5 ms·

>that we are inherently the good guys in any international conflict. How else could any human or organization function if not by acting in ways they believe ar

>that we are inherently the good guys in any international conflict. How else could any human or organization function if not by acting in ways they believe are right? >The reality is our government has interests. The reality is everyone has interests. The "government" isn't some homogeneous entity pushing towards a single plan; it's an incredibly complex network of individuals. The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world? What is your benchmark?

ionised 7y ago
> The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world? What is your benchmark? Lots of people all over the world who have been on the receiving end of US military or economic aggression enacted in the interests of the US plutocrats. African Americans, Native Americans, most of South America, pretty much all of the Middle East and North Africa, anyone who has suffered structural violence as a result of the US's insistence on a morally bankrupt Friedman hack-job neoliberal economic ideology. The US has done a lot of good things, but on balance I think it's done more damage and has merely replaced the British Empire as the current Anglo-sphere imperialist power.
- refurb 7y ago
  On balance has done more damage? Do you believe that in the countries where the US has intervened that without US involvement things would be that much better? Seems to me that when the US supported a dictatorship, the alternative wasn’t a thriving democracy but just another dictatorship aligned to a different power.
  - ionised 7y ago
    > Seems to me that when the US supported a dictatorship, the alternative wasn’t a thriving democracy but just another dictatorship aligned to a different power. You're free to think that if it helps you sleep at night. You would be mistaken though. Some may have been just as bad as those they were replacing, but considering many of them were democratically elected governments that the US chose to overthrow in favour of a US-friendly despot, Id suggest you revisit your theory. Iran is a great example. Want to know why they keep chanting death to America? They used to have a fairly open and liberal society (relative to what they have now) until the US decided that one of their own guys was better suited to run the country instead of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. That was the Shah, who was eventually overthrown by a populist religious movement, which was a direct response to US bullying and the US-backed regime. And Americans wonder why Iran has a grudge against the US. Then you have Iraq, which decided it wanted to start trading oil in Euros instead of the dollar. The US doesn't like that, so they invaded and destabilised the entire region for decades, giving rise to the likes of Isis. Think whatever you wish of Hussein and the Ba'athists, they were terrible men, but they never caused the kind of region-wide instability that the US caused due to its own greed. Instability that had domino effects on a large part of the world but never reached US shores. And now the US is talking tough about Iran all over again as if they are next on the list to be invaded, all the while cosying up to inbred, mass-murdering monarchs in Saudi Arabia. Similar stories abound in Central and South America, and not just by US intelligence or military. US corporations have long been involved in violent crackdowns on labour movements in South America, some of which involved these American companies hiring militants to harass, intimidate and even murder dissenters. Plus the fact that the country was founded by slave-owners and plutocrats for the sake of themselves, and they consolidated those foundations with the blood of every Native tribe they tricked, deceived, starved, murdered and exterminated. The United States is a testament to its own hypocrisy and greed, just like the British Empire. A highly militaristic, expansionist empire that worships at the altar of Mammon.
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      This was a very thorough rebuttal to a very ignorant statement. Thank you for taking the time to post this, or I would have had to.
    - patrick5415 7y ago
      Lots of accusations here with zero citations.
      - ionised 7y ago
        I'm in work and don't have the time to type up an essay for you. This was meant to be an off-the-cuff comment during my lunch that ended up dragging on a bit. Honestly, a lot of what I've mentioned is pretty common knowledge, just not among Americans it seems. These aren't obscure conspiracy theories, they are things that actually happened. A cursory Google search will present you with reams of information on each of these. You can make up your own mind (as you should).
        _lessthan0 7y ago
        It's fine, there is a certain collective on HN that do not believe or want to even google United States and the past dealings with the middle East and South America. America is not the world - Morrissey
    - refurb 7y ago
      You've proven my point exactly. Your standard for America is perfection - a country that has never done anything wrong or made mistakes. Under your standard, every country is evil. It's a silly way to look at things. And, I see you've swallowed the Mossadegh narrative hook line and sinker. Iran was in chaos prior to the coup. Mossadegh was not uniformly popular, there were riots on the street. He was on his way out regardless, as he had failed to deliver on many of his promises. As for Iraq, sure, that didn't turn out well. By why did you ignore my comment about Taiwan, Japan, Western Europe, etc? You trot out examples of failures, but completely ignore the success stories.
- primroot 7y ago
  Abusing its power to exceptionally shield itself from international justice, while at the same time practicing extraterritorial judicial reach, is also not a good sign of being a net force for good. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-bans-on-international-criminal-court-investigators-pompeo-idUSKCN1QW1ZH https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-... https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu...
  - ionised 7y ago
    Plus, as a nation it meets its own definition of a rogue state.
refurb 7y ago
I agree with you. It seems like American Exceptionalism has been shifting from a definition of “America is unique” to “America is perfect”. Obviously no country can meet the 2nd definition. America has definitely been a force for good in the world, but just like every other organization run by humans, it makes mistakes and sometimes succumbs to human weakness like greed and overconfidence.
hutzlibu 7y ago
"The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world?" Wow. You really never moved out of your bubble, did you? There are many people(not just IS extremists) who consider the US-Empire as plain evil. And much more who just think of US as arrogant, ignorant, self righteous bricks who try to enforce the american way of life on the whole world. And covertly or openly destroy anyone who opposes. Now I am not that extreme, in my view and I actually think that good or bad, all in all, probably yes, but there is too much truth in the accusation. And you proved the ignorant part very well. (btw. technology and science are the things that do the net good for me ... but politicaly, hell no. Just another empire posing as nice to go after selfish motives. Nicer than other empires maybe but still a empire)
- logicprog 7y ago
  I see the word "empire" bandied about when discussing this subject a lot, and I'm never really sure what people mean by it. I mean, sure on the face of it you're correct, an "empire" according to various dictionaries is just an expansive amount of territory under a single rule, but it doesn't seem like that's what anyone really means when they say it. Otherwise, why aren't most countries empires? They have an "expansive" amount of territory by some definition. Or what about the EU? China? Russia? What seems especially confusing to me is that "empire" has a very specific negative connotation but it's rarely out and out said what people who say "empire" actually think the US's crime is. I could imagine it to mean the way we treated Native Americans, but it doesn't seem like that's actually what's being talked about most of the time. Furthermore if we're talking just about global economic and cultural influence, that's voluntary(?) so the connotation meant doesn't work there. What's the real deal here? What are we actually talking about? And just to be clear I'm very much against US interventionalism but that doesn't constitute an empire... Or does it? Also, openly destroying people for disagreeing with the "American Way Of Life" isn't something I've seen before. Are your referring to the Cold War, or stuff with the Middle East?
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    The way I understand empire is a state which tries to expand its influence and dominate wherever it can. And yes, for people being dominated by it, it has a negative connotation. Different from a democracy and federation. Because a democracy fighting for freedom and ... well democracy, would not do this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... "During the Cold War in particular, the U.S. government secretly supported military coups that overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in 1960, Brazil in 1964 and Chile in 1973. " This is what empires do. Dominating their way onto weaker states, by all means. Sanctions, assasinations, supporting, supressing, blocking, sending weapons and ultimatively troops. There is a reason why there are US bases all over the world. And yes, sometimes that can be a net gain, like in Nazi Germany, but usually all the human rights democracy talk is just facade. And also yes, smaller states do the same, act like empires, but the US is by far the largest Power since the USSR vanished. But china is on the rise and europe likes to be an empire as well ... but for example with europe I have the hope that we tend to stay more a democratic federation and not go down that path as well.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CodeMage 7y ago
>>that we are inherently the good guys in any international conflict. >How else could any human or organization function if not by acting in ways they believe are right? Being convinced that you're always right is not the same as doing the right thing or acting the right way. >The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world? What is your benchmark? Hoo, boy. No, America hasn't been "a force for good in the world", because that's a really naive, simplistic idea. America has done many things in (and to) the world. Some of them have been good for certain groups of people at certain times.

ionised 7y ago

> The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world? What is your benchmark? Lots of people all over the world who have been on the receiving end of US military or economic aggression enacted in the interests of the US plutocrats. African Americans, Native Americans, most of South America, pretty much all of the Middle East and North Africa, anyone who has suffered structural violence as a result of the US's insistence on a morally bankrupt Friedman hack-job neoliberal economic ideology. The US has done a lot of good things, but on balance I think it's done more damage and has merely replaced the British Empire as the current Anglo-sphere imperialist power.

refurb 7y ago
On balance has done more damage? Do you believe that in the countries where the US has intervened that without US involvement things would be that much better? Seems to me that when the US supported a dictatorship, the alternative wasn’t a thriving democracy but just another dictatorship aligned to a different power.
- ionised 7y ago
  > Seems to me that when the US supported a dictatorship, the alternative wasn’t a thriving democracy but just another dictatorship aligned to a different power. You're free to think that if it helps you sleep at night. You would be mistaken though. Some may have been just as bad as those they were replacing, but considering many of them were democratically elected governments that the US chose to overthrow in favour of a US-friendly despot, Id suggest you revisit your theory. Iran is a great example. Want to know why they keep chanting death to America? They used to have a fairly open and liberal society (relative to what they have now) until the US decided that one of their own guys was better suited to run the country instead of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. That was the Shah, who was eventually overthrown by a populist religious movement, which was a direct response to US bullying and the US-backed regime. And Americans wonder why Iran has a grudge against the US. Then you have Iraq, which decided it wanted to start trading oil in Euros instead of the dollar. The US doesn't like that, so they invaded and destabilised the entire region for decades, giving rise to the likes of Isis. Think whatever you wish of Hussein and the Ba'athists, they were terrible men, but they never caused the kind of region-wide instability that the US caused due to its own greed. Instability that had domino effects on a large part of the world but never reached US shores. And now the US is talking tough about Iran all over again as if they are next on the list to be invaded, all the while cosying up to inbred, mass-murdering monarchs in Saudi Arabia. Similar stories abound in Central and South America, and not just by US intelligence or military. US corporations have long been involved in violent crackdowns on labour movements in South America, some of which involved these American companies hiring militants to harass, intimidate and even murder dissenters. Plus the fact that the country was founded by slave-owners and plutocrats for the sake of themselves, and they consolidated those foundations with the blood of every Native tribe they tricked, deceived, starved, murdered and exterminated. The United States is a testament to its own hypocrisy and greed, just like the British Empire. A highly militaristic, expansionist empire that worships at the altar of Mammon.
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    This was a very thorough rebuttal to a very ignorant statement. Thank you for taking the time to post this, or I would have had to.
  - patrick5415 7y ago
    Lots of accusations here with zero citations.
    - ionised 7y ago
      I'm in work and don't have the time to type up an essay for you. This was meant to be an off-the-cuff comment during my lunch that ended up dragging on a bit. Honestly, a lot of what I've mentioned is pretty common knowledge, just not among Americans it seems. These aren't obscure conspiracy theories, they are things that actually happened. A cursory Google search will present you with reams of information on each of these. You can make up your own mind (as you should).
      - _lessthan0 7y ago
        It's fine, there is a certain collective on HN that do not believe or want to even google United States and the past dealings with the middle East and South America. America is not the world - Morrissey
  - refurb 7y ago
    You've proven my point exactly. Your standard for America is perfection - a country that has never done anything wrong or made mistakes. Under your standard, every country is evil. It's a silly way to look at things. And, I see you've swallowed the Mossadegh narrative hook line and sinker. Iran was in chaos prior to the coup. Mossadegh was not uniformly popular, there were riots on the street. He was on his way out regardless, as he had failed to deliver on many of his promises. As for Iraq, sure, that didn't turn out well. By why did you ignore my comment about Taiwan, Japan, Western Europe, etc? You trot out examples of failures, but completely ignore the success stories.
primroot 7y ago
Abusing its power to exceptionally shield itself from international justice, while at the same time practicing extraterritorial judicial reach, is also not a good sign of being a net force for good. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-bans-on-international-criminal-court-investigators-pompeo-idUSKCN1QW1ZH https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-... https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu...
- ionised 7y ago
  Plus, as a nation it meets its own definition of a rogue state.

refurb 7y ago

I agree with you. It seems like American Exceptionalism has been shifting from a definition of “America is unique” to “America is perfect”. Obviously no country can meet the 2nd definition. America has definitely been a force for good in the world, but just like every other organization run by humans, it makes mistakes and sometimes succumbs to human weakness like greed and overconfidence.

hutzlibu 7y ago

"The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world?" Wow. You really never moved out of your bubble, did you? There are many people(not just IS extremists) who consider the US-Empire as plain evil. And much more who just think of US as arrogant, ignorant, self righteous bricks who try to enforce the american way of life on the whole world. And covertly or openly destroy anyone who opposes. Now I am not that extreme, in my view and I actually think that good or bad, all in all, probably yes, but there is too much truth in the accusation. And you proved the ignorant part very well. (btw. technology and science are the things that do the net good for me ... but politicaly, hell no. Just another empire posing as nice to go after selfish motives. Nicer than other empires maybe but still a empire)

logicprog 7y ago
I see the word "empire" bandied about when discussing this subject a lot, and I'm never really sure what people mean by it. I mean, sure on the face of it you're correct, an "empire" according to various dictionaries is just an expansive amount of territory under a single rule, but it doesn't seem like that's what anyone really means when they say it. Otherwise, why aren't most countries empires? They have an "expansive" amount of territory by some definition. Or what about the EU? China? Russia? What seems especially confusing to me is that "empire" has a very specific negative connotation but it's rarely out and out said what people who say "empire" actually think the US's crime is. I could imagine it to mean the way we treated Native Americans, but it doesn't seem like that's actually what's being talked about most of the time. Furthermore if we're talking just about global economic and cultural influence, that's voluntary(?) so the connotation meant doesn't work there. What's the real deal here? What are we actually talking about? And just to be clear I'm very much against US interventionalism but that doesn't constitute an empire... Or does it? Also, openly destroying people for disagreeing with the "American Way Of Life" isn't something I've seen before. Are your referring to the Cold War, or stuff with the Middle East?
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  The way I understand empire is a state which tries to expand its influence and dominate wherever it can. And yes, for people being dominated by it, it has a negative connotation. Different from a democracy and federation. Because a democracy fighting for freedom and ... well democracy, would not do this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... "During the Cold War in particular, the U.S. government secretly supported military coups that overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in 1960, Brazil in 1964 and Chile in 1973. " This is what empires do. Dominating their way onto weaker states, by all means. Sanctions, assasinations, supporting, supressing, blocking, sending weapons and ultimatively troops. There is a reason why there are US bases all over the world. And yes, sometimes that can be a net gain, like in Nazi Germany, but usually all the human rights democracy talk is just facade. And also yes, smaller states do the same, act like empires, but the US is by far the largest Power since the USSR vanished. But china is on the rise and europe likes to be an empire as well ... but for example with europe I have the hope that we tend to stay more a democratic federation and not go down that path as well.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

CodeMage 7y ago

>>that we are inherently the good guys in any international conflict. >How else could any human or organization function if not by acting in ways they believe are right? Being convinced that you're always right is not the same as doing the right thing or acting the right way. >The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world? What is your benchmark? Hoo, boy. No, America hasn't been "a force for good in the world", because that's a really naive, simplistic idea. America has done many things in (and to) the world. Some of them have been good for certain groups of people at certain times.