Considering the Balance
Shemalelover:
i know that the US, as any other nation, is far from being perfect and has its own
share of the blame to carry ...
Afriend:
And that is what I thought we were disussing. Your original statement of "So,therefore,
i don't understand all this criticisism about the US when we all profit from what it has
given us over time!" implies that when both the positive and negatives are considered
the balance is so far in the positive that current criticism is ungrateful.
Shemalelover:
But the States themselves have never pretended to be perfect ...
Afriend:
True ... most Americans I've met have claimed to have the best system, not a perfect
system. However, other than noting that the US is not a hypocrite on this point,
it is not relevant to where the balance of positive and negative contributions lie.
Shemalelover:
...the US has always made itself an advocate of democracy and nothing else.
And it is through the spread of democracy that it knows it can continue to prosper.
Afriend:
A reading of the last fifty years of American intervention in Latin American
countries refutes that the Americans are only an advocate of democracy.
Please explain how training, supplying and co-ordinating the overthrow of a
democratically elected government - followed by forty years of training/supplying/friendly
relations with the military who have taken over spreads democracy? Bear in mind that in
the forty years of military rule, there was no attempt to institute a democracy nor to overthrow
the military government. Add to this that the military government, over and above
torturing/killing hundreds of thousands of their own (the total number will never be known)
- they torture/kill something on the order of twenty American citizens. Now start multiplying
this by several other countries.
Where is the advocacy/spread of democracy and nothing else in this presidentially mandated
or supported (depending on which president you are talking about in the forty years)
foreign policy?
Shemalelover:
As for the rest, it is really an intricate mesh of money, power, interests, greed, relations,etc.;
... but i'm just saying that those types of abuses will, unfortunately, always arise due to the
what i call "l'hommerie" ( or the essence of man at its worst).
But you are the one who said the balance is positive to the point that criticism is thankless.
I am providing examples of US government policy/action which has had a negative impact. Some
are minor (ex. LSD/PCP experiment test subjects - fortunately the proposal to field test LSD/PCP
by dusting a US city was turned down) and some are major (ex. forty years of death squads
torturing/killing opposition party leaders, labour organisers, family members picking up the
multilated corpses from the ditch by the road for burial etc).
If the US abuses are dismissed as they "will, unfortunately, always arise", then on what basis do you claim that "we all benefit"?
Shemalelover:
However, what people like Hitler, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Napoleon, etc. did for the
sake of power, control and conquering new territories, at least the States do it for the sake
of democracy... at least that's what they claim.
And if you research the interventions, particularly in Latin America, a military government
which is not elected nor democratic but has US multinational friendly policies is tolerable
whereas a democratically elected government which is trying to improve the lot of it's citizens by
introducing competition/land reform must be overthrown. This is not for the sake of democracy.
But again, this is a side discussion. Our discussion is not the claimed motives nor if any other
country has done this. The discussion is whether on balance the US has been such a positive
influence that criticism is ungrateful.
... and I still think that the answer is going to depend on where in the world youare and what the results for you personally are of US policy.
Shemalelover:
i know that the US, as any other nation, is far from being perfect and has its own
share of the blame to carry ...
Afriend:
And that is what I thought we were disussing. Your original statement of "So,therefore,
i don't understand all this criticisism about the US when we all profit from what it has
given us over time!" implies that when both the positive and negatives are considered
the balance is so far in the positive that current criticism is ungrateful.
Shemalelover:
But the States themselves have never pretended to be perfect ...
Afriend:
True ... most Americans I've met have claimed to have the best system, not a perfect
system. However, other than noting that the US is not a hypocrite on this point,
it is not relevant to where the balance of positive and negative contributions lie.
Shemalelover:
...the US has always made itself an advocate of democracy and nothing else.
And it is through the spread of democracy that it knows it can continue to prosper.
Afriend:
A reading of the last fifty years of American intervention in Latin American
countries refutes that the Americans are only an advocate of democracy.
Please explain how training, supplying and co-ordinating the overthrow of a
democratically elected government - followed by forty years of training/supplying/friendly
relations with the military who have taken over spreads democracy? Bear in mind that in
the forty years of military rule, there was no attempt to institute a democracy nor to overthrow
the military government. Add to this that the military government, over and above
torturing/killing hundreds of thousands of their own (the total number will never be known)
- they torture/kill something on the order of twenty American citizens. Now start multiplying
this by several other countries.
Where is the advocacy/spread of democracy and nothing else in this presidentially mandated
or supported (depending on which president you are talking about in the forty years)
foreign policy?
Shemalelover:
As for the rest, it is really an intricate mesh of money, power, interests, greed, relations,etc.;
... but i'm just saying that those types of abuses will, unfortunately, always arise due to the
what i call "l'hommerie" ( or the essence of man at its worst).
But you are the one who said the balance is positive to the point that criticism is thankless.
I am providing examples of US government policy/action which has had a negative impact. Some
are minor (ex. LSD/PCP experiment test subjects - fortunately the proposal to field test LSD/PCP
by dusting a US city was turned down) and some are major (ex. forty years of death squads
torturing/killing opposition party leaders, labour organisers, family members picking up the
multilated corpses from the ditch by the road for burial etc).
If the US abuses are dismissed as they "will, unfortunately, always arise", then on what basis do you claim that "we all benefit"?
Shemalelover:
However, what people like Hitler, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Napoleon, etc. did for the
sake of power, control and conquering new territories, at least the States do it for the sake
of democracy... at least that's what they claim.
And if you research the interventions, particularly in Latin America, a military government
which is not elected nor democratic but has US multinational friendly policies is tolerable
whereas a democratically elected government which is trying to improve the lot of it's citizens by
introducing competition/land reform must be overthrown. This is not for the sake of democracy.
But again, this is a side discussion. Our discussion is not the claimed motives nor if any other
country has done this. The discussion is whether on balance the US has been such a positive
influence that criticism is ungrateful.
... and I still think that the answer is going to depend on where in the world youare and what the results for you personally are of US policy.
