From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 01:54:22 MST
MaxPlumm@aol.com wrote:
> I have been considering Greg Burch's comment asking Samantha not to reply
> to Ron H's post, since he apparently considers Ron's question regarding the
> positive impact on the US abroad as "American nationalism". I agree to an
> extent that some discussions on various threads have been dominated by heated
> rhetoric lately, but in this instance, I must strongly disagree. Ron's
> question to Samantha was a valid point in a civilized debate.
Ironically, I have filtered out Ron's posts for some time. So
without Greg's response there would have been zero chance of my
answering.
>
> Ron, mine, the Mikes, and many other posters determination to fully have
> the record of the United States analyzed and the positive (and negative)
> accomplishments recognized and understood cannot be dismissed out of hand
> because we happen to be Americans.
Such a least is not terribly relevant to whether this particular
war is just or not. Which was the very subject I was speaking
about. It is not important to me right now to go off in some
sidetrack of persuading some people that I fully appreciate all
the good things they appreciate about this country. I have
nothing I need to prove there in order to speak on subject. In
point of fact I have a very fine appreciation of the really good
aspects of this country and its intended (although not very well
practiced) form of government. I have a deep appreciaiton of
how much is working here as well as a great deal of frustration
with how much is needlessly and dangerously broken. But again,
this is a sidetrack from the subject at hand which is whether
this war is justified.
> Not acknowledging what has been done in the world to free
> people from oppression, tyranny, and intolerance because of arbitrary deeply
> ingrained disdain based on what some might consider half truths and
> misconceptions is unacceptable.
>
If our current actions are about nothing of the kind except in
rhetoric then such an exposition is irrelevant to judging said
actions.
> If we do not follow from lessons learned that proved positive, we can have
> no chance of progressing into the future and end up stumbling blindly into
> the future.
>
Generally, yes.
> That some people have absolutely nothing positive to say of the United
> States is deplorable.
Sure. But this is not the point right now.
The freedoms that each and every human enjoys on this
> planet (those fortunate enough to enjoy some) can all be attributed to some
> degree to the United States. Yet some insist that merely because the US (or
> any other country) is powerful and in a dominant world position, than it is
> bad, or "might makes wrong", in huMania's words. This position too is not
> acceptable in any form to many on this list, and the record of the United
> States as compared to other major world powers, most notably the Soviet Union
> or Nazi Germany, is a necessary part of illustrating why the position of
> "might makes wrong" is not appropriate in all cases.
You are over-simplifying the real objection. Which is the
public text, speech and actions that we intend to use our might,
right or wrong, to remold the world to our liking whether or not
that is what is best for or desired by the people of the
countries to be molded. There is nothing democratic or free
about changing people's home country to what you might prefer
regardless of their own wishes.
>
> I will say again that I feel in some cases Greg's objections are legitimate,
> since I do not consider (and have repeatedly said on this forum) that all
> foreign policy decisions made by the United States have been the correct
> ones. But regarding the question repeatedly posed to Samantha and others,
> his objections are totally off the mark. The most important reason for this
> is that Samantha has never adequately answered that question in the many
> times Matus, Ron, I or anyone else have asked it.
>
Because it is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand and I
have much better things to do than jump through arbitrary hoops.
> Illustrating that the United States helped foster and make possible
> democracy in Taiwan, Greece, South Korea, Japan, etc. is not "holding up a
> slogan", nor blind 'americanism' it is illustrating facts that cannot be
> seriously debated, in addition to pointing out that the United States foreign
> policy is not the empty and bankrupt vessel some claim it is, ESPECIALLY when
> it is compared to other major world powers.
>
> Samantha's positions are totally predicated on a belief that the US has
> consistently supported dictators at the expense of democracy abroad.
This is absolutely false. Retract it immediately.
> She has
> never satisfactorily explained where all these democracies would have come
> from, or why hosts of democratic experiments failed in the third world of the
> '50s, '60s, and 70s, without the slightest hint of Cold War geopolitical
> influence, and why not one Soviet proxy became a democracy while it was
> dominated by the USSR, while a great many proxies of the United States did
> indeed develop lasting and stable democracies. It is completely legitimate
> for Ron to ask that she back up what many would consider a flawed position
> with more than "the history is out there."
>
Again, I am not going to punch your pet tarbaby.
- samamtha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 01:55:22 MST