5 ms·

Every time these sorts of things come up, we see contemporary Americans excusing the actions of their state as 'admissible under the circumstances' .. however,

Every time these sorts of things come up, we see contemporary Americans excusing the actions of their state as 'admissible under the circumstances' .. however, one has to wonder just what form of circumstances would be appropriate for this to be happening to the United States, i.e. - if a foreign state had done this to the US, would it be acceptable? No, of course not - not ever. So, the point of these stories seems to be to point out the hypocrisy of the current generation of Americans - who justify American supremacy at the cost of a great deal of moral altitude. Surely this bubble is going to burst, one day, and we won't have a generation of Americans who justify the crimes of their state against others', but rather accept responsibility and actually put the actors in jail? One can only hope.

throwanem 10y ago
I hope it's a very long time before acting to further the interests of the United States becomes a crime in the United States. Edited to add: And I'm really surprised to see several people, I doubt any of whom would find positive connotations in the phrase "American exceptionalism", nonetheless arguing by trivial implication that the United States should unilaterally engage in military operations, within the territory of a sovereign state then being courted toward alliance, in order to change the outcome of a secessionist insurrection then taking place within that state.
- vkou 10y ago
  Even if they perpetuate genocide? War crimes? Internment and liquidation of troublemakers and undesirables? All of these things have furthered the interests of the nation states that carried them out.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  You hopefully know that a lot of things that are sold as in the interest of the US are not really in the interest of it but only in the interest of some politicians or other players.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Only a fool would think otherwise. But I don't see how that's significant here; opening diplomatic relations with China in the midst of the Cold War was very much in the interests of the United States.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Participating in the Cold War at all, however, was not. "Interests" are not self-justifying.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        I eagerly await your argument for how unconstrained Soviet imperial expansion into Western Europe would've advanced US interests.
        fit2rule 10y ago
        It would have further allowed the continued justification of western imperialism as a 'reaction' ..
        throwanem 10y ago
        ...which, if true, would have resulted either in Soviet domination of Europe, or, when Soviet and American ambitions bluntly collided, a hot war instead of a cold one. It may be possible to regard either of these outcomes as preferable to the one which actually occurred, but I have to confess myself unable to imagine how.
        fit2rule 10y ago
        Actually, this is what happened. Western imperialism ran rampant, we have human rights violations and heinous, heinous conditions for significant parts of the world, all because the West wants its way. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The only reason you're arguing is because its your team that is doing all the damage.
- allemagne 10y ago
  Yikes. What a load of vague, nationalist bullshit. By apparently justifying ANY given action if it favors your country or your concept of your country, are you proud of the historical company you keep?
vkou 10y ago
When the instigators and butchers of World War I (A completely pointless, devastating conflict) didn't get torn apart by their own people, I have little hope for responsibility and justice. No, the more likely way for that bubble to burst is for these things to start happening to America, with citizens of the aggressor state justifying them as 'admissible under the circumstances.' Alas, political culture is not particularly retrospective - I doubt anyone would see the connection.
- finid 10y ago
  > When the instigators and butchers of World War I ... didn't get torn apart by their own people, I have little hope for responsibility and justice. You have to understand that the instigators of WWI, and other subsequent wars, did not come from outer space. To their fellow countrymen and women, they were patriots. National heroes. That applies even today. A few years ago, I read an article in the Washington Post online. The writer said that when somebody spotted Donald Rumsfeld in the subway and pointed to him, practically everybody in the car gave him a standing ovation. That was after he'd resigned from office. Says a lot about us.
  - vkou 10y ago
    They weren't patriots for participating in that pointless slaughter. They were monsters. Alas, that's precisely my point. If the world were right, we would not tolerate barbarism. It's not, though.
- brohee 10y ago
  Well the Austro-Hungarian leadership sure lost its power, and they were some of the most responsible for the war.
Amezarak 10y ago
The attitude you describe has been the foundation of every nation's moral policy for thousands of years. Thucydides set it as follows in the Melian Dialogue, in which the Athenian and Melian ambassadors discuss the subjection of Melos: "We hope that you [Melians], instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." The Melians responded that the Athenians should nevertheless concern themselves with what was right because the Athenians themselves might be weak someday. This was the fate of the Melians, after they refused to surrender upfront and forced the Athenians to fight: [...] the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves.

throwanem 10y ago

I hope it's a very long time before acting to further the interests of the United States becomes a crime in the United States. Edited to add: And I'm really surprised to see several people, I doubt any of whom would find positive connotations in the phrase "American exceptionalism", nonetheless arguing by trivial implication that the United States should unilaterally engage in military operations, within the territory of a sovereign state then being courted toward alliance, in order to change the outcome of a secessionist insurrection then taking place within that state.

vkou 10y ago
Even if they perpetuate genocide? War crimes? Internment and liquidation of troublemakers and undesirables? All of these things have furthered the interests of the nation states that carried them out.
maxxxxx 10y ago
You hopefully know that a lot of things that are sold as in the interest of the US are not really in the interest of it but only in the interest of some politicians or other players.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Only a fool would think otherwise. But I don't see how that's significant here; opening diplomatic relations with China in the midst of the Cold War was very much in the interests of the United States.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Participating in the Cold War at all, however, was not. "Interests" are not self-justifying.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I eagerly await your argument for how unconstrained Soviet imperial expansion into Western Europe would've advanced US interests.
      - fit2rule 10y ago
        It would have further allowed the continued justification of western imperialism as a 'reaction' ..
        throwanem 10y ago
        ...which, if true, would have resulted either in Soviet domination of Europe, or, when Soviet and American ambitions bluntly collided, a hot war instead of a cold one. It may be possible to regard either of these outcomes as preferable to the one which actually occurred, but I have to confess myself unable to imagine how.
        fit2rule 10y ago
        Actually, this is what happened. Western imperialism ran rampant, we have human rights violations and heinous, heinous conditions for significant parts of the world, all because the West wants its way. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The only reason you're arguing is because its your team that is doing all the damage.
allemagne 10y ago
Yikes. What a load of vague, nationalist bullshit. By apparently justifying ANY given action if it favors your country or your concept of your country, are you proud of the historical company you keep?

vkou 10y ago

When the instigators and butchers of World War I (A completely pointless, devastating conflict) didn't get torn apart by their own people, I have little hope for responsibility and justice. No, the more likely way for that bubble to burst is for these things to start happening to America, with citizens of the aggressor state justifying them as 'admissible under the circumstances.' Alas, political culture is not particularly retrospective - I doubt anyone would see the connection.

finid 10y ago
> When the instigators and butchers of World War I ... didn't get torn apart by their own people, I have little hope for responsibility and justice. You have to understand that the instigators of WWI, and other subsequent wars, did not come from outer space. To their fellow countrymen and women, they were patriots. National heroes. That applies even today. A few years ago, I read an article in the Washington Post online. The writer said that when somebody spotted Donald Rumsfeld in the subway and pointed to him, practically everybody in the car gave him a standing ovation. That was after he'd resigned from office. Says a lot about us.
- vkou 10y ago
  They weren't patriots for participating in that pointless slaughter. They were monsters. Alas, that's precisely my point. If the world were right, we would not tolerate barbarism. It's not, though.
brohee 10y ago
Well the Austro-Hungarian leadership sure lost its power, and they were some of the most responsible for the war.

Amezarak 10y ago

The attitude you describe has been the foundation of every nation's moral policy for thousands of years. Thucydides set it as follows in the Melian Dialogue, in which the Athenian and Melian ambassadors discuss the subjection of Melos: "We hope that you [Melians], instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." The Melians responded that the Athenians should nevertheless concern themselves with what was right because the Athenians themselves might be weak someday. This was the fate of the Melians, after they refused to surrender upfront and forced the Athenians to fight: [...] the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves.