Favorite Conspiracy Theories

[luke warm]

mike makes my all star team

[pbleighton]

"The Southern states voted, I repeat, voted to leave the Union. This means that most of the voting public in the South voted for leaving the Union voluntarily."

 

Make that "most of the white voting public".

 

Oh, never mind.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"are you basing your assertion strictly on america's borders, and those people conquered during their establishment? what makes america an empire, in your opinion?"

 

Well, the Native American history is in response to your assertion that

"some of the very things we are criticized for came about because of the imperialistic bents of countries such as england and france... they both have empires in their histories... we don't"

Manifest destiny? 50 million to 100 million Native Americans when the Europeans arrived, and by the end of the 19th century less than 2 million, mostly living on reservations? How is this not traditional imperialism?

 

As to the imperialism by proxy which has been our preferred methodology outside our borders - we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire) as long as we continue to overthrow governments of foreign countries we don't like, and prop up corrupt, unpopular dictatorships (as we are still doing in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to name just two). As I said in an earlier post:

 

"We are finding out in Iraq that is very, very difficult to do traditional imperialism - which is much tougher when the natives have Uzis and explosives instead of bows and arrows - we learned this in Vietnam (and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan, the French were expelled from Algeria, etc.), but we seem to need a refresher course in reality."

 

We are not "the same thing" as the Roman Empire - so what? The Roman Empire couldn't exist today - modern technology makes it impossible. We (sometimes) seem to try to come as close as possible - naive geopolitical puppetmaster nonsense which always seems to blow up in our faces - see the installation of the Shah of Iran in the 50's, the arming and training by the CIA of Al Queda and the support of the Taliban in the 80's, etc. It goes in cycles - prior to Bush 2, we had actually been calming down. Now, however...

 

Maybe the Iraq fiasco will bring us to our senses, at least for another 20 years.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"I was also thinking that this thread made me feel kind of sad. I felt like there were things I wanted to say, but that no matter how carefully I worded my post people wouldn't think about what I meant, but would attack it, until I was no longer saying what I meant but was simply entrenched in a position. It's nice when discussions are discussions and not debates."

 

Too bad you feel that way. I suggest (in good faith) that you, and others who are offended by vigorous political debate, stop reading this post. Don't EVER read unmoderated internet newsgroups on politics - they make this thread look like Sunday school.

 

Speaking for myself, I am enjoying this thread. My feelings haven't been hurt at all, and I haven't meant to hurt anyone else's feelings. But, stuff happens :)

 

Peter

[luke warm]

i looked up 'imperialist' and found

 

The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor".

 

america has no emperor and is not an empire... i don't believe that the use of military force, in and of itself, is grounds for labeling the u.s. as imperialistic... doing so is simply subjective... subjectivism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does carry with it preconceptual connotations, and it can call into question ones motives... even though it isn't always possible to be objective, it should be possible to make the attempt...

 

it somehow seems ingenious to say, "we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire)" while ignoring the fact that this adjective is commonly used when people refer to the 'american empire'... so using the adjective at least implies the noun... and since 'empires' can be viewed historically, it's easy to see that america does not fall into that category

 

while "imperialism by proxy" has a nice ring to it, there is an inherent contradiction in the terms... since iraq is in the news, use it as an example... america isn't seeking to make iraq the 51st state, we don't want them paying homage to us, or taxes, or anything else... we want a free iraq...

 

who is it exactly who doesn't want freedom in iraq? is it the majority of its citizens? iow, does this majority long for the old days under saddam, prior to the imperialistic invasion by the usa? or do the majority of iraqis want a free, democratic country?

 

does america gain with a democratic society in the middle east? absolutely... as a matter of fact, the world gains... the more democracies that exist, the more freedom that exists, the safer and saner the world becomes... in such a world, all profit...

 

time after time we see and hear evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people in iraq want self-rule.. they do not want a dictator, they want a democratic government... who stands to lose by such an arrangement? the terrorists who are pulling out all the stops to keep the people under their control (yes terrorists... i refuse to use the pc word 'insurgents')... so a minority (the martial terrorists) seek to keep the majority enslaved, a majority that longs for freedom

 

imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires...

[Rain]

"I was also thinking that this thread made me feel kind of sad. I felt like there were things I wanted to say, but that no matter how carefully I worded my post people wouldn't think about what I meant, but would attack it, until I was no longer saying what I meant but was simply entrenched in a position. It's nice when discussions are discussions and not debates."

 

Too bad you feel that way. I suggest (in good faith) that you, and others who are offended by vigorous political debate, stop reading this post. Don't EVER read unmoderated internet newsgroups on politics - they make this thread look like Sunday school.

 

Speaking for myself, I am enjoying this thread. My feelings haven't been hurt at all, and I haven't meant to hurt anyone else's feelings. But, stuff happens ;)

 

Peter

I believe someone like me remains calm most of the time, not easily roused to anger, because I have no deep belief in anything. Often when I see someone getting angry about a cause they believe is just (not applicable to random illogical outbursts aimed at hurting others), I actually feel envy and admiration.

 

To stand up for what you believe is right, even if you're currently only doing so in this 2D internet world. That's admirable, even if the beliefs held are all a mess; the key is that you believed in something so passionately that you bothered to speak.

[the saint]

I think what I was trying to say was that every nation has done things in the past that it can't be proud of, but the people involved have to try to put it behind them and learn from it. We can't go bearing grudges from 100, 200 years ago. The world is a different place now.

 

While we all want peace here, I think people recognise that some are not able to defend themselves, and it is incumbent on the more powerful nations to resolve these issues, and then those who do not intervene must not criticise someone else for trying to help.

 

The one heartening thing here is that irrespective of individual beliefs, races, religions, on this board everyone is thinking towards the same goal. BridgeBase Forum users for World Peace. I think it might work!

[sceptic]

my theory is that like all civilisations, this one will flounder and fail like all before it, when the winners have come to power (USA, China or who ever comes next), what will happen is greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery will rule (signs of this I believe are already showing) and when that happens all will be lost, until the next idealistic civilisation comes to be, (unfortunately when all starts to go down the pan big time, the nuclear weapons we have will be used as no one has anything to lose anymore and mankind has a very good self destruct button (and I dont mean the one at George Bushes finger tip)

 

One point everyone seems to miss about the British, US etc example is, that to have wealth you have to have poverty, no one can be rich with out someone else living in poverty, no one can be strong without someone else being weak.

 

I do not believe that charity helps anyone in the long run, take Africa as an example, we send out Aid, to corroupt governments and the countries that are not corrupt, what do theose people do?, they emigrate to earn money and the ones that do this are the young and fit (are these not the people you really want to remain in their countries to stay and rebuild for a better future??

 

I honestly think that we all should stop trying to interfere with other peoples lives, unless we are honest and say, we don't really give a ***** about you, but we want to use your oil (or whatever they have to offer) until it runs out and then you are of no further use to us and we will let you go back to the dark ages.

 

if we get a wonderful model where everyone is equal, everyone has a good standard of living (which they dont have to get off their asses for) that is when this will happen greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery

[csdenmark]

This thread should probably be shut down as it could get very vicious. There are things I want to say, but my manners preclude me from doing so. I am sure this is so for many others. Let's leave this alone.

 

Sean

Certainly not. To me this kind of debate reflects why politic is so difficult. What we have learned from the Mohammed riots lately is that exchange of views are what we really need. Bid-sequences of bridge are mostly just empty statements. Those threads you will be blessed by me advocating to close.

 

Even the debate here turns from one topic to another one we learn much more about cultural differences in the world here than anywhere else in Forum. I am happy to see that some of the bridge players are more than just puppets. It is also very interesting to me to learn a bit about those americans who are backing USA. Those americans I normally have conversations with tends very much to agree with me and that I learn very little from.

 

You see I very much agree with Peter but it is statements from Jimmy which are of most interest to me.

[the saint]

my theory is that like all civilisations, this one will flounder and fail like all before it, when the winners have come to power (USA, China or who ever comes next), what will happen is greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery will rule (signs of this I believe are already showing) and when that happens all will be lost, until the next idealistic civilisation comes to be, (unfortunately when all starts to go down the pan big time, the nuclear weapons we have will be used as no one has anything to lose anymore and mankind has a very good self destruct button (and I dont mean the one at George Bushes finger tip)

 

One point everyone seems to miss about the British, US etc example is, that to have wealth you have to have poverty, no one can be rich with out someone else living in poverty, no one can be strong without someone else being weak.

 

I do not believe that charity helps anyone in the long run, take Africa as an example, we send out Aid, to corroupt governments and the countries that are not corrupt, what do theose people do?, they emigrate to earn money and the ones that do this are the young and fit (are these not the people you really want to remain in their countries to stay and rebuild for a better future??

 

I honestly think that we all should stop trying to interfere with other peoples lives, unless we are honest and say, we don't really give a ***** about you, but we want to use your oil (or whatever they have to offer) until it runs out and then you are of no further use to us and we will let you go back to the dark ages.

 

if we get a wonderful model where everyone is equal, everyone has a good standard of living (which they dont have to get off their asses for) that is when this will happen greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery

I'm not as pessimistic as you.

 

I think we are different to the species of 100 years ago. We are slowly gaining a conscience. Hiroshima and Nagasaki told us that for the first time we have the power to anihilate everything on the planet, so we have a responsibility not to.

I think it is too early to say the whole planet shares this view, and I also believe that man will come close a couple more times to killing himself before everyone wakes up.

 

Although 'the Bomb' woke up the developed world that was engaged in WWII, many parts of the world did not get the same wake up call and I fear they may need to have their own very public disasters before things get better.

 

I also fear that we will have to go through an ecological holocaust before we understand what we have been doing to ourselves. Man will survive it as we have the ability and technology to do so. But we will be a changed animal. Hopefully for the better. I suspect we will gain the ability to manipulate the Earth's climate within a couple of centuries.

 

What will have to happen are events of such a global magnitude that affect every living soul, that collectively we will say 'Enough is enough'. The process has started. It will just be a painful one.

[csdenmark]

i looked up 'imperialist' and found

 

The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor".

 

america has no emperor and is not an empire... i don't believe that the use of military force, in and of itself, is grounds for labeling the u.s. as imperialistic... doing so is simply subjective... subjectivism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does carry with it preconceptual connotations, and it can call into question ones motives... even though it isn't always possible to be objective, it should be possible to make the attempt...

 

it somehow seems ingenious to say, "we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire)" while ignoring the fact that this adjective is commonly used when people refer to the 'american empire'... so using the adjective at least implies the noun... and since 'empires' can be viewed historically, it's easy to see that america does not fall into that category

 

while "imperialism by proxy" has a nice ring to it, there is an inherent contradiction in the terms... since iraq is in the news, use it as an example... america isn't seeking to make iraq the 51st state, we don't want them paying homage to us, or taxes, or anything else... we want a free iraq...

 

who is it exactly who doesn't want freedom in iraq? is it the majority of its citizens? iow, does this majority long for the old days under saddam, prior to the imperialistic invasion by the usa? or do the majority of iraqis want a free, democratic country?

 

does america gain with a democratic society in the middle east? absolutely... as a matter of fact, the world gains... the more democracies that exist, the more freedom that exists, the safer and saner the world becomes... in such a world, all profit...

 

time after time we see and hear evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people in iraq want self-rule.. they do not want a dictator, they want a democratic government... who stands to lose by such an arrangement? the terrorists who are pulling out all the stops to keep the people under their control (yes terrorists... i refuse to use the pc word 'insurgents')... so a minority (the martial terrorists) seek to keep the majority enslaved, a majority that longs for freedom

 

imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires...

I like to see you feel deep solidarity with your country. I feel the same way for Denmark. But unlike you I think it is my responsibility to help friends to avoid problems. Simply to test the wisdom of proposed actions.

 

If you want to be helpful to America you ought to pledge for US not to go abroad unless:

 

a manifest will of those people to support

 

citizens of US to apply to important international treaties like Geneva convention and international war tribunal

 

There are at least one good example of interference by US. That is supporting Solidarnosc during whole 1980's. A succesful outcome we are greatful of - tumbling down the Berlin Wall. This was not done by military power but wisely done behind the curtains.

 

US have failed not to support manifest will of the people:

 

Hungary in 1956

Czekoslovakia in 1968

Iraq in 1991

 

US has intervened against a manifest will of the people

 

Chile 1973

 

 

I think US ought to be more reluctant to police outside their borders. Please remember the mandate for an american president is 25% of US citizens now, earlier even smaller. Such will in a european context qualify for nothing else than cancellation of the election due to low turnout.

[pbleighton]

"imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires... "

 

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom. They were about toppling regimes we didn't like. In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments. In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate. Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

 

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

 

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed. This is also seen in the history of the other major post WW II imperialistic power, the former Soviet Union. I'm sure that they would have liked to extend their borders in the old-fashioned Roman/British way, but they (like us) realized that it wasn't feasible. They became puppetmasters instead.

 

So we have some recent company.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom.  They were about toppling regimes we didn't like.  In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments.  In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate.  Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

 

the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution... in any event, i believe it's simplistic to attach evil motives to the '53 coup without taking into account all that was happening (ussr, the tudeh party, etc) at that time...

 

vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war

 

the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though, and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)... this is another case of us involvement based on perceived national interest

 

nicaragua is no different from the above in that the events of the time have to be factored in... it's easy to look back and say what one would or would not do... it's another thing to take into account the very real threat of coummunist expansion into this hemisphere (where one cuba was thought to be one too many)

 

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

 

now it's possible that if you were running the show during any of those moments, your decisions would have been different... it's also possible that your decisions would have resulted in a better, safer, united states... but somehow i doubt it

 

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

over troubled waters? i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all? i suppose one could argue whether or not a certain thing (say, for example, foreign oil) *should* be important to us... i wish it wasn't, personally... but the fact is, we are dependent upon commodities outside our own borders.... so yes, the reason for the invasion of iraq was multi-faceted... overthrow hussein, secure a vital commodity, hope to implant a democratic society in that region

 

i am not smart enough to know the long-range results of either acting or not... i suspect it's barely possible that you aren't either... but i think it's probably wise to set priorities when speaking of decisions made by a country... what would yours be? would decisions concerning america's national security and/or interests be high on your list? i'd think they should be high on any leader's list, else s/he might not be the one for the job

 

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed.

perhaps so, but it helps to be discussing the same thing... for that reason, i object to the use of the term 'imperialistic'

 

i think the saint's posts have been reasoned and sum up a lot of my beliefs... like him, i'm basically optimistic about our future, tho like wayne i do worry that all civilizations carry within themselves the ability to collapse... i just think that one based on freedom, given the power to maintain that freedom, does not have to fall

[csdenmark]

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

[mike777]

Since this is the "Conspiracy Thread" I hope some of you will check out and post in my "Singularity is Near" thread.

 

1) A conspiracy of Nanobots?

2) A conspiracy of Strong AI?

3) A conspiracy of clones?

4) A conspiracy of humans with implanted digitial chips and robotic parts?

 

I think we all can come up with a lot more conspiracy theories :).

[luke warm]

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)

[pbleighton]

"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"

 

Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.

 

"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"

 

Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.

 

"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"

 

A plurality is a victory in a democracy.

 

" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"

 

The CIA had more than a minor role here.

 

"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"

 

No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

 

It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.

 

Peter

[csdenmark]

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?

it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)

Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.

 

For me danish natural interests are quite different than those assumed to be national interests for my political opponents. Fx. danish involvement in wars in general but especially long from danish borders.

 

The danish EU involvement is another topic where the arguments goes like yours. That project has a long term perspective to make an end of Denmark as an sovereign nation. Such is a political view shared by our right-wing intellectual elite. Their perspectives for the future I certainly don't share. They are frightening and I am completely unable to see the interests of a nation to make an end of itself.

 

Sorry Jimmy - the way I understand you I cannot buy your argument. The way I see the world is that a decision benefitting somebody is to disadvantage to others. I think it cannot be in any other way. 1$ can be used for this or that but not for this and that.

[csdenmark]

"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"

 

Constitution?  The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.

 

"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"

 

Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave.  My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.

 

"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"

 

A plurality is a victory in a democracy.

 

" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"

 

The CIA had more than a minor role here.

 

"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"

 

No.  What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century.  We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country.  We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense.  Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position.  It is also imperialistic.  Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

 

It is morally wrong.  It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two.  When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind.  This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well.  During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably.  He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant.  In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.

 

Peter

Peter it looks to me that there are only slight differences in your descriptions of facts compared to Jimmy's.

 

It would be of very much interest to me if you would be able to get a bit deeper into the decision structures. American political system is very different to what we have here. Lobby-groups, think-tanks, limit public debate, over-political presidential leadership.

 

I often wonder why it looks like american president acts very strange. It looks like their most quailified decision is the appointment of an often very well-qualified foreign secretary. Is it so that foreign secretary is mostly independent of think-tanks and the political parties and financers but only needs to pay attention to lobby groups?

[luke warm]

No.  What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century.

"wrong" is a moral judgment, so i'll address that later

 

We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country.  We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense.

not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here

 

Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position.  It is also imperialistic.  Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.

which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views

 

It is morally wrong.

now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?

 

Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.

i know there isn't any bad will, claus.. what i meant by my post was that the decisions made by the leaders of this country have spanned ideological views... this can be seen by examining under whose watch certain things were done...

[pbleighton]

"which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views"

 

I never said that it didn't (to a certain extent) span the political spectrum IN THIS COUNTRY (though there has always been significant dissent, mostly on the left). There may be a consensus regarding a particular issues, or cluster of issues, in a particular country, but that does not make such consensus position non-ideological - it merely says that a substantial majority of people in one particular country during a particular period of time shared a particular ideological position. It seems that you are confusing political consensus with some sort of nonideological "objectivity". What I call imperialism, or puppetmastery, and you call the agressive pursuit of national interest though miltiary and economic force, is an inherently ideological issue. It cannot be otherwise. It is a complex issue with many strrongly held ideas on both sides.

 

"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"

 

I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.

 

"not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here"

 

Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries. In other words, the importance the quality of life, security, etc. of American people is so much greater than that of other people, that we should ignore the effect on foreigners in our moral calculus. This, by the way, is a profoundly ideological position.

 

It doesn't take much in the way of historical example to demonstrate how silly this blanket absolution is. Would you like me to do so?

 

BTW, I may be incommunicado for most of next week - I will respond as I can today, then you will have to wait for my delicious morsels of wisdom :)

 

Peter

[luke warm]

"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"

 

I said nothing about measurement.  It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself).  It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.

 

 

well you did say, "It is morally wrong." ... perhaps that sentiment is merely an opinion, but it's stated as a fact... all i asked was, whose morality are you using to measure this against?

 

it appears to me that to make an appeal to morality one must take the position that such a thing exists... if that's your position, i agree with you... but then, as c.s. lewis might have said, i have some idea of the appearance of a straight stick, which makes it easier to recognize the crooked one

 

from a philosophical point of view, i agree that the usa has performed acts of questionable morality... i happen to believe the ends do not justify the means... but my arguments to date haven't been based on my persona beliefs, but on whether or not the usa has acted in what it perceives to be its nat'l interest, and whether such acts could be labeled 'imperialistic'

 

Your position appears to boil down to this:  if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries.

no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light ... "for all have sinned..." - nations as well as individuals - "... and fallen short of the glory of God"

 

i will be gone the entire month of april, myself... not *gone*, but away from home for odd hours, sometimes overnight... it's a busy month for me

[pbleighton]

"no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

 

Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

 

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage......

 

Peter

[luke warm]

whether or not that's true, i'd still be interested in knowing upon what you base this ethereal concept of 'morality'...

[pbleighton]

As Potter Stewart said of pornography, it is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it...

 

Why does discussing the moral dimension of foreign policy make you so nervous?

 

Peter