Jeroen wrote:
> Funny thing, that. When the Soviets invaded a country, it was called
> "communist aggression" and "takeover", but when the US invaded a country,
> that very same aggressive act was all of a sudden called "liberation"...
You know, I'm not the most likely person to agree with John or Gautam on
most issues, but in this I have to agree with them. Despite the flaws in
American policy, we averaged much better at interventions in other nations
than the Soviet Union. That doesn't excuse our mistakes, well meaning
though some of them might have been, but we try to acknowledge them and, I
hope, learn from them. When Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo were the topics of
discussion, the American media bombarded us with editorials and stories
questioning the wisdom of intervention, with threats of "another Vietnam"
prominent. In large part because of our free press, we have been able to
discuss the wisdom of our policies in Latin America, the Vietnam War,
Japanese internment camps (much better than the Gulag), McCarthyism,
Affirmative Action, Trickle Down Economics, Bill Clinton's sexual practices
and W's intelligence. Even today, that doesn't happen in the former Soviet
Union or China. I'd chalk that up as points over those societies in terms
of good for the people.
What's fascinated me in this discussion, though, is the vehemence of
everyone's reactions to the thought of their nation being slighted - be it
by credit for an invention going to another nation, accusations of Evil (TM)
status, getting the name wrong, what have you. Nationalism is a strong
meme, and even here I don't see it letting go any time. Not to say that I'm
not also infected - I've spent a good amount of time seething over the same
things I'm talking about here - but it's fascinating to watch not just the
debates but the themes that come out of them.
Now that I've interrupted the debate to throw in my $0.02, I'll go back to
the comfy chair and eat some popcorn while I watch some more intellectual
carnage.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
