Why We Do What We Do

Remove all ads!

Reading the theories on America’s global intentions here on SP is always very interesting to me. I think because this board has more of an international following, it’s nice to read the differing views of America by the world. But the one thing I’ve always wondered is: Has any of these folks ever been to the United States? And if so, do they have any idea of what America is all about?

America is a nation of people who want a better life…Parents who want their children to make out better than they did. We’re a nation of people who decided, for whatever reason, that they didn’t have the opportunity to better themselves in their native land, and took a bold step towards changing their destinies. We defied the most powerful Kingdom in the world at the time to declare our independence, and created a country where anyone can live in peace, worship whichever deity they choose, and can achieve any goal they set for themselves. The only barrier to that is each individual’s choice to strive to make the most of their lives, or not to. It’s that simple.

America takes anyone in. Our nation was built by most of the cast-offs of every other nation in the world, and these cast-offs have displayed great strength. Even at their worst, they decided to take a great chance, to leave everything they’ve ever known behind, and start a new life for themselves in America. People whose ancestors at one time or another were oppressed in their native land, or were enslaved here in times past populate this country. Herein lies our greatest strength, at one time or another in generations past, we’ve wrestled with adversity and oppression, and conquered it.

Now, this is grossly generalized, of course there have been slips along the way…Slavery, the Indian conquests, waiting until 1942 to enter World War II, but overall, America has always stood for one thing: Freedom from oppression. This country knows what it’s like to be under the rule of an oppressive government; our nation was built upon freedom by sacrifice. Built on the blood and backs of people who wanted a better life. It’s not perfect, but we do all right most of the time.

Personally, I’ve gotten a little tired of all the America bashing – because I truly believe that the world would be a far worse place if we decided to turn inward, forget about the rest of the world, and not be involved in its affairs. Instead, we spend our own money, send our own troops to die, and freely give aid in the form of medical supplies and food to damn near every nation that’s ever asked us for it, forgiven trillions of dollars of debt for rebuilding Europe after WWII, and routinely forgive debts throughout the world. And what do we get in return? Grief. But I suppose it could be worse…There are places in the world where you couldn’t say what’s on your mind.

[ April 11, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

 

Great points Bel.

I could probably share hundreds of stories to show how anyone can go from rags to riches (or from riches to rags) here.

Washington wanted us to be Strict isolationists. Thank goodness for Jefferson and his far more far-sighted view of America's potential.

 

Good job, Sir Knight. The American bashers can't deny the good America has accomplished, or the freedom that America has that is lacking in many (note I didn't say all) other places.

 

Sir Bel -- Our country is all the things that you say it is and you will not get any disagreement from me on what you have so eloquently stated.

The only thing I would add is that people all over this world want the same things that you listed -- the same hopes and the same dreams for their families and their countries. That we have been successful for the most part at achieving what you say we have, speaks to what is best about America.

 

When I think about why America is willing to put herself on the line for people and nations far away from our shores, I always think about our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776:

http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html

It reminds me of what being an American is, what those before me sacrificed and strove to achieve. I also think this document sums up why we choose to involve ourselves in world affairs; to give people the same chance we made for ourselves over two centuries ago.

It's much more difficult in modern times to rebel against an unjust and oppressive government...Things just happen too fast now. In 1776, we declared our independence. It probably took 3-4 months for King George to receive the Declaration. It probably took another 3-4 months to decide on a course of action, muster the troops, and set sail for America. It was also a long sea voyage, taking as many as 3 months to sail from England to America. So we basically had almost a year to prepare for the King's response. Could you imagine what it would have been like today?

The king sees a mob in Philadelphia post a Declaration of Independence via satellite from CNN. He quickly decides to quash the revolt. He e-mails the colonial garrison to converge on Philadelphia, and dispatches the Royal Navy to send a carrier fleet off the coast of Pennsylvania...Game over.

The people of Iraq couldn't have overthrown Saddam by themselves...Although to our military the Republican Guards are little more than a nuisance - the the people of Iraq, they must have been an insurmountable force. When I see the television footage of people cheering in the streets, I feel like we've done the right thing.

I'm interested to see how the whole thing will play out.

 

The actual point is that the US have intentions going much further than what they promote to have:

The dispute in europe was mainly seen under the perceptions if it's worth to fight a war for a few warheads and a few thousand litres of poison gas. As Saddam, not threatening anyone outside iraq, was just the jerk he's always been the europeans said no.
The ridiculous US claims of Saddam's involvement with 9/11 didn't contribute anything to increase the US credibility, nor did the final approach to bluntly say the US just aimed on a regime change to promote freedom. Eventually, the US behavior ("Who's not with us is against us!" and Rumsfeld bulldozer talk) and their ignorance towards the UN led to a final dead point in European perception, settling the sentence: "Bush is an irrational crusader and warmonger." For every critical observer it must look as if the US were just out for the war.

This perception is rooted in the european understanding that they barely feel threatened by Bin Laden, much less by Saddam - nor did (rightly) believe anyone here seriously in a cooperation of both.

Europeans have traditionally been against war since the cold war times - as in a time of war their civilians would have been the ones to pay the price while the US may have been able to *restrict* the conflict to european soil, german soil especially.
Understandably Europe was for finding a ballance with the east - today they are the *appeasers* to the middle east - why? They don't feel threatened by Iran, Iraq and Syria to the slightest. This is of course, not solidarical - taken the transatlantic rhetorics into account - whatever Moscow, Paris and Berlin may calculate.

The prime question behind the dispute if war is the right way or not is what aims want to be achieved in the middle east. Berlin now always tells old europe, germany, would have to help the US in rebuilding the crisis region, to stabilise it. That is a clear misunderstanding of the US gvt's aims.

The US do not want to stabilise the region. They want to shape it so that it cannot be a source to international terrorism any longer. Terror was in the past backed by gvt's in the middle east - who were protected by international law. So the US want a regime change. The US feel that only pro-US, democratic regimes offer the guarantee that they have nothing to earn with terror.
That, unfortunately includes breaking international law.

That may even offer a big chance - if the US take their constitutional principles serious. But still it comes at the price of ignoring international law. This damages the reliability of this vital instrument to assure peace and stability in the world. It also damages the US credibility as a partner, feeling not to be bound to international law if they don't like it.
Europe has to take the US by their word to assure this because in case the US plans fail they will result in mayhem of unpreceded scale. Barely astonishing that old europe is so sceptical towards the revolutionary, agressive elan of the US.

Europe is traditionally relucant when it comes to war to assure political aims: Chirac and Schröder are right when they stress that principle. War creates too much misery and suffering, too much does it heats up the patriotic pride of the people, overcoming their peacefulness (look at the US). Multilateralsim indeed has been europes formula of success as we have learned by bitter esxperience what it means to allow room for nationalism. The US - having never since the civil war experienced dead, mayhem, misery and destruction on a similar scale - have forgotten that lesson already. Unilateralism is easy to promote for them as the price in blood is paid by people in remote lands, far away. This war is again confirming that experience, and it will bring the US even more in focus of international terror.

It, however, is questionable to stress that democracy has to come from inside - even more in a country like Iraq which is important only for two reason: Oil and stability.
So, when europe is so unambitioned, calm and sober about the middle east are in illusion about the middle east.

The reason why the middle east is reasonably stable is because till now no-one has seriously started anything against terror support and transfer.
Lebanon is stable because Syria does't interferes too intense with the Hizbollah to keep Israel at bay. Syria can only do so because they receive massive support from Iran, and so do the Shiites who would otherwise be overwhelmed by the other groups there.
The other reason why the middle east is stable is the oil. That comes for a high price: Stability of the arab countries comes for the price of repression against the own population. Unlike in china there are no traces of improvement in the arab countries.

When in a globalised world only democracy brings peace - then the west has to put a massive emphasis on exporting freedom and human rights - at first into the dangered and endangering middle east. That's something the US have understood.

The question is why did they pick the worst tool to get the job done? Why is the current US human-rights-globalism so suspiciously treacherous?
One thing for sure: The europeans can only slow the current US militarism (that's what it's called to to foreign policy with bombs) when they take the US ideals serious.

This war is against international law. Per legem Bush *is* a war criminal for attacking iraq - no matter how christian he is or how noble (or not) his ideals. That is something the US *have* to be blamed for! And that even leaves the US gvt's long-term goals of an intended dominance out of account.

Today the world needs an international law that protects the people from war much more than a law that protects the countries, possibly led by repressive regimes. That, and that alone, is a key weakness of the UN and international law - even though it can be explained by the historical development. The US scoffing the UN's and international laws effectiveness at the same time take advantage of these drawbacks - will anyone punish Bush for his clear breach of international law? Who could?

The ICC could be an instrument to punish international gvt actors for going to war, violating human rights. That is something the US overlook when they promote international human rights - to their terms. That not only cripples US credibility but damages the chance of this institution's chance for success. The potential of the ICC goes much further than the "idealistic bull" US conservatives see in it. When it causes friction with the US constitution - so what: Is change a thing reserved to the rest of the world? That is something that has to be recognised by the US.

When the west has common interests - what could these interests be? Stability and the status-quo? That cannot be the real message to the middle east despotes, who will probably have to be forced to cooperation - with embargos and sanctions if necessary. That is the big task the west, not the US alone, has to solve in this century to prevent the middle east from staying the troublespot it has been for 50 years now.
It is high time to understand and define these common interests to prevent the the crack between europe and the US from becoming an abyss. What both parties need is a uniting idealism.

[ April 14, 2003, 16:34: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I think the thread sums up why lots of people have a problem with America. I have been to the states a few times and have known and been friendly with lots of Americans. What is difficult to take is the rose coloured spectacles view of history, the black and white view of international issues, the vigilante approach to law, the idea that there can only be one religion and that God is an American.

Now I also appreciate that a big part of this problem is Hollywood and the fact that films made for Americans are watched throughout the world, but it does become annoying to many people where the US attitude is 'we are great and the reason we are great is because we are great - end of argument.' The idea of questioning anything or considering that the US is not great or always right seems to be beyond mainstream America.

The obvious example of the Hollywood problem is the two world wars. Recently we saw the anti-French crowd joking about how the French could never defend themselves and always needed the US to save them. Are Americans so ignorant of WWI that they don't realise that France did not fall and that millions of Frenchmen had died before any American set foot in the country? The situation for WWII is almost as bad. It seems that many American feel that the war in Europe was only won as a result of the American forces. Not many would doubt their proud and appreciated contribution, but it is almost insignificant when compared to the Russian contribution. Even worse is the commonly held view (even by many non-Americans) that the War against Japan only involved America. It seems to be forgotten that there was also a major land offensive throughout China, India, Burma, etc. How much more difficult would the Pacific campaign have been for America if the Japanese had not had their efforts divided?

There also seems to be a common view that everyone should thank America for getting involved when they just wanted to mind their own affairs. Hence we are expected to be grateful for their involvement and wonderfully charitable gesture. Again, we do appreciate their commitment but doesn't any American ever question what drove Japan to attack them in the first place - the incredible interference in the pacific from an 'isolationist' country. Sadly, 9/11 seems to be a smaller scale repeat and no one seems willing to think about why people feel so strongly that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives. Instead, the whole issue is dismissed as 'well they are just evil or cowards.'

Going back to some of the other points made, you have highlighted the founding fathers as examples of standing up for truth, justice and freedom. If history had turned out differently (the French fleet not managing to stop the British fleet for example), then these men would most likely have been written into history as terrorists, inciting civil unrest and trying to start a civil war. Most people today would agree that the British Empire did not treat its colonies fairly but the US was the only one that conducted a major war over it, as opposed to fully exploring political means. If you are looking for heroes fighting colonial oppression, isn't Gandhi a far better role model?

Then there is the question of freedom. We often hear that the US leads the way in freedom for people and there is a tendency to look down on other nations (especially those that still have a constitutional monarchy). Against this the outside world still sees the unfair treatment of native Americans, blatant disregard of human rights in Camp X-ray, a country where political views are oppressed (not being allowed to be a communist, the communist witch hunts of the 60s, etc), a recent history of apartheid, (plus slavery not that long ago), a Government that is regularly rocked by political scandal and corruption, the death penalty, etc, etc.

You also mention that the US is founded on people trying to better themselves. Well in some cases that may be true but it might also be argued that a lot of people went there because they weren't good enough to succeed where they were. It is also ironic that you seem to have such a problem with letting anyone into the country nowadays unless they are already a success. I'm sure lots of the people trying to get in across the southern borders, for example, really do want to improve themselves. Anyway, as has been said, I think most people share the same dream (as the 'American Dream') to do better for themselves and their children. I'm not sure though that American is still the land of opportunity that it once undoubtedly was.

Sadly I fear that this post will be treated as an outrageous attack on the US. I do hope though that it is seen for what it is meant to be, me playing devil's advocate. The danger comes from when people start believing that they can do no wrong and that they are always right without stopping to consider the issues. It was that attitude that enabled a certain painter with a funny moustache to trigger events that lead to the death of billions of people.

Anyway, all nations have things they can be proud about and things they should be less proud about. America' influence is so much bigger than any other country though that any small mistakes get spotted and criticised. Perhaps it is the price to pay for being the most influential country on the planet and a form of backhanded compliment. Though to be fair, maybe we should also do more to look at and appreciate the abundance of good things about the US rather than just the negatives.

In closing I should acknowledge that the UK people, tend to be a pretty arrogant lot and we still delude ourselves that we matter as an international power. However, we still try to take the mickey out of ourselves occasionally, our news (sometimes) tries to show both sides, and every few years Mel Gibson releases a film to remind us what utter bastards we used to be.

 

I have been to the US once. I have many friends and relatives there. America does have many positive aspects. It can be a great place to live in. I will just reiterate my point in another thread. Is the average American aware of what its government does to ensure the continuation of its way of life?