Do Americans have a feeling of superiority over others, or a sense of Manifest Destiny to this day? — René Descartes
Why do Americans need to be so involved in other nations affairs? — René Descartes
Why is America a hypocritical country? — René Descartes
When will America cease it's Imperial ambitions? — René Descartes
Who will take over from America IF they ever collapse? — René Descartes
When will Americans realise what they are doing is wrong? — René Descartes
Do Americans have a feeling of superiority over others, or a sense of Manifest Destiny to this day? — René Descartes
Why do Americans need to be so involved in other nations affairs? — René Descartes
Why is America a hypocritical country? — René Descartes
When will America cease it's Imperial ambitions? — René Descartes
Who will take over from America IF they ever collapse? — René Descartes
When will Americans realise what they are doing is wrong? — René Descartes
I'm fine if America invades a country, just don't make up bullshit to justify it. Simply say: "We would like to invade this country because we feel like it. There are lots of materials, human labour and strategic positions, and we want all of it. We also want to press the native people as we are superior to them and we need them to make computers and fridges for us. We also have a more powerful army, so its easy for us to invade this country as they can't do anything about it. That's why we want to invade this country. We have no care for local populations, and collateral damage means nothing to us, it's just a statistic." — René Descartes
There is no other rational basis for a powerful country to act, really, except in its own best interest. Our best interest lay in organizing the world to suit our economic, military, and political needs. The foreign policy of a nation, or empire, may very well be immoral by individuals standards (there are numerous examples). But nations have interests, and that's what they pursue. — Bitter Crank
Another problem in people's thinking about foreign policy (among other things) is that they 'personalize the behavior of nations'. "The United States is a bully." Syria is crazy." "France is snobbish." "Italians aren't serious." and so on. Diminishing a nation by characterizing it as an annoying person gives one simple objects to think about, but gets in the way of a complex nuanced view of reality.
Let me be the first to admit -- I too have difficulty remembering that nations have interests, not friends. It's just easier to think about world affairs in simplified form. — Bitter Crank
They who represent a nation in the world represent a vast array of interests. Somehow they must act to benefit as many of the particular interest the people have as possible. Every other nation has the same situation. — Bitter Crank
You are correct that this characterization creates the flawed oversimplified perception: as if nations and their governments, even those run by despots, would have one specific agenda or idea what is best for the nation and hence somehow would behave in that manner as coherently as a person. Even a dictator cannot steer one countries actual policies and it's outcomes how he wants it. Every dictator has his powerbase that he has to keep "happy", which likely isn't agreeing in everything even if it's appearing to give thunderous applause to everything the dictator does. In every country there are competing factions with different agendas.Diminishing a nation by characterizing it as an annoying person gives one simple objects to think about, but gets in the way of a complex nuanced view of reality. — Bitter Crank
gone to bed, but let me expand a bit on why some think that nations can not be judged by personal, individual standards.
A nation may be composed of 10 million, 300 million or a billion. More and less. The government represents the varied interests of its citizens. The government also contains separate interests such as the judicial system, the military, health agencies, economic agencies, and so forth. The citizens carry out all sorts of business, cultural, industrial, agricultural, activities, just to mention a few.
They who represent a nation in the world represent a vast array of interests. Somehow they must act to benefit as many of the particular interest the people have as possible. Every other nation has the same situation.
So, if a powerful nation (like Great Britain--back when it was great, or France, or the Soviet Union, or the United States can advance the good of its people's varied interests, it should and it will. That may mean empire; it may mean military dominance; it may mean financial dominance, and so on.
You and I can personally apply our ethical standards to our own situations and behave accordingly. We are only responsible to ourselves and several others, while the state executive is responsible to millions, or billions.
This sounds somewhat a-moral, and perhaps it is. But large nation states are at the top of the moral food chain, and who above them can judge? Only other large nation states are in a position to judge in a way that will possibly make a difference. Holland could denounce Nazi Germany, but UK, the USSR, and the USA were in a position to punish Germany for invading Poland. (Yes, I realize we didn't join the war just then.) — Bitter Crank
Because I find there to be this tendency to "be for and against" when looking at countries. So if your critical about the US, that means people aren't going to be critical about those countries opposing the US (or vice versa) — ssu
For the last time, who said this? Who? — René Descartes
Hear, hear.In their haste to condemn the US for being a military imperialist racist sexist regime, they overlook the horrors of what Syrians various factions are doing, and what the Assad regime is doing to Syrians. — Bitter Crank
Then cut out the bullshit justifications and call it what it is. Oh, and quit chastising other countries for doing the same as you, i.e pursuing their own interests. — CuddlyHedgehog
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one earth on which to live
"Country X has done this bad thing" - "Meh. The US is responsible for far worse!" — ssu
And yes, prominent people working in academia and activism take his politics very seriously (though they diverge from the mainstream) The idea that he's only well respected in linguistics and his outside political work only amounts to popular polemics is just being a silly ignoramus. He's done joint discussions and interviews with people like Yanis Varoufakis, Ha-Joon Chang, Stephen Zunes, Richard Falk, and many others. — Saphsin
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.