3 ms·

I won't argue the USA is totally benign and acts out of anything other that crude self interest (in the vast majority of cases) - but I think the evidence is fa

by jbattle 15y ago

I won't argue the USA is totally benign and acts out of anything other that crude self interest (in the vast majority of cases) - but I think the evidence is fairly compelling that the US 'empire' IS more benign and rules with a lighter hand than most historical empires. The US for example has killed a lot of civilians in Afghanistan (bad). But you don't have to look back very far at all in time to see the Russians and even the British taking a much more brutal approach. I guess generally I agree with you that the US acts in ways that are contrary to its stated principles, but I do have some optimism that each world empire does seem to get progressively "kinder".

moilolita 15y ago
I appreciate your pragmatic view. I would add only the fact that the empires seem kinder only when the resources are abundant. If the oil discoveries fail to keep pace with the consumption and no serious alternatives are found, I foresee some nasty imperial wars ahead and the next "totalen krieg" will be fought with nuclear weapons.
berntb 15y ago
I'd rather argue that democracies implement "realpolitik" as much as dictators -- and lie about it. The difference seems to be that democracies are nicer when the voters at home care (which is more and more common) -- and/or if it doesn't cost lots of money to be nice. For no other reason that it is in the democracies' own interest if other countries start to work better (everyone loves a richer customer). It is getting better generally, but disgusting regimes the western world is dependent on, like Saudi Arabia, can still literally get away with murder. This is the best reference I have on the subject of the article, btw. http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are-poor/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...
alexro 15y ago
What scale shall we use to compare the results of, say, Hirasima/Nagasaki nuclear bombing with what, say, Mongolians did? Or is it all about being able to manage the public image?
- jbattle 15y ago
  I'll answer the question narrowly (and out of ignorance on the state of scholarly opinion on the bombings) - the Mongolians practiced depopulation as a regular (normal/frequent) form of policy. The pair of nuclear bombings were a one time policy decision intended as a knockout punch. To counter my own argument, I'd like to say that if ww2 continued, nuclear bombing would NOT have become standard US war policy. However, seen in continuity with the fire bombings of Tokyo, Dresden & etc - I might be over-optimistic.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I think the more crucial difference is that despite how long and bloody WWII was and how it began with a Japanese surprise attack, the US conspicuously failed to kill large numbers of Japanese people after winning - in contrast with the Mongol's [1] practice of slaughtering the inhabitants of cities that refused to open their doors when asked. [1] The Mongol's, and many, many other armies at various points in time including many historical European forces.
  - neilk 15y ago
    And it wasn't just Tokyo - the USA's firebombing campaign incinerated 50-90% of the population of 67 Japanese cities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21tC-JxWXA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21tC-JxWXA The debate over this is almost endless, though, and I doubt we can settle it.
rickmb 15y ago
If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. In my opinion, the US is historically one of the most destructive "empires", in that it unlike a true empire, it takes very little responsibility for the nations it interferes in. It just takes what it needs and moves on. It doesn't even bother to properly conquer a place, just a long as resistance is sufficiently broken for the US to do it's business. It's more like a swarm of heavily armed locusts than an empire. With true colonial style empire building comes responsibility. Many former colonial nations are still dealing with that responsibility. Post WW2 US just aggressively raids and meddles, but takes very little responsibility for the people and societies outside its own borders. To call it an empire is an insult to empires.
- Zimahl 15y ago
  > If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. This is a ridiculous point. You do realize that the allies (not just the US) were fighting the 'Empire of Japan' that was running rampant throughout China and SE Asia, raping and pillaging along the way? To use no other term, Japan was lucky to be nuked because they weren't going to stop. They were going to fight to the last, and let me tell you (as the husband of someone who's grandfather fought on Leyte and Okinawa), the Japanese were brutal and vicious. Millions of Japanese civilians would've been killed trying to land and take the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were so adamant about fighting that it took a second bomb to change their minds. If you said the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, then I wouldn't have responded. Those were retaliatory in nature - a punishment that affected civilians more than soldiers (specifically Dresden).

by jbattle 15y ago

moilolita 15y ago

I appreciate your pragmatic view. I would add only the fact that the empires seem kinder only when the resources are abundant. If the oil discoveries fail to keep pace with the consumption and no serious alternatives are found, I foresee some nasty imperial wars ahead and the next "totalen krieg" will be fought with nuclear weapons.

berntb 15y ago

I'd rather argue that democracies implement "realpolitik" as much as dictators -- and lie about it. The difference seems to be that democracies are nicer when the voters at home care (which is more and more common) -- and/or if it doesn't cost lots of money to be nice. For no other reason that it is in the democracies' own interest if other countries start to work better (everyone loves a richer customer). It is getting better generally, but disgusting regimes the western world is dependent on, like Saudi Arabia, can still literally get away with murder. This is the best reference I have on the subject of the article, btw. http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are-poor/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...

alexro 15y ago

What scale shall we use to compare the results of, say, Hirasima/Nagasaki nuclear bombing with what, say, Mongolians did? Or is it all about being able to manage the public image?

jbattle 15y ago
I'll answer the question narrowly (and out of ignorance on the state of scholarly opinion on the bombings) - the Mongolians practiced depopulation as a regular (normal/frequent) form of policy. The pair of nuclear bombings were a one time policy decision intended as a knockout punch. To counter my own argument, I'd like to say that if ww2 continued, nuclear bombing would NOT have become standard US war policy. However, seen in continuity with the fire bombings of Tokyo, Dresden & etc - I might be over-optimistic.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I think the more crucial difference is that despite how long and bloody WWII was and how it began with a Japanese surprise attack, the US conspicuously failed to kill large numbers of Japanese people after winning - in contrast with the Mongol's [1] practice of slaughtering the inhabitants of cities that refused to open their doors when asked. [1] The Mongol's, and many, many other armies at various points in time including many historical European forces.
- neilk 15y ago
  And it wasn't just Tokyo - the USA's firebombing campaign incinerated 50-90% of the population of 67 Japanese cities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21tC-JxWXA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21tC-JxWXA The debate over this is almost endless, though, and I doubt we can settle it.

rickmb 15y ago

If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. In my opinion, the US is historically one of the most destructive "empires", in that it unlike a true empire, it takes very little responsibility for the nations it interferes in. It just takes what it needs and moves on. It doesn't even bother to properly conquer a place, just a long as resistance is sufficiently broken for the US to do it's business. It's more like a swarm of heavily armed locusts than an empire. With true colonial style empire building comes responsibility. Many former colonial nations are still dealing with that responsibility. Post WW2 US just aggressively raids and meddles, but takes very little responsibility for the people and societies outside its own borders. To call it an empire is an insult to empires.

Zimahl 15y ago
> If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. This is a ridiculous point. You do realize that the allies (not just the US) were fighting the 'Empire of Japan' that was running rampant throughout China and SE Asia, raping and pillaging along the way? To use no other term, Japan was lucky to be nuked because they weren't going to stop. They were going to fight to the last, and let me tell you (as the husband of someone who's grandfather fought on Leyte and Okinawa), the Japanese were brutal and vicious. Millions of Japanese civilians would've been killed trying to land and take the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were so adamant about fighting that it took a second bomb to change their minds. If you said the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, then I wouldn't have responded. Those were retaliatory in nature - a punishment that affected civilians more than soldiers (specifically Dresden).