Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The 1790's... Japan was in more or less the middle of two centuries of "peace and prosperity", for example. How that era was exactly ended? But anyway, I do not imply that Japan had to be left isolated for all the time. But there is something symbolic with the particular way.

I do not claim that the US were setting violence standards right from 1790's. But it is setting violence standards since the end of WWII. And yes, in the 1790's violence standards were set by the "paragon" Europe. Is this pattern paradoxical, or a rule?

Evil can evolve together with good progress. If the most powerful cannot control their basic impulses, what do you have to expect from less favoured?

As for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot... If Saddam Hussein was in the same league, what to say about current Iraqi chaos? Where to rank Saudi, Turkmenistani, Zimbabwe, Somali regimes? Eridicating worst dictators is not exactly a priority of the US.

by das monde on Thu Apr 12th, 2007 at 08:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 1790's... Japan was in more or less the middle of two centuries of "peace and prosperity", for example. How that era was exactly ended? But anyway, I do not imply that Japan had to be left isolated for all the time. But there is something symbolic with the particular way.
Interesting, are you saying that we "taught" them to be a violent nation.

It is interesting about what ifs. I recently watched 2009 (Korean Sci-fi).

I do not claim that the US were setting violence standards right from 1790's. But it is setting violence standards since the end of WWII. And yes, in the 1790's violence standards were set by the "paragon" Europe. Is this pattern paradoxical, or a rule?
I know that he was a great man, but it just shows the navel gazing of the USA. How many did Mao kill during the 50s and 60s?

Evil can evolve together with good progress. If the most powerful cannot control their basic impulses, what do you have to expect from less favoured?
And you do realize that there were other powerful nations then as well as now. I would say our basic impulses actually is isolationism.

As for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot... If Saddam Hussein was in the same league, what to say about current Iraqi chaos? Where to rank Saudi, Turkmenistani, Zimbabwe, Somali regimes? Eradicating worst dictators is not exactly a priority of the US.
That seems good that our present day killers have less ability to destroy more lives. And I can agree that we do not necessarily judge our actions only by who is worse. Of course I wouldn't mind that Mugabe was removed by any means necessary.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 12:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Japanese did not have to be taught violence. But wrong impulses were awaken or assisted.

The communists did broke new ground in violence "exploiration". Some aspects were clearly over the top - few would gladly repeat them knowingly. The standard of US is more dangerous - the example still associates with success somehow.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Co touched the high scale standard most emphatically. There is much correlation between them, but little causual influence. Their "unsound methods" have common roots in ancient militant and conspiracy habits. Killing 10-30% of population to achieve your pitty goal was not unheard in history - but that percentage meant millions in the 20th century.

A sad side of "American" standard is the "Carthago delenda est" attitude: shoot first ask later, carpet bombings (and atomic bombings, one can add)... Prolonging a bloody war just for political or carreer purposes is quite a cunning standard:

In the autumn of 1968, [Kissinger] used his contacts with the Johnson administration to tip-off the Nixon camp about an anticipated breakthrough in the Paris talks, which Nixon feared could cost him the campaign.

What US did in the Middle East the last 50 years is far from isolationism. It is more like thoughtless interventionism of imperialist "tradition" - you go there whenever you "need". It is no shocking proposition that current American problems in the Middle East are largely of its own prior making. Violence has plenty of unintended consequences, even if obvious.

The bright side of my point is this: when you are most powerful, you are actually most able to act morally as you wish, even most able to compell others to act ethically. If you the strongest cannot be as good as you want, who can?

by das monde on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 03:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your honest discussion about these issues.

Japanese did not have to be taught violence. But wrong impulses were awaken or assisted.
And what happened after WWII? If we awakened violence in our opening trade, what did the USA do to pacify and create a liberal democracy? So is the world better or worse for creating a peaceful productive nation internally as well as externally?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Co touched the high scale standard most emphatically. There is much correlation between them, but little causual influence. Their "unsound methods" have common roots in ancient militant and conspiracy habits. Killing 10-30% of population to achieve your pitty goal was not unheard in history - but that percentage meant millions in the 20th century.
Yes, some good points. Although I would say it derives from Marxist/Communist ideas. I do want to ask about causual? Do you mean casual or causal?

What US did in the Middle East the last 50 years is far from isolationism. It is more like thoughtless interventionism of imperialist "tradition" - you go there whenever you "need". It is no shocking proposition that current American problems in the Middle East are largely of its own prior making. Violence has plenty of unintended consequences, even if obvious.
True, enough that the USA are not isolationist in the last 50 years. I don't agree that it is American problems though. Not any more than the French, Russians, and Chinese. The USA is just the easiest target as the Great Satan.

The bright side of my point is this: when you are most powerful, you are actually most able to act morally as you wish, even most able to compel others to act ethically. If you the strongest cannot be as good as you want, who can?
Do not forget that the USA is not omnipotent or a godlike power. Is it as much as the USA wishes or the rest of the worlds standards?

And how do you rectify asymmetrical wars? Like a caribou that is bitten by Mosquitoes. What can it do?

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 01:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series