Usa....usa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

I am not seeking an adversarial position, but I am having difficulty following your argument. Joe never said we started empire building after WW II, he said he thought the "brat teenager" part started then. But to stay on track, we won't quibble over it. You can have the point. Even if it started in the 19th Century, it did not start in a vacuum.

So, if the discussion must focus only on the actions of the US without regard to the actions of other countries at the same time, we won't get anywhere and may as well stop now. The US did not do whatever it did or didn't do while everyone else sat around and watched passively.

The out of context simply referred to the fact that you used a book description as a "source" to make your point. A book description, typically written by the bookseller, is not a source, it is a marketing effort. I daresay the editor of the actual book would strongly disagree with your interpretation of his intent.

---

What argument is that ?
I posted some information , correcting the 'Brat after WW2 ' comment , to point out that the brattiness started long before that .
As I said , I could have used any quote to do that , even my own , but I used that one .
I was not recommending or otherwise , the book itself .

Try as anyone can , to deny that the USA a brat , bully etc ,and has been for over a century , the truth is there for all to see , especially those of us who have American military bases polluting our country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea:rolleyes:

Mike

---

Mike, as long as the United Nations is armed only with good intentions and blue helmets, it will be a toothless tiger. United in intention does not mean united in deed. The so-called "coalition of the willing" came to be because there is no bona-fide armed deterrent force available to the United Nations.

I would love to see what you have suggested.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

The world still need a policeman .

Mike

---

I have a problem with this train of thought that I have not fully resolved. If the world's policeman is one country then it follows inevitably that that country imposes it's values and morals on the world. Any form of dicatorship, and such an idea does constitute a dictatorship, leads to abuse of power.
We are discussing the US at present so I will use it as an example of what I mean.
The International court of the Hague has clearly defined rules as to what constitutes a war crime. America, the self proclaimed champion of democracy, is not a signatory and no American has been brought before it. However America has has been instrumental in bringing other countries before it but considers itself above such laws.
The Mei Li massacre of unarmed civilians both women and children wa stopped by a courageous helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson.. On his return to America he feared court martial. He was subjected to many death threats while Lieutenant Calley, the instigator of the war crime, was pardoned by Nixon.
An interesting by play in the affair was that although Thompson reported the massacre, it was not investigated for several months. The man involved was Major General Colin Powell who reported that relations between the US soldiers and the Vietnamese people was "excellent"

If we elect leaders in every country who are politicians and statesmen, as they claim. We should not need a policeman. Disputes should be settled by rational discussion. The other way, which is fanciful, wishful thinking, is to make the politicians do the fighting. Has anyone seen the shelters they built for themselves when it looked as if atomic war was a possibility. "Jittery Joe would have loved them.

Jerry

I don't think we can settle all the world's "issues" in this one thread. I'll note, however, that America's "Manifest Destiny" dates to around 1840, not WW2 as I first implied. In this regard, almost all of the major powers at one time or another used the phrase, "The sun never sets on the XXXXX empire."

I see some excellent scholars of history here, far better than I. Human nature being what it is, we'll find saints and scoundrels among all our statesmen, and usually one man's Saint is another man's Scoundrel. Put another way, "One man's fish is another man's poisson." (bad linguistic pun)

STAR mentioned his pleasure with American attitudes. I think it can be documented that American citizens, not just the government, have one of the highest levels of charitable contributions in the world.

I hope and pray that more of the future is conducted with eyes wide open, and less provincialism, and less BS. There's a saying among poker players, "If, after 15 minutes, you don't know who the patsy is, it's you." Let's not be patsies, but let's not be bullies either.

I've been somewhat pre-occupied of late, in addition to woodturning and a local political campaign. I'm the old goat in the gray shirt, third from foreground, here: http://www.vva96.org/images1.htm We placed the foundation last Tuesday, and erected the panels on Thursday. Dis-assembly is scheduled for next Wednesday. Please don't use any email addresses you may find via that link; they're very limited.

Joe

Joe,
One of the problems with history is that often it is not fact. I know it's a cliche to say history is written by the victors but it is true. No country can bear the full light of research and come out clean. I was born and educated in England but gained my degrees here in Oz. It has given me a clear insight into the strengths and weaknesses of both countries. I believe that a knowledge of a country's history, especially the dark side is necessary. I may offend some people here when I say I am not a patriot in the normal sense of the word.. Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scroundrel" There is a better quote and one I try to adhere to. "True patriotism hates injustice in it's own land more than anywhere else." To believe in ones's country or religion, right or wrong is to surrender ones self to manipulation.
While I would appear to have been harsh on America it is because America and her place in the world that was under scrutiny, not individual people. At the risk of continuing to be seen as critical of America, I believe one great problem is that too many Americans have no understanding of the world outside of America. For instance it was reported that Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country. We know that Geo W often confused Australia and Austria.
One of my early statements regarding the hope embodied in Barak Obama is that he has lived as a child in countries other than America. That it is possible he has a better world view than many American politicians.
Whether you have a better or worse grasp of history is not the point. The point is to stand square on the issues you believe in and fight for them. But popular patriotism is cosy and blinds you to faults in your country. Hitler was a master at using this technique to his advantage and if you look at what he said you quickly find he had contempt for the German people he led.
Recently I read a book called "Sagitarius Rising" Written by a young pilot in WW1. When he came home on leave his parents begged him to wear his uniform and he refused. This was a time of intense "patriotism " in England. Because he was not wearing a uniform a woman stuck a white feather in his lapel. He said "I just smiled at her and thanked her.." He was a true patriot. He hated the senselessness of the slaughter in France and was prepared to make a gesture against it.

Jerry.

Really got a can o' worms opened, haven't we? Let's agree to disagree for a while; I have a trailer full of timber to unload, and the fourteen-hour time offset isn't helping today's schedule.:wink::D

Joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerryc

Firstly I did not expand my comment enough on the Hartz Theory. The US is a combo of cultures over a period of years. The point I should have made is the New England states were settled by Puritans and settled before England's "Imperial" expansion. They developed the culture of punishment, inherant in their religion and also the pattern of creating a stockade, using it to sally forth and deal with the natives.

I can accept that argument. Fair call.

Much of England's imperialism stemmed from a desire to trade,

And, of course, ours as well. Although there was indeed a culture of hubris associated with Manifest Destiny, it was aimed at the American mainland, not world domination. It hadn't yet occurred to us to police the world, that came much later.

You say I confuse military theory and social fabric. Not so. The military is part of the social fabric.

Quite right. The organisation of the military and its role in the nation and its perception of itself is all a part of the social fabric. In the US that has resulted in the concepts of "citizen soldiers" (as opposed to mercenaries), the subordination of the military to civilian authority, and the acceptance of a single civilian Commander in Chief.

I was, at the time, meaning to refer to what I should perhaps have called military tactics, about which there can be disagreement. There is no question that there have been both tactical and political blunders in Iraq (as in other wars). The election results were inpart a referendum on those tactics and a rejection of them by the American people.


You argue that in guerrilla warfare the troops must be protected from the guerrilla. Here we see a response that is socially different.

You say potato, I say potahto. :) I call those tactics.

So there are different ways of handling a guerrilla war.

Exactly so.


Socially the gun culture pervades the military.

Can't agree with that statement. There are Rules of Engagement which are developed by tacticians. I do not subscribe to your conclusion that our military is pervaded by a gun culture which is part of the social fabric. That is not to argue that America as a whole is not, to a certain extent, a gun culture--it is.

You say no forts were built in WW11 or Korea. These were both wars unique to the 20th century. Highly mobile and technical. Even military mindsets can grasp that fact when it's thrust at them.

Not so unique, though admittedly more mobile. The concept of a fluid but definable front was present when Napoleon marched on Moscow. There are numerous other examples even older.

Then you raised the issue of lend lease and linked it to isolationism, and told me I had omitted the context. You claimed it was a 20th century phenomenon that grew out of US perception that Europe could not stop squabbling after WW1.
Non intervention or isolationism was first raised by America's founding fathers It was enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine that America would never get involved in European affairs. It was effecive until 1917.

Quite right. I should have said the "resurgence" of American isolationism, which had seemed to stand us in fair stead since 1776. We were slow to grasp that technology was making isolationism obsolete. It was comforting to have those vast oceans between the US and Europe and Asia.

The American economy depended on foreign trade, supplying food and arms to the allied forces and so became involved in European affairs. After WW1 isolationism returned with the Fordney-McCumber tarriff system that blocked Europe trading on a level playing field with America and indirectly this exacerbated economic strife in Europe leading to war. America also strengthened its immigration laws.

See above. However, the American economy at the time did not depend on foreign trade. But the war whetted the appetite for it as we made the transition from a debtor nation to a creditor nation.

Now we come to "Jittery Joe" Kennedy. You say perhaps the US believed Chamberlain.
Goes a bit deeper than that. Kennedy was a friend of Lady Astor and a part of the Cliveden Set that hated Jews and Communists. They saw Hitler as a solution to such "World Problems". The Nazi ambassador von Dirksen told Hitler that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend." scarcely the situation that you claim of a simple man "believing" Chamberlain.

Sorry. I was being flippant. Kennedy was a lousy Ambassador. And I was not referring specifically to his beliefs, which you have outlined very well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerryc

One of the problems with history is that often it is not fact. I know it's a cliche to say history is written by the victors but it is true. No country can bear the full light of research and come out clean.

Right you are. In addition, history gets re-written in the light of future developments or changes in national consciousness. For example, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was hailed at the time as saving many American lives. Later on, during the Vietnam war, other historians began revising that view and asserting that Truman did it more to intimidate the USSR than to end the war with Japan.

[NB: The job of the historian is to gather facts and from them draw conclusions regarding cause and effect.. As we know, many times the entire set of facts is not available and anyway historians are human like everyone else and their conclusions are influenced by their own perception of the world and their personal value system. It is not perfect. ]

I was born and educated in England but gained my degrees here in Oz.


Full disclosure: I was born in the US and received my degrees from US universities. I have lived in many parts of this country and have travelled widely, particularly in Europe. I like to think I have a global view, but I am no doubt a product of my environment as well.

It has given me a clear insight into the strengths and weaknesses of both countries. I believe that a knowledge of a country's history, especially the dark side is necessary. I may offend some people here when I say I am not a patriot in the normal sense of the word.. Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scroundrel" There is a better quote and one I try to adhere to. "True patriotism hates injustice in it's own land more than anywhere else." To believe in ones's country or religion, right or wrong is to surrender ones self to manipulation.

I prefer Ambrose Bierce's definition of Patriotism as "Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name." Blind pariotism is reprehensible. That said, there are beliefs and values worth fighting for, as you rightly point out in another post.

At the risk of continuing to be seen as critical of America, I believe one great problem is that too many Americans have no understanding of the world outside of America.

Unfortunately very true. A cultural by-product of that same isolationism previously discussed. Many Americans are xenophobic which strikes me as odd considering how many immigrants we have assimilated. I think it is a deeply-rooted national characteristic that somehow gets inculcated into even the most recent arrivals.

---

As must be clear by now, Jerry and I agree on many points, although our interpretations may be different. I am quite prepared to accept other conclusions than my own, and keep in mind that it is perfectly possible that Jerry and I are both wrong. :rolleyes::D

Joe,
I hope you don't leave the thread. I read what I had written last night, and whilst I stand by my statements, my language was a bit pompous and I think a bit condescending. Your imput has real value because it represents a view point that at imes differs from my own and helps me and others to a better understanding.
By the way I'd like to know more about the ideas behind the wall.

Jerry

Bob,

There is a problem, distractions keep leaping out of the shrubbery and attempt to lure us away on another trail. The march on Moscow is a case in point. I have studied the psychology of Wellington and Napoleon among many other interests, and would dearly like to debate that comment. It takes an iron will to avoid being sidetracked.
I hope others will throw their logs of wisdom and comment into the fire of this thread and watch the sparks fly. Discussion, as I repeat ad nauseam, aids understanding.
I can't remember who said it, I think it was Oscar Wilde, who said power should never be given to those who seek it. Unfortunately most politicians cannot discuss an issue. The shed blood of the ordinary people is used to nourish the overwhelming egoes of politicians.
I enjoy our discussions and wish that distance did not stop us enjoying a glass of wine together (Oz wine of course. I am not a biased person but stand for what I believe:D)
You seem a good bloke-- for a Seppo that is.


Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerryc

I enjoy our discussions and wish that distance did not stop us enjoying a glass of wine together (Oz wine of course. I am not a biased person but stand for what I believe:D)
You seem a good bloke-- for a Seppo that is.


Jerry

---

Likewise, I admit. For an Ozzie. Perhaps a nice Shiraz or maybe just a slab of four-x. :rolleyes::D:D

Bob,

Not 4x. You should try Coopers sparkling ale if you can get it. It's unusual but has real hop taste. Your taste in wine I'll go along with. Matched with a eye fillet roasted on a very low heat for four hours it is a great combination. That's if you like your meat still red and moist but tender enough for a blunt blade to slip through it like silk. My wife happens to be a superb cook.
Jerry

I am very confused by all these long sentences and big words but if you want my opinion on mr o'bamas victory all I can say is IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR THE IRISH.
love to all,
witch1

Witch1,

You think you're confused? Think what it was like for the poor bleeders who had to think them up.
But it's nice to see a new point of view. O' Bummer (that's to separate him from that bloke O Sammy bin laden the Ayrab garbage man.).

Jerry

As someone who habitually spends two or three hours a day on an internet chat channel talking to Americans, I want to say that the contrast between the friendly, civilized, and even learned character of the discussion in this thread, compared to what passes for debate in the channel that I frequent is startling. I think the point that someone raised about the average American being blinkered through never having left the shores of North America is an important one. In internet chat channels, which are overwhelmingly dominated by American participants, there are always a number of rednecks who put forward the point of view that Americans should not care what the rest of the world thinks of America, because, as far as they are concerned, the rest of the world's opinion does not matter.

Like most other Australians, I was delighted at Obama's election. My only worry is that he may succumb to the isolationist tendencies of some Democrats.

Rocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerryc

I have a problem with this train of thought that I have not fully resolved. If the world's policeman is one country then it follows inevitably that that country imposes it's values and morals on the world. Any form of dicatorship, and such an idea does constitute a dictatorship, leads to abuse of power.

If we elect leaders in every country who are politicians and statesmen, as they claim. We should not need a policeman. Disputes should be settled by rational discussion. The other way, which is fanciful, wishful thinking, is to make the politicians do the fighting. Has anyone seen the shelters they built for themselves when it looked as if atomic war was a possibility. "Jittery Joe would have loved them.

Jerry

---

Jerry,
A good policeman brings offenders before justice so as the judge and jury (the UN) can decide punishment . I was going to add and keep the peace but that just doesn't seem appropriate.

Why is it that most of the wars since WW2 have been called police actions.

Seems to me the US has had reasonable support for its actions from developed countries or at least their governments and I can't think of an instance when the justification for intervention did not include support for or introduction of democracy.

Another justification for action is homeland security but again I am unable to point to an example when either the US or Australias security was directly threatened except 9/11. September 11 was a direct threat and triggered support for action against states supporting terrorism but the original justification to go in to Iraq was WOMD. When this was found to be false it was quickly moulded into the Iraqis desire for democracy something that can be relied on for support.

We are often critical of the US military actions but hasn't Australia provided support in a lot of cases. I wonder if Australia had 300 million people and the military power if our goverment would act and react in the same manner as the US. I also believe having the power will always lead to being the policeman it is a natural progression what we hope for is that a democracy prevents the abuse of that power.

You say if we have statesman for politicians we will not need a policeman well that assumes free elections something we are along way from. Take a peek at Zimbabwe for an example of how not to do it.

The point I am attempting to make is a true democracy can be relied on to get it right.......eventually:rolleyes:

BTW a Benevolent Dictatorship can work very well too just ask Neil :D

Mike