Mr. Dhanapalan: I have read most if not all of your posts on this topic, and disagree with the vast bulk of what you say. The post to which I am responding, however, reflects such a far too short-sighted view of history that the temptation to respond is irresistible. On Wednesday 12 September 2001 06:38 am, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: [snip] > > Umm... Have you actually read or seen what's _really_ going on? By this, I > mean from _credible_ sources like good historians and theorists (e.g. Wade, > Johnson, Vogel, etc.), not the mass-media, which is notorious for its > oversimplification of facts. It appears that YOU are the victim of > mis-representations and hearsay. How can you expect to be truly objective > when you _live_ in the country? This is simply impossible, because of > factors like emotional attachments, habits and teachings (e.g. from schools > and the media). The same would go for any nation that one is attached to. I > don't expect to be able to be objective about my country, because I like > it. No one is "truly objective." Everyone has biases that affect their thoughts and reasoning. Is a non-resident of the US who hates the US necessarily more unbiased than a US resident who loves his country? No, not necessarily. Your posts reflect your biases. This post no doubt reflects mine. The fact that I have biases (or that the poster to whom you were replying above has biases) does not inevitably mean that the point of view I express is wrong, that the point of view the previous poster expressed is wrong, or that your point of view is incorrect. > [snip] > > Not so. Your approach is very un-scientific indeed. > [snip] Any analysis of historic trends, causes, and effects is by its very nature "un-scientific" because any such analysis ultimately amounts to an expression of the analyst's opinion. Your posts are full of subjective, qualitative views about whether the US is good or bad, how much harm it has caused, and the like. Those opinions, with which I disagree with strongly, may be honestly held, but they remain "un-scientific" opinions. > [snip] > Your inflexibility and lack of receptibility to different ideas and > viewpoints is worrisome. If you read academic political papers over the > years, you will notice how attitudes and views change with time, as > situations change and new evidence and theories come to light. The world is > ever-changing, not static. You need to try to evolve with this or risk > falling behind and being cast aside as an old relic. Many older people I > meet tend to be "Cold Warriors", that is those who are stuck in the old > Cold War mentality that communism is all evil and that the USA is the > bastion of world democracy and hence is all good. Could you be one of those > Cold Warriors, Jose? Here's a wake-up call: nothing is perfect. Since the > end of the Cold War, people have been noticing the widening cracks in the > armour of the Anglo-American neoliberal system, which for so long had > remained stable due to the constant communist threat. You seem to imply that one can read "academic political papers" and that those papers somehow establish the "right" answer about whether the US is good or bad, and that events predating the Cold War are now irrelevant to a qualitative evaluation of the US. I think you are clearly wrong on both points. First, "academic political papers" reflect nothing more than the opinions of their authors. As a colleague of mine likes to say "opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one." I daresay that, if I wanted to spend the time, I could find "academic" papers that would support almost any view, even views that are later shown to be demonstrably wrong. After all, the head of the US Patent Office in the early 1900s expressed the view that everything that could be invented had by that time already been invented, and Bill Gates thought that 64k (not 64m) of memory "ought to be enough for anyone." Second, I don't think any reasoned, or reasonable, evaluation of the US's conduct in the past several decades can be made without considering the forces that dictated and drove US foreign policy both before and during that time. You are absolutely right that the US government made some horribly bad decisions about who to back in a number of countries over the last several decades. In some cases, I believe the US government was simply fooled by those they ultimately backed. After all, when Castro displaced the prior government in Cuba, he was initially hailed as a hero in the US. When he made known his preference for what he called Communism, the US views changed dramatically. In any event, you are also absolutely correct that the US sometimes backed very bad people simply because the US thought it would be helpful in the global struggle with Communism. But I think you ought to consider how US views on Communism were formed, and why the US regarded resisting its spread as imperative and for the greater global good. By the time the USSR emerged as the strongest power in Europe, there had already been in the 20th Century two wars initiated by Europe's previous strongest power (Germany) seeking nothing short of world domination. At beginning of the Second World War, Stalin agreed with Hitler to partition Poland, and was clearly willing to let Hitler gobble up the rest of Europe so long as Stalin got his piece of the action. The USSR was also known for its own extermination of Jews, and for its ruthless efforts to crush any dissent within the country. Ultimately, Hitler turned on Russia, at which point Russia switched sides. The US entered the war, something which I believe was the single largest factor in defeating Germany and Japan. After WWII, there were only two real world powers -- the US and Russia. By virtue of its population alone, Communist China was also, marginally, a world power, and certain a regional power. After WWII, the USSR obtained the atomic bomb, almost certainly through espionage and buying the US's nuclear secrets. An arms race ensued, with USSR Premier Kruschev promising the US in the late 50s or early 60s that "We will bury you." In the early 1960s, the USSR, with Castro's assistance, attempted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, about 90 miles off the US coast. Meanwhile, the USSR showed a consistent propensity to crush dissent within, and to attempt to expand its control without (e.g. Czechoslavakia). Is it any wonder that, against this background, the US regarded it as imperative to contain the USSR's influence and to attempt to expand its own to avert another world war or to at least assure that, if such a war ensued, the US would prevail? Given human infallibility, it is no surprise that, in attempting to support government's favorable to US interests and opposed to Communist interests, the US government sometimes back people who proved to be inept, and sometimes even evil, leaders. I note, however, that there have been no shortage of inept and evil leaders who have come to power without the aid of, and even despite the opposition of, the US. I do not regard it as certain that the countries you refer to in your posts would have been better off with the alternatives to the leaders backed by the US. By the way, in one of your earlier posts, you said something to the effect that "communism" in practice required a dictator. Do you appreciate the absurdity of that statement? Anything resembling "communism" cannot possibly be run by a dictator. Moreover, anything run by a dictator cannot exist, on a sustainable basis, without oppression, as today's benevolent dictator will, if the state survives long enough, ultimately be replaced by one not so benevolent. Also in one of your earlier posts, you said something to the effect that Bush was responsible for hundreds of deaths while governor of Texas and for millions (?) of deaths while president. On the former, I assume you are speaking of those executed while Bush was governor. While I am no fan of the death penalty (and I dislike Bush), I regard the execution of persons convicted by a jury of their peers of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of another human being as far different from the planned killing of thousands of innocent human beings that took place yesterday. As to Bush's responsibility for millions of deaths while president, I have no clue what you think you are talking about. In a different post, you wrote |Why did I expect this sort of response? This is so typically > > |American, the kind of thing that you are infused with in > > |American schools and from watching too many American movies. [snip] What is the source of your information about what is taught in American schools? Did you ever attend an American school? If you did, I can see that the US gets no gratitude for the education it provided; if you did not, I don't see how you can comment on what is taught in those schools. [snip] > > |There is far greater "justice" and equality across the > > |Atlantic, in Western Europe. There is even greater equality in > > |some Asian nations, like Japan. How do you know? [snip] > > |This is yet another stereotype that I had expected. Why are > > |Americans, on the whole, so belligerent? Serving a military > > |career appears to be the best way to get into government in > > |the USA. With presidents like Eisenhower (who was a > > |general) and Bush (Snr, who held a high position in the CIA), > > |it is no surprise that US foreign policy has been so > > |confrontational during the past fifty years. What scares me > > |most is that people actually _vote_ for these guys and not for > > |somebody who is more responsible. I regard your posts as belligerent. I regard the former Soviet Union as having been belligerent. I regard Iran under Khomeni (sp?) as belligerent. I regard Iraq under Hussein as belligerent. I regard terrorists as belligerent. On what do you base your position that American's as a whole are belligerent. I certainly am an American, and other than saying that I regard "your posts" (not you) as belligerent, I have tried hard not to make personal attacks in this post even though I am offended by much of what you have said. On your point that the best way to get into government in the US is through the military, I offer the following (which is based on my understanding, not research, and so may be inaccurate): Kennedy: Served on a PT boat in WWII; certainly never a career military officer. Johnson: No military career that I'm aware of. Nixon: No military career that I'm aware of. Ford: No military career that I'm aware of. Carter: No military career that I'm aware of. Reagan: No military career that I'm aware of. Clinton: Won despite being branded as a draft dodger. [snip] > > |Similarly, the root of these bombings is US allowance > > |and support of practices which lead to poverty and brutal, > > |authoritarian rule. How can you possibly know this? We don't know yet who did the bombing. If in fact it was Bin Laden, then the root the bombings is, in my opinion, a religious fanaticism that the US is and always will be utterly powerless to affect. By the way, I understand Bin Laden is in Afganistan. What country was it that attacked Afganistan? [hint: it wasn't the US but those initials, along with an SR appear in its name]. In any event, until we know who is responsible for the bombings, no one can say what lies at their root. Only someone biased against the US can blame the US for the bombings under the current circumstances. [snip] > > |Many Americans appear to be afraid of mentioning that point, > > |despite the fact that their children cannot receive a decent > > |education in government schools. [snip] When I was a child, we were very poor. I went to government [we call them public] schools. With the education I got there, I was able to go to an inexpensive college. With that education, scholarships, and loans from the government [which I have since repaid], I was able to go to law school. Even though I could afford private schools for my children, they go to public schools. Kids who show promise from economically disadvantaged areas are bussed into those schools so they have better educational opportunities. By going to public schools, my kids are getting an opportunity to grow up in a more diverse environment than they would get in private schools, while still getting a good education, and are, I think and hope, growing up in an environment that will minimize racial and ethnic sterotyping and disputes. [snip] > > |Note that while I'm focussing on the USA here (because of the > > |terrorist attacks), this hardly means that other nations have > > |a clean sheet. On the contrary, all of the "advanced > > |democracies" (including my own country, > > |Australia) are to blame, but the USA is by far the worst of a > > |bad bunch. Don't you think any blame lies with countries who make the decision to harbor terrorists (e.g., Afganistan and Bin Laden), with countries who attack their neighbors (e.g., Iraq), or with countries who put out death warrants on foreign novelists who write books that the country's government doesn't like (e.g., Iran). Don't you believe at all that persons and nations should take at least some responsibility for their own conduct? [snip] > > | > > |If you wish to know where I'm coming from, I'm writing with > > |several years of geography, economics, government and > > |international relations training under my belt. There is far > > |more to this than the Anglo-American neoliberal standpoint > > |(which is what they usually teach you in schools in nations > > |like the US and Australia), and it is important to try to > > |approach the problem from different angles in order to > > |understand it properly. I would hardly call myself an expert, > > |but I feel that I know what I'm talking about here. [snip] Just curious. Where did you receive these "several years of geography, economics, government and international training"? Just my opinons. Rich
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
