Pax Americana

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR today which included this debate. Don't blow off the answer so quickly, there are arguments to each side:

Is America an empire?

Is there such thing as a passive empire?

Or maybe a passive-aggressive but well meaning empire?

Of course, very recently, we werent very passive about our aggression!

It''s been rather imperialistic since, well, Manifest Destiny. It reached its first milestone with the annexation of the Phillipines and has reached another height and will grow thanks to the conquest of Iraq. And it doesn''t even need a military to conquer. American culture, American industry, American products have conquered a lot more territory than boots on the ground.

The arguments were not that America is acquiring land and resources as previous empires, but was implementing a ideological hegemony. The argument being that America is being imperialistic in its expectations of how other countries must follow its goal, as being the keeper of truths, as being morally superior, and so on.

That''s sort of on the lines of what I said about culture and such.

Yeah, but I think we were talking about two sides of the same coin. I agree that American culture, being as pervasive as it is, subverts many traditional cultures outside the US, but I was adding that there is a conscious effort on the part of various administrations to force American ideology down the throats of other people. After all, how many places are we busy bringing Democracy to? While I think a democratic society is better than a totalitarian regime, it still begs the question of who are we to say which is better for, say, the Cubans?

"Elysium" wrote:

After all, how many places are we busy bringing Democracy to? While I think a democratic society is better than a totalitarian regime, it still begs the question of who are we to say which is better for, say, the Cubans?

And when we give them Democracy, is it really a democracy? After all, how much choice did they have in having and keeping a democracy?

I can''t believe some of you are questioning if having a democratic Cuba would be better than a dictator...

READ YOUR LOCKE AND PAINE!!!

I can''t believe some of you are questioning if having a democratic Cuba would be better than a dictator

I think you just read what you wanted to read here, because this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

While I think a democratic society is better than a totalitarian regime, it still begs the question of who are we to say which is better for, say, the Cubans?

This is why I don''t like about people like you that believe what you just stated. You''re putting a dictator on the same moral level as the United States and the West. We (the West and the United States) are better than dictators.

Here''s a question for you: We are supporting Democratic groups inside of Iran with money and military training. They are pro-west (Like the majority of Iran) and want a secular, liberal, democracy. Should we do this?

I''m going to rephrase this, because I don''t want you to misunderstand what I''m saying this time. I think our system is better than a dictatorship. The reason our system works for our country is because it is the system we put in place for ourselves. If the Cubans don''t like their dictatorship, they should stage a revolution.

I''m sorry that I''ve offended your sensibilities.

And, to answer your question, I don''t think it''s a problem for us to support pro-democratic groups in other countries. I question whether we should stick our nose where we''re not wanted, interrupt cultures that don''t value our input. That''s a far cry from what we''ve been doing recently.

Like the majority of Iran

Do you have anything that supports this wild claim?

READ YOUR LOCKE AND PAINE!!!

Really read them? Or read your interpretation of them?

Lets back up a little bit and calm down.

We are talking hypotheticals here only. Not absolutes.

Its not always dangerous or bad or damaging to see the flip side of the coin.

The older you get the more you realize you dont know. Sometimes you look back and question why you were such a fool for thinking you knew everything then.

Wiser people question their beliefs to strengthen them. The most successful debate tactics is to study and lay out your opponents views and one by one dismantle them.

Wise people dont hunt through and ignore pages of evidence that may not support their stance to find the few sentences to bolster it.

Do you have anything that supports this wild claim?

A recent poll found that 70% want Iran to be more like the United States. The pollsters haven''t been heard of since. The people of Iran have demonstrated in mass in support of the U.S. only to be chased away by government thugs.

I''m searching for links right now.

A recent poll found that 70% want Iran to be more like the United States.

I''d be interested to know some specifics about that poll.

This is why I don''t like about people like you

While I''m thinking about it, do you really think this was necessary? Was this part of your point? Was this a good way to participate in a debate?

I really don''t mind if you don''t like me. You''re not the first. But, I thought we''d all pretty much agreed from the start to keep this kind of crap to ourselves.

"Ulairi" wrote:

You''re putting a dictator on the same moral level as the United States and the West. We (the West and the United States) are better than dictators.

What if the people stage a revolution just to support one man and make him dictator? What if they approve of his rule for his entire life, with very little dissent (not forced, they genuinely like him)? Are you saying you know better than them? How democratic is that? A system of government doesn''t make a country inherently morally bankrupt, the people do. Its just a little like saying ""The United States are better than Republics"". A given Republic may be the most bigoted, violent, corrupt and abusive government ever known to man, and it may be just as morally upstanding as us.

Now maybe you meant ""The US and the West is better than these dictators"" with a specific list in mind. That''s different, and I can at least respect that, if I don''t agree. But the previous statement was a logical fallacy.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

You''re putting a dictator on the same moral level as the United States and the West. We (the West and the United States) are better than dictators.

What if the people stage a revolution just to support one man and make him dictator? What if they approve of his rule for his entire life, with very little dissent (not forced, they genuinely like him)? Are you saying you know better than them? How democratic is that? A system of government doesn''t make a country inherently morally bankrupt, the people do. Its just a little like saying ""The United States are better than Republics"". A given Republic may be the most bigoted, violent, corrupt and abusive government ever known to man, and it may be just as morally upstanding as us.

Now maybe you meant ""The US and the West is better than these dictators"" with a specific list in mind. That''s different, and I can at least respect that, if I don''t agree. But the previous statement was a logical fallacy.

If they get a belovelent dictator that''s fine.

I''m not calling for invading every country. However, we can support democratic movements and groups. We can speak out against dictators. I don''t think there would have been a war in Iraq if every nation on the security council would have been tough on Saddam. Saddam thought he could not lose and stay in power.

"Elysium" wrote:
A recent poll found that 70% want Iran to be more like the United States.

I''d be interested to know some specifics about that poll.

This is why I don''t like about people like you

While I''m thinking about it, do you really think this was necessary? Was this part of your point? Was this a good way to participate in a debate?

I really don''t mind if you don''t like me. You''re not the first. But, I thought we''d all pretty much agreed from the start to keep this kind of crap to ourselves.

When I said that I meant ''polticially'' not you as a person. I''m sorry that I wasn''t clear.

Putting aside for a moment that the poll was commisioned by a government with a, possibly noble, reformist agenda, can you explain to me exactly how this means 70% of Iranians want to ""be more like the United States""?

I bet a whole hell of a lot of Iranians would say that the difference between this poll and the conclusion you''ve leaped to is a really good example of the problem.

That''s not my poll. My poll was done by an independent group.

Ah, well then disregard that. If you find that poll drop a link. I''d be very interested to read it.

When I said that I meant ''polticially'' not you as a person. I''m sorry that I wasn''t clear.

Fair enough. Hey, I feel the same way half the time!

Deep cleansing breaths. Group hug, and all that tree-hugging liberal junk.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

You''re putting a dictator on the same moral level as the United States and the West. We (the West and the United States) are better than dictators.

What if the people stage a revolution just to support one man and make him dictator? What if they approve of his rule for his entire life, with very little dissent (not forced, they genuinely like him)? Are you saying you know better than them? How democratic is that? A system of government doesn''t make a country inherently morally bankrupt, the people do. Its just a little like saying ""The United States are better than Republics"". A given Republic may be the most bigoted, violent, corrupt and abusive government ever known to man, and it may be just as morally upstanding as us.

Now maybe you meant ""The US and the West is better than these dictators"" with a specific list in mind. That''s different, and I can at least respect that, if I don''t agree. But the previous statement was a logical fallacy.

If they get a belovelent dictator that''s fine.

I''m not calling for invading every country. However, we can support democratic movements and groups. We can speak out against dictators. I don''t think there would have been a war in Iraq if every nation on the security council would have been tough on Saddam. Saddam thought he could not lose and stay in power.

Damn you Ulairi for being reasonable! Its hard to keep an argument going anymore, I always end up agreeing with you people.

Perhaps I should take a completely illogical and irrational stance.

Who wants to start the ""Dead Babies for Food Stamps"" political party?