America however constantly, relentlessly talks about how benevolent it is and how much good it supposedly does in the world.
No; we encourage our puppet states to do that sort of thing for us. We’ve long pushed the idea on our minions that systematic rape is a good way to keep the peasants in line, along with torture.
What’s your point?
Look. I’m a black man. You don’t have to convince me that America’s history is one of racist exploitation, attempted genocide, and ruthless expansion, and that the notion that we are inherently more moral as a people than other nations is anything other than self-delusion and deliberate revisionism. But the same can be said of pretty much any other powerful nation; it’s how nations get to be powerful. It’s built into our genes.
Morever, America at least has ideals. True, we’ve failed to live up to those ideals as often as not, but we at least know what we’re supposed to be doing, even if we often fail to do it. The civil rights movement would never have been able to remind mostly peaceful if not for the fact that American ideals, at least, were moral, for that made an extended peaceful & lawful protest effective.
Cite that Americans have ever explicitly sanctioned the use of systematic rape, please.
Again, I don’t think America is perfect. Far from it. Often we’re cowardly; often we refuse to look at the way our prosperity and power are achieved. But when we look at how the sausage is made, we protest and correct ourselves.
So did the British Empire and the Soviet Union; that didn’t make them any nicer. They too talked about how they were making the world a better place while they slaughtered and oppressed.
“Explicitly”? Depends on your definition. We taught it as a valuable and desirable tactic at our infamous “School of the Americas”, which has produced an endless stream of dictators, torturers and death squad members.
We do no such thing. We cover up, we shift the blame, and we go right on committing atrocities.
DT, my argument is not that America is all hugs & puppies. It’s not, not by a long shot. But you often speak as if America were uniquely and ultimately evil among nations, and that’s just not show. Even at the nadir of our moral evolution, we were not as bad as Nazi Germany. By my lights, we are morally superior to Saudi Arabia now.
We’re not angels, but that’s because there’s no such thing as angels.
What will America do when it’s not the only super power anymore?
The same thing we do every night Pinky… try to take over the world!
i cannot find a link, but i remember Bush said on TV, sometime after 9/11, that (paraphrased) he will not allow another country to overtake the U.S. as a superpower.
Is there any real reason why e.g. the US and EU won’t be close allies? It seems both have very similar goals, both have similar cultures, and so on. Or even the EU, US, Brazil and South Africa?
In terms of economy, the EU’s economy is already significantly larger than that of the US, by the way. There’s the objection that the EU is 27 countries so it makes little sense to compare to the likes of the US, but in many respects the EU behaves like a single entity (e.g. with the recent negotiations between the EU and US over a FTA, a single currency amongst 20 of its members, a nascent European military in the deployment of battlegroups, a single seat at the WTO, and so on). It seems even right now America’s dominance is being threatened and there’s not been an apocalypse.
For what it’s worth, the US has a pretty terrific relationship with Canada.
I don’t see the relevance to my comment. Are you referencing NAFTA? NAFTA doesn’t come close to the EU in terms of integration, more like the EFTA.
All the wile proclaiming that you are angels and demanding that everyone play by angel rules, which change as soon as it is opportune.
It’s mainly the hypocrisy that is so irksome.
Well, wiki sez “The United States and Canada have the largest trade relationship in the world … The trade relationship between the two countries crosses all industries and is vital to both nations’ success. Each country is the largest trade partner of the other.” So if you figure that NAFTA is on par with EFTA in terms of integration, I figure that’s still strong enough to deserve mention.
That’s the thing: EFTA is marked by its lack of integration. It’s a routine trade agreement between the EU-27 and four additional European states who want access to the internal market of the EU but don’t want to become integrated inside the EU. Put it this way: the US and EU are soon going to negotiate a trade agreement. Nobody is seriously going to suggest that the US and EU have become “integrated” so that the joint economies of the two areas can be compared in their totality to e.g. China. Same with Canada and the US as well as all the other parties to trade agreements with the US.
The EU on the other hand is in essence half way to being a sovereign state in its own right. It has a court system, a government, elected parliament, unified science policy, freedom of movement, a space agency, a single currency with a central bank that the majority of the Continent uses, monetary transfers between regions, a unified fisheries and agricultural policy, a unified trade policy etc. and becomes more and more integrated with each passing year.
America is too arrogant and untrustworthy. It’s the self-declared “Leader of the Free World” remember, not one ally among a group of allies; it’s not going to accept anything but a dominant position, and it never hesitates to stab its “allies” in the back.
Could I trouble you for a cite for your claim regarding America historically dragging off people to “rape camps”?
Are you sure you’re not thinking WWII era Japan?
Can “Europe” be a superpower if it has neither military strength nor the desire ever to use it?
In any event, most “Europeans” feel absolutely no kinship with other “Europeans.” Greeks and Spaniards certainly have no love for the German bankers who are trying to tell them what to do.
And if/when war ever comes to pass, how eager will Irish or Italian kids be to fight for “Europe”?
Anyway, the whole idea of Superpowers, a la the Soviet Union and the US, in the rise of globalization and the rise of NGOs strikes me as horribly archaic.
I imagine it’ll take something akin to a federal system and a good while of being part of that system before that’ll happen. You could have said the exact thing about the US prior to the Civil War, when states were quite a bit more powerful and sovereign, and the government in Washington was distant and abstract.
Are you sure? The last time there was a multi-polar globe, we had large wars fairly regularly. I’m not sure if that’s due to the lack of a obvious hierarchy in a multi-polar world, or if the countries of that time just thought there was more to be gained in war. I’m into everyone having a voice, but I’m not sure that I would want to go back to a pre-WWII international dynamic.
I agree. It is better to have one strong King than a whole bunch of powerful Lords in when it comes to peace even if the King isn’t always completely right. The idea that the power should be spread around sounds democratic but I don’t think it tends to play out that well. The U.S. as a sole superpower has been a pretty good stabilizer of worldwide conflict on a large scale.
Wait, what? Europe has no desire to use military strength? That will be the reason why the majority of the planet speaks European languages, then, right? More recently, look at Mali, Libya, Syria, and so forth. It’s either Europeans doing most of the grunt work or pushing for intervention in those places.
The last thing you can accuse Europe of being is pacifist. Even more so when Europe’s economic might starts to grow.