United States of Hipocracy

[PuppetMaster]

Question:
The USA has on several occasions directly taken part in the overthrowing of democracies and installation of dictators.

George Bush gets on TV and says that he wont allow terrorism to threathen democracy around the world.

Is there something wrong here? When are the sheep of this country going to wake up?

[Robk]

Your argument here is about as good as your spelling of "hypocrisy".

[gonores]

Dude, he got 6 of 9 letters right.

Does that make his argument 67% accurate? If so, I gots to get me to a logic class, because I didn't follow his.

[andyfox]

If I may be so presumptuous: perhaps the poster is suggesting that we ought to take our government's proclamations that it is protecting democracy with its overseas adventures with a grain of salt, given our history of being indifferent to democracy where is so suited us.

[gonores]

Allow me to preface this...I am very passionate about American politics and the political system, particularly Post-WWII American Foreign Policy. I choose not to get into debates on this board because I fear it would consume much more time than is healthy for me, but I fight the temptation every day. This thread is no exception...I will not be dragged into a political argument.

However, from a logical standpoint, the poster's argument does not hold. Just because the US government has facilitated the overthrow of democracies in the past does not mean Bush's policy holds no water. Now, whether or not GW has facilitated such an overthrow of a "democracy" (term used loosely) is debatable in and of itself, but poster's initial argument does not present two mutually exclusive clauses (which is necessary to logically establish hypocrisy). He applies America's past to Bush's policy.

I apologize for being a smart-ass.

Doug

[slavic]

Did you know that Iraq was a democracy? They had elections and everything. It just seems that the potential other candidates felt no need to run because the country was run so well.

Imagine that. Democracy run so well you don't need any Democracy.

[John Cole]

You could, of course, look at the spelling and recognize a sort of Joycean or Carrollian portmanteau word that says far more than it intends. (Think about it.)

[andyfox]

Note that poster entitled his post "United States of Hipocracy" [sic]. I think an excellent case can be made that the United States is being hypocritical in its current foreign policy.

W himself campagined for the presidency against nation-building, giving examples of what he saw of the deficiencies and failure of nation-building.

America's past, especially given the presence in the administration of many members of past administrations, is quite relevant to whether the administration's stated reason for its policies are hypocritical or not.

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
You could, of course, look at the spelling and recognize a sort of Joycean or Carrollian portmanteau word that says far more than it intends. (Think about it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: I cant believe someone caught on, bravo!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could, of course, look at the spelling and recognize a sort of Joycean or Carrollian portmanteau word that says far more than it intends. (Think about it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right! This bailout is the equivalent of catching a one-outer on the river.

[Oski]

Yes, I am sure the U.S. has not always acted 100% in accordance to its stated intentions when it comes to foreign politics. However, I think it is unfair "we" are not given the benefit of the doubt on anything.

As WWII wound down, there was one country legitimately taking the role of liberator and rebuilder - U.S.A. This country possessed the strongest army and had the most resources at that time. Did the U.S. insist on "occupying" any country as a spoil of war, ala Russia? Furthermore, U.S. took the lead role in forming rebuilding and reuniting. Countless dollars were spent in these efforts. As many historians have put it: "U.S.A.'s contributions to ending WWII and rebuiliding Europe is the new world's biggest and greatest gift to the old." Too many of our best men died giving this gift, for others to give U.S.A. the rub at every opportunity.

Perhaps if the Soviet Union had been more willing to give without demanding it be able to take in return, the U.S.A. would not have been forced to take some of its more questionable (of not paranoid) measures in the Cold War. A little slack should be given here.

As to the present, the U.S.A. has a delicate task of balancing the need to protect itself at home AND abroad. Much of the world should be THANKFUL the greatest power is willing to share its resources, money, and manpower to those who need it. Yes, WE have a vested interest in many of the "benevolent" deeds performed by our government, but what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with one taking measures to protect one's self interests - I am actually amazed at how relatively little the U.S.A. "interferes" with the rest of the world. At no time in history has there been a country that holds such an advantage in power over other countries, yet one that is willing to give much, and take so little in return.

Its easy to pick on the U.S.A., but, maybe you shouldn't. Too many of our people have sacrificed for the greater good of the world for us to be subject to this petty bullshit.

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]

Its easy to pick on the U.S.A., but, maybe you shouldn't. Too many of our people have sacrificed for the greater good of the world for us to be subject to this petty bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight, when the US decides it is more profitable financially to have a dictator in charge of Chile, and thousands of people are brutally murdered overnight, it is for "the greater good of the world?"

What about Panama, Guatemala, Nicarguga, Granada, Iran, Iraq?

Lets face it, the USA is a terrorist organization.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight, when the US decides it is more profitable financially to have a dictator in charge of Chile, and thousands of people are brutally murdered overnight, it is for "the greater good of the world?"

What about Panama, Guatemala, Nicarguga, Granada, Iran, Iraq?

Lets face it, the USA is a terrorist organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I meant; that is EXACTLY what I said; you are correct, that is EXACTLY what happened; that is EXACTLY why it happened; and of course, the U.S.A. is nothing but a terrorist organization. Now that you have clued me in, I guess I now realize that the U.S.A. is terrible at achieving its terrorist objectives. For example, I can think of many better ways to bring our citizens a $2.50 gallon of gasoline.

[daryn]

this is a joke right?

[John Cole]

No, your whoreship. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an excellent case can be made that the United States is being hypocritical in its current foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. To me hypocrisy implies the ability to reason thru and then do something that has a benefit, but is against stated principles and beliefs.

This govt is not hypocritical, it is just plain stupid (and criminally so).

[Robk]

Hi John,

I'm curious about your take on "threathen". Should I think about it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
When are the sheep of this country going to wake up?

[/ QUOTE ]

If only someone around here were smart enough to "catch on" to this metaphor.

[John Cole]

A combination of "threaten" and "brethren"?

[nicky g]

Bush did not have anything to do with the US's "anti-communist" antics, byut a large chunk of his administration did.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"anti-communist" antics

You consider opposition to the most murderous, inhuman system in history to be antics?

Communism needs to be destroyed wherever it exists.

[nicky g]

I don't consider communism to necessarily fit your description. But no, I was referring, ironically, to murderous US policies as antics. The reason I used quotation marks in "anti-communist" was that in the vast majority of cases the US was responding not to a real communist (and certainly not a Soviet) threat but to nationalistic non-aligned democratic leaders which it regarded as unfavourable to its business interests.

[superleeds]

The present government in the US would be considered to have some communists leanings. Social Security, Medi-care etc. Communism is an idealogy, it is not murderous and inhuman in itself. The world would be a truly murderous and inhuman place in your dog eat dog world, much as it has been for most of humankinds existence.

[andyfox]

My dictionary defines hypocrisy as "a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess." All governments, thus, are hypocritical. They define what they do as good and just whether or not it is. Our government claims it is defending democracy, for example, in Iraq, when it cares not a whit for democracy in Iraq. Our government has always claimed it was defending freedom and democracy when it was undermining freedom and democracy. The examples are legion.

[andyfox]

Invading another country under false pretense is not petty bullshit. The U.S., far from not interfering in the rest of the world, controls the world.

During the Cold War, the U.S. set the course of action and debate and led the arms race, the Soviet Union always struggling to catch up until they finally spent themselves into bankruptcy. What the Soviet Union was doing or not doing had absolutely nothing to do with what the United States did in a host of countries where millions of people suffered because of our illegal and immoral actions.

We live in a wonderful country that indeed has done wonderful things. My family has sacrificed plenty, both in World War II and other subsequent wars and military actions. One of the reasons they did so was so that you and I could be free to speak our minds about whatever petty bullshit we felt we wanted to speak about, in other words, to keep it a wonderful country.

But sometimes wonderful countries do terrible things. It would be criminal if we kept quiet about those things in the interest of not picking on the U.S.A. because of the sacrifices Americans made over the years. I would think those who sacrificed would want us to keep America America.

[Oski]

No doubt we have a difference of opinion. That is healthy. In fact, your statement is far from petty bullshit as you have set forth a defensible point of view, backed with argument and facts.

This is petty bullshit:

[ QUOTE ]
Question:
The USA has on several occasions directly taken part in the overthrowing of democracies and installation of dictators.

George Bush gets on TV and says that he wont allow terrorism to threathen democracy around the world.

Is there something wrong here? When are the sheep of this country going to wake up?

[/ QUOTE ]

These graffitti statements assume far too many facts to be of much use. Therefore, I can only believe the purpose is to lodge an "ad hominem" attack on the U.S.A. - it didn't take much effort or thought, but I am sure the poster feels real good about taking a cheap shot. Things are not absolute, there are can be many bad elements in something good. The whole venture is not necessarily spoiled as a result. Nor is our government and its policies inherently evil or a terrorist organization because it has failed to weield its power within one's expected boundaries.

Indeed, I will grant you the point of view that the U.S.A. controls the world. Fine, but my point is that it can control it exponentially more, if it so chooses. In fact, you will probably be hard pressed to name one country that has ever possessed so much power, yet has practiced so much restraint.

My original response it that far too often, U.S.A. is not given ANY benefit of the doubt. Instead, people think it is fine to take these cheap shots, showing total lack of respect for what this country has provided the rest of the world. If for nobody else, those who have sacrificed their lives (literally and figuratively) deserve some respect.

I am the last one to encourage others to keep quiet; a debate is healthy and IS what preserves this country. Blanket propaganda cheapshots do not do anyone any good. I do not need to go any farther than your post and the original post to point out the difference. So, thank you.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't consider communism to necessarily fit your description.

40 million murdered by Stalin USSR, 26 million by Mao's China. Cuba is a slave camp. What other evidence is needed?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The world would be a truly murderous and inhuman place in your dog eat dog world

My world is a world where everyone is free to live their lives as they choose providing they not initiate force of fraud on others. I see nothing murderous or dog-eat-dog about freedom.

[superleeds]

Yes it was a bad phrase on my part. The point I was trying (badly /images/graemlins/blush.gif) to make is that some of the basic ideas in communism are just socialist democratic themes in different clothing and all major mordern democracy's are socialist compared to any that existed 100 years ago. The world has drifted towards Communism rather than away from it and this has been a positive thing.

[nicky g]

Cuba is a disaster but it is not a slave camp by any means. That kind of exaggerated rhetoric, reserved largely for left-wing countries while friendly military dictatorships are conveniently ignored, as is Cuba's many positive achievements when compared to the rest of Latin America and in the face of economic strangulation (it is one of the best educated countries with the best health care systems and comparatively decent standards of living in teh region, and depite the dictaroship has not suffered anything like the scale of repression and murders that plagues the predecessor Batista regime and the US-backed generals' governments), turns a huge number of people againt genuine democratisation efforts.

As for communism in general, the problem with your blanket condemnation is that communism is at core simply an economic ideology. It is different from say Nazism, which specifically refers to all the policies associated with the German Nazi party between the first and second wars. If you're referring to Stalinism or the repression associated with Soviet-dominated countries and parties or Maoism then to a large extent I agree with you - certainly some of the greatest evils to have befallen mankind. But that hardly encompasses all known "communist" countries and groups. Marxist economics, though in the main wrong-headed, is not the same as Soviet slaugter. Furthermore with a large number of non-Soviet aligned countries, and in effect any regime to which the US was hostile during the old War, labeled as "communist" by the right-wing, the term has become vague and simply a subjective expression of disapproval in the same way that fascism has on the left, and terrorism has in the last 20 years.

Apart from that, any thoughts on the subject we started with, nanely the non-totalitarian democratic regimes the US overthrew and the millions of political activists and civilians that died in its fight against "communism"?

[Boris]

So you would advocate going to war against China immediately?

[John Cole]

Andy,

Once again, you have your facts wrong: Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviets. Yet, you persist in ranting about the Soviet economy. I learned this from the conservatives. In fact, I've decided to join them. Maybe I, too, can land a job on MSNBC.

Seriously, nice post and glad to see you a bit pissed.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
you will probably be hard pressed to name one country that has ever possessed so much power, yet has practiced so much restraint.


[/ QUOTE ]

You would probably be hard pressed to name one country that has ever possessed as much power as the United States. I think it would be annoying if everyone had to preface a criticism with "I love this country and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else, but..." True, the original post in this thread was far from a disortation, but it must be accepted that there is some truth to it, even if no examples were initially provided as evidence. Now if I went off and said, "The US sucks and has never done anything good for the world," that would be something different alltogether.

[Oski]

Interesting point, I think you missed mine. I am not
a patriot, I would rather live in Europe. My wife is
Slovene, and we are working towards moving there
permanently. I don't care whether you love U.S.A., or
not, I just think people tend to set forth blanket
statements which serve no useful purpose, which are
intended as disrespect.

This world is much more complicated than to say, "this
was done for "x" reason, this was done for "y" reason.
As the dominate world power, the U.S. has to make
some difficult choices and act accordingly. It is my
belief that many, if not most of these choices are
intended to accomplish "the best" thing, whether, or
not that "best" thing happens to be in the U.S.A's
best self interest - just because there is often,
apparently, "something in it" for the U.S. does not
mean this is the driving factor for the action.
Whether I am right or wrong about my belief is
irrelevant; I do think the U.S.A. has earned the
benefit of the doubt as to its motives. Accusations
to the contrary should be founded on more than ad
hominem attacks.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather live in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too! /images/graemlins/grin.gif. But seriously, I did misinterpret you a bit and for that I apologize. In my experience it just seems that most who object to any serious criticism of the US lean a bit too far towards jingoism. Then again, their typical response is along the lines of: "Go to hell you commie traitor!" I should have known you'd be more reasonable than a mindless "patriot." You are right that blatant inflamatory attacks on the government with no real basis are meaningless, though I do not really object to people making them as long as they don't cross the line in to racism or something similar. Mostly I just didn't think that this case particularly qualified. Nobody was saying that the US is horrible, just that there have been some fishy things going on. Maybe the post willfully avoided comments on the good we've done (I don't really think so), amd maybe it wasn't full of specifics, but it was not completely unfounded or overly filled with anger (at least I didn't get that impression). I think that nearly every flaming liberal out there in fact holds a deep respect and love for this country (where else could they be such bastards?) and that is why they debate it's failings so much. They care about making things better (or else they're all horrible, masochistic, cynics. Or maybe both). Hell even a few moderates (that would be me, though some on here might not agree), or even (gasp) conservatives will occsionally gripe about things that they don't like.

I do think it's a little naive to claim that most of our choices are in the best interest of the world. They may well be in the best interests of the United States and even in the best interest of its citizens, but who are we to judge what the world needs done? The Marshall plan probably was by far the greatest (relatively) unselfish act performed by the US, and that still had its economic basis. Given the amount of trade we had with Europe, we couldn't afford to have it destroyed.

Anyway, I appreciate your point, I merely think that you jumped the gun a little. I sensed no attempts to disrespect the country. Make sure you tell all of us here where the good card rooms are when you get to Europe. Remember, it's only libel if it isn't true /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Cheers.

Taxman

[Chris Alger]

Well put. Cuba certainly isn't any more of a "slave camp" than Saudi Arabia, which in turn treats its people with more civility than Israel treats the 4 million denizens of the territories. That the U.S. is today the largest arms supplier and protector of both countries says way more about its concern for democracy and freedom than all the hot air about Castro during the last 40 years.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
As for communism in general, the problem with your blanket condemnation is that communism is at core simply an economic ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second, are you saying that there really isn't an international communist conspiracy or never was one /images/graemlins/smile.gif? Were all efforts directed at such a conspiracy misguided then? Ok I'll buy that argument for the most part.

IMO as an economic system, communism is more viable in a country like Cuba than say the former Soviet Union.

Your post was very good IMO.