today, now that everyone has essentially rebuilt and several more countries have become nuclear.
That's a fair point, but it's somewhat incongruous. Most of the countries which have rebuilt, have done so because of support from the United States. Even excluding the Marshall Plan, if you strip out all of the arms sales to basically everyone, as well as monies given to the UN and international relief, we'd be far more comparatively powerful. So, no, we could not have helped countries rebuild, and then tried to take over the world, but there are many scenarios under which we could have taken huge tracts of land. Even now, we could simple seize Saudi oil reserves, rather than buying them.

NeutralDrow said:
Second off: the last time we had an "empire" of any kind was when we controlled the Phillipines. Or maybe when we still owned the Panama Canel.
That was kind of my point. We've avoided imperialism, even when it would have served our interests to colonize. You can say we learned the lessons of Europe's failures in colonization, but that still means we improved.

NeutralDrow said:
Third off: you're giving us far too much credit. Our actions during the Cold War may not have been open conquest, but the US has been responsible for many, many atrocious actions. Just because we haven't threatened to beat people with sticks doesn't mean we haven't paid other people to do so, or thrown rocks when they weren't looking.
I'll be among the first to admit that we've made mistakes, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that not only have we tried to act better than previous empires, but that we've accomplished it. We don't kill civilians (most previous empires did), we don't actively conquer (I'm pretty sure every previous empire did), just to name the two that come to mind.

I don't intend for this to be a flame war, but to spark serious discussion. If I be wrong, correct me, but it seems like what we tend to do is compare America today with England today, or France today, rather than with England and France at the apex of their power. Charlemagne conquered and converted by the sword, so did Mohamed. If compared to England right now, we're clearly the bullies. But compared to the English Empire, we're saints.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
JC175 said:
Seldon2639 said:
*snip*

Name me a country that has not abused its power when it had it, and that country gets to complain about American foreign policy.
But America HAS abused its power. How about the Vietnam War? Or Iraq, even?

I don't really care, I'm not anti-American at all, but I think this is a pointless thread. It will only encourage flaming.
My point wasn't that America hasn't abused its power, but that every country when it has power has abused it. The moral authority to call America out for abuse of power should be reserved for countries which didn't do the exact same thing when they had the chance.
 

Good morning blues

New member
Sep 24, 2008
2,664
0
0
Claiming that America is great because it's done things that weren't in its own direct self-interest is deluded because everything America has ever done has been to further its own self-interest - it's just done it differently than other empires have. Rome kept its colonies subjugated and enslaved with its military might and through coercion; America keeps its "colonies" dependent by extracting all of the money from those areas and turning those areas strong enough to stand up to it into markets for American corporations. America didn't hate communism because it was worried that Communists would take over the States nearly as much as it hated communism because it was worried that there wouldn't be any countries left to ship all of their money over to the States.

Seldon2639 said:
JC175 said:
Seldon2639 said:
*snip*

Name me a country that has not abused its power when it had it, and that country gets to complain about American foreign policy.
But America HAS abused its power. How about the Vietnam War? Or Iraq, even?

I don't really care, I'm not anti-American at all, but I think this is a pointless thread. It will only encourage flaming.
My point wasn't that America hasn't abused its power, but that every country when it has power has abused it. The moral authority to call America out for abuse of power should be reserved for countries which didn't do the exact same thing when they had the chance.
...Because history has gone so well that we should be happy that we're merely no worse than anybody else instead of trying to build a better world?
 

Beefcakes

Pants Lord of Vodka
Aug 11, 2008
835
0
0
JC175 said:
Seldon2639 said:
*snip*

Name me a country that has not abused its power when it had it, and that country gets to complain about American foreign policy.
But America HAS abused its power. How about the Vietnam War? Or Iraq, even?

I don't really care, I'm not anti-American at all, but I think this is a pointless thread. It will only encourage flaming.
JC175, I agree completely and wholeheartedly on this one
America abusing its power is basically the whole crux of the issue at hand, what with the aforementioned Cold and Iraq war.

Not American, Not anti-America either.
Please, I implore you all, don't start a flame war, I can see it coming a mile off
 

jimBOFH

New member
Nov 15, 2008
64
0
0
Not sure I see too much difference between the Americans "liberating" Iraq, and the Romans "civilising" Gaul, except that the Romans were better at it.
 

garfoldsomeoneelse

Charming, But Stupid
Mar 22, 2009
2,908
0
0
I wouldn't say that we have the power to take over the world, per se... mostly just the power to nuke the shit out of most everything and coerce the survivors into cooperation (assuming our supposed "missile shield" defense network is able to destroy all retaliatory launches), which would be a really shitty thing to do.


The way I honestly feel about America is that it's a great country being ruined by Americans, like myself.
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
NeutralDrow said:
First off: no. We did not have, and never have had the ability to take on the entire world. Especially not immediately following WWII. America has been the sole superpower in the world for just about two decades, where before there were us and the USSR. Further, should the US have actually tried to militarily take whatever we wanted, it would only be a question of whether we'd have driven the entire world to the Soviet Union's side, or if they'd simply band together and kick our overbearing asses themselves. This still holds today, now that everyone has essentially rebuilt and several more countries have become nuclear.
That's a fair point, but it's somewhat incongruous. Most of the countries which have rebuilt, have done so because of support from the United States. Even excluding the Marshall Plan, if you strip out all of the arms sales to basically everyone, as well as monies given to the UN and international relief, we'd be far more comparatively powerful. So, no, we could not have helped countries rebuild, and then tried to take over the world, but there are many scenarios under which we could have taken huge tracts of land. Even now, we could simple seize Saudi oil reserves, rather than buying them.
I'm not sure which point you're addressing. My point was that (other than a small window at the beginning) America's strength has been counterable. During the Cold War, we had the Soviets as our counter, and during most of the war neither side dared do anything but support proxy nations/dictators against each other (there were a few exceptions, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but I think the point stands).

Nowadays, regardless of how much the US has paid in reconstruction and aid, it doesn't change the fact that the world has recovered. Sure, we might be able to seize Saudi oil reserves...at least until the world unequivocally condemns us and, in the worst case scenario, drives us out of Saudi Arabia.

These days, saying "the US doesn't conquer places/people" doesn't necessarily mean we're too nice to do so, it means we're not stupid enough to try.

NeutralDrow said:
Second off: the last time we had an "empire" of any kind was when we controlled the Phillipines. Or maybe when we still owned the Panama Canel.
That was kind of my point. We've avoided imperialism, even when it would have served our interests to colonize. You can say we learned the lessons of Europe's failures in colonization, but that still means we improved.
Ah. My mistake. There were some patchy spots, though (especially with regards to a Mr. Theodore Roosevelt).

NeutralDrow said:
Third off: you're giving us far too much credit. Our actions during the Cold War may not have been open conquest, but the US has been responsible for many, many atrocious actions. Just because we haven't threatened to beat people with sticks doesn't mean we haven't paid other people to do so, or thrown rocks when they weren't looking.
I'll be among the first to admit that we've made mistakes, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that not only have we tried to act better than previous empires, but that we've accomplished it. We don't kill civilians (most previous empires did), we don't actively conquer (I'm pretty sure every previous empire did), just to name the two that come to mind.

I don't intend for this to be a flame war, but to spark serious discussion. If I be wrong, correct me, but it seems like what we tend to do is compare America today with England today, or France today, rather than with England and France at the apex of their power. Charlemagne conquered and converted by the sword, so did Mohamed. If compared to England right now, we're clearly the bullies. But compared to the English Empire, we're saints.
[/quote]

Just because we don't openly kill that often doesn't necessarily mean we're more philanthropic (though I'll admit we probably are), but it does mean the rules have changed. We rarely killed civilians ourselves, we did things like support Pakistan in their near-genocidal suppression of the Bangladeshi revolution. We never conquered, ourselves, but instead sponsored dictators who did so and who promised to favor us over the Soviets (in one of the worst cases, actually engineering a coup in Guatemala against their democratically elected government in 1954).

I'm not trying to turn this into a flamewar, either. I'm trying to disagree politely (with some strong examples).

I would like to point out that while, yes, we're probably more philanthropic than the British Empire was...comparing us the the pre-Turkish Islamic empire doesn't reflect as favorably on us as you seem to think. Especially when it comes to Muhammad; dude was a humanitarian through and through. Islam, at its heart, is a pretty darn cosmopolitan religion, and in the centuries immediately following its founding, this was especially obvious. Undoubtedly there were swordpoint conversions, but the religion as a whole was spread more through missions and trade than war.