Mr Buckner,
This is exactly what I was after -- a _constructive_ rebuttal based on fact, not
hearsay, emotion or "experience". As I have tried to make clear, there is never
_one_ view of things, particularly in the social sciences (such as this). You
obviously believe differently to myself, and you have been able to articulate
your views clearly. For that I applaud you. In contrast to what some may think,
it was never my intention to force my view upon others, but rather to convince
people to be more open-minded about such matters. I have reread the portions of
my posts which you have quoted, and I have taken note of some of your
observations so that I may learn from them. While you make some very valid
points (supported by some good evidence), I cannot agree with most of your
argument. Nevertheless, I respect your view, for it is clear that you have
carefully thought it over.
Regards,
Sridhar.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:33:02 -0700, Rich Buckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
