03-01-2005 09:43									#151
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Well, let's add it up: Foreign interventions since 1945, by country: Britain: Korea, Malaya, Egypt (Suez), Argentina (Falklands), Iraq X2, Serbia France: Korea, Indochina, Algeria, Egypt (Suez), Congo (others in Africa?), Iraq, Serbia China: Korea, Tibet(?), Vietnam USSR/Russia: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afganistan Total 19

Very incomplete list, specially given that:

quote: France’s investment in Africa is five per cent of its external trade, and Paris has, since the 1960s, intervened militarily in at least nine African countries.13 France intervened in Mauritania, Senegal, the Congo, Gabon, Cameroon and Chad in the 1960s; in Chad again, as well as in Djibouti, Western Sahara, the Central African Republic and Zaire in the 1970s; and in Chad twice more in the 1980s; in Togo in 1986; and finally—-and most controversially—-in Rwanda in the 1990s. These interventions earned France the title ‘the gendarme of Africa.’14

http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Monographs/No105/2French.htm

Then there are the Comoros, just for the French:

quote: The remaining Comoros islands declared themselves independent on July 6, 1975, with Ahmed Abdallah as president. A month after independence, he was overthrown by Justice Minister Ali Soilih. This was only the beginning of Comoros's chronic instability: the country has gone through more than 20 coups since independence and has experienced several attempts at secession. Orchestrating at least four of these coups was a group of white mercenaries known as Les Affreux (The Terrible Ones), and their notorious leader, Frenchman “Colonel” Bob Denard. Denard fled Comoros in 1989, when 3,000 French soldiers were sent after him.

Again, yes, the US has intervened repeatedly-but again, to claim we have done it more thanh ANYONE else is false- heck, the French themselves probably get to 15 interventions on their own, including their current mission in the Ivory Coast. Would you call France war mongering based on that record?

	03-01-2005 09:58									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo From republicans.

	03-01-2005 10:01									#153
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Again, yes, the US has intervened repeatedly-but again, to claim we have done it more thanh ANYONE else is false-

No, anyone else is correct. Everyone else is incorrect.

	03-01-2005 10:01									#154
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ok, fair enough. But I left open the possibility that there were French interventions in Africa that I wasn't aware of, oui? I probably missed a number of British interventions as well, and undoubtably some American ones have been missed too, eg. Philippines.

Still, I think I made my point. The US has a very long list of countries it has sent it's armed forces into since WWII, not including CIA coups. The fact that the former imperial powers Britain and France also invade third world nations regularly doesn't minimize the US role as an aggressive, militaristic power.

	03-01-2005 10:22									#155
	Inflate your Upload Space

I bet Gian gets all his "facts" from divine revelation from Lord God Pinochet and Lord God Franco.

	03-01-2005 18:56									#156
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Ok, fair enough. But I left open the possibility that there were French interventions in Africa that I wasn't aware of, oui? I probably missed a number of British interventions as well, and undoubtably some American ones have been missed too, eg. Philippines. Still, I think I made my point. The US has a very long list of countries it has sent it's armed forces into since WWII, not including CIA coups. The fact that the former imperial powers Britain and France also invade third world nations regularly doesn't minimize the US role as an aggressive, militaristic power.

This is the crux of the discussion I see- if the behavior of the US is the same as that of any late capitalistic power, then we can;t single out the US as "warmongering", since that implies behavior above and beyond that of a state in its position driven by some deeper cultural traits. The US then is simply acting as a state such as the US would act.

	03-01-2005 19:17									#157
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap This is the crux of the discussion I see- if the behavior of the US is the same as that of any late capitalistic power, then we can;t single out the US as "warmongering", since that implies behavior above and beyond that of a state in its position driven by some deeper cultural traits. The US then is simply acting as a state such as the US would act.

I am precisely interested in the cultural traits. The behaviour of the US diplomacy is fairly easy to assess, and the US goverment has shown much more restraint in using its power than any superpower of the past.

The attitudes of the American people, their acceptation for war, their opinion about the military etc., are the real interesting thing IMHO.

Do you think, GePap, after reading DanS', El Freako's, Colon's, Ozzy's, Chegitz's and my posts, that the American people are warlike? DO you think these posts are wrong in some aspect or another, and do you wish to correct them? How are the Americans warlike? How are they not? I think that's the point that is more worthy of debate

	03-01-2005 19:39									#158
	Put an end to popups!

No, the American people are NOT warlike- the idea of isolationism is very strong in this country, but there is one notion that is open to abuse widely shared by Americans:
The self image as a special nation- even the people who do not see it in religious terms do accept the US as exceptional, and having some sort of universal message to teach the world- to a minor extent, they are right, given the unprecedented polyglot nature of the American polity and how it came to be (through involuntary or voluntary immigration, as opposed to territorial acquisition, like the polyglot British empire at its height)-hence to a certain degree not found in more established and until now more homogenous nations, American believe that if they go to war, they are doing it for certain moral reasons, and don;t in general accept the idea that we are conducting the same old type of policy other states carry.

This greatly affects the ability of a regime to take actions without much disagreement, even with our free press. People in the US are unwilling to view American intervention around the world as being motivated by the same sort of petty national interests that they assign to other states- look at the endless Republican hoopla about "oil for food"- it plays so well because in the minds of many Americans it paints a difference between corrupt, money seeking old world vs. chivalric crusading America- we fight for freedom, all they care about is money!

So American regimes are given a huge latitude by our people to carry out actions overseas as long as they are couched in the lofty rhetoric of American exceptionalism- this is fact is a basis of Neocon thought- they want America to be aggressive but since America is special, our aggression is not bad aggression-heck, its not even aggression, its saving the world!

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the neocons would gladly build a superhighway to the 9th level as long as they think they are saving the world. They are our new overmen, fighting for "truth, justice, and the American Way".

Does this classify as Warmongering? I don't think so-its not war or aggression for its sake- at the bottom is always a belief, correct or incorrect, that we are doing what we do because no other possibility of doing the right thing is left. This is what the American people think. And American leaders know this- and whether those leaders act out of the same belief, or cynically exploit that belief, the result is the same.

	03-01-2005 20:06									#159
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think what you're describing is very typical to the nation-state. I'd say it was just as common in Europe before the idea got discredited by WWII. Maybe it's rather Europe that's the odd case out there because the idea of being exceptional appears to remain just as lively outside western Europe. (China, Japan, Russia...)

	03-01-2005 20:14									#160
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Do they really consider that good? If they where people close to them, if they where faithful muslims, would they think it is good to kill them? Was their intention to kill lots of people, or to 'punish heretics' and bring redemption (at the point of a sword)?

Obviously, their intention was to "kill lots of infidels", not just people. Forgive me for being imprecise

quote: Now, what if the blindman knew before hand that there was a "Big Red Button" right beside the one for room service, and while feeling very confident that he knew which one was for room service, he tried to press it... but hit the red button instead?

There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

	03-01-2005 20:28									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Obviously, their intention was to "kill lots of infidels", not just people. Forgive me for being imprecise

Infidels = evil. Kill them = good
Insurgents = evil. Kill them = good

As I said before, good or evil is decided by the perception of the victims, not the motive of the killer

quote: There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

The victims will still be dead. You have a moral and juridical obligation to avoid being thoughtless.

	03-01-2005 20:38									#162
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker There's a difference between being thoughtless and being evil.

In such a scenario, I don't think there is. Willful ignorance or overwhelming arrogance can not be used as a shield of righteousness.

	03-01-2005 20:48									#163
	Suffering from ads?

This is an absurd discussion that has degenerated into the surreal.

	03-01-2005 20:50									#164
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And isn't that just great?

	03-01-2005 21:53									#165
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Part of our county's arrogance comes out of the "Land of the Free" nationalistic propaganda people here are fed, which is insulting to every other western democracy.

	03-01-2005 22:10									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie Infidels = evil. Kill them = good Insurgents = evil. Kill them = good As I said before, good or evil is decided by the perception of the victims, not the motive of the killer

Good or evil in the eyes of the victims is decided by the perceptions of the victims. ANYTHING in the eyes of someone is decided by the perceptions of that someone. This is tautological! You don't have anything beyond your perceptions to go on!

In this case, it's the perception of the motive that matters.

quote: The victims will still be dead. You have a moral and juridical obligation to avoid being thoughtless.

In your eyes, because you see that being motivated solely by wanting the room service, without motivation to care for the safety of others, is evil. But even you would acknowledge that, if the blind person had NO knowledge of the Big Red Button, or even if it was knowledge of a very, very small possiblity (which is the normal state of things) of the Big Red Button, then the blind person wouldn't be an evil monster. Otherwise, every action, even inaction, would be evil, because we can't be certain of its effects.

	03-01-2005 22:29									#167
	Inflate your Upload Space

GePap-

So, since the US hasn't quite invaded as many countries as the rest of the world put together, they're not warlike?

You keep defaulting to this neo-con ideology theory to explain American behavior. But clearly the pattern existed before neo-con ideology. It existed under liberal Democrat governments. It has been consistent.

I also don't agree with the dichotomy that you're either warlike OR isolationist. Isolationism was a movement from the '20's and '30's. It is not accurate to describe today's anti-war or multi-lateralist views as "isolationist".

BTW, I agree with your assesment of American psychology. It's an interesting combination of altruism and arrogance.

	03-01-2005 23:24									#168
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: GePap- So, since the US hasn't quite invaded as many countries as the rest of the world put together, they're not warlike?

Since the US hasn't invaded quite as many countries as many INDIVIDUAL countries of the world, such as France, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc....

	04-01-2005 00:48									#169
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by techumseh GePap- So, since the US hasn't quite invaded as many countries as the rest of the world put together, they're not warlike?

If you take the whole history of the United States, and compare its actions in the last 226 years with those of other states, the US is not even close to the most interventionist state out there-limiting comparisons to the last 50 years is sort of cheating, if the idea is one of some perculiar American mindset. That being the case, perhaps we can call the US warlike-if we call European civlization and its offshoots warlike.

quote: You keep defaulting to this neo-con ideology theory to explain American behavior. But clearly the pattern existed before neo-con ideology. It existed under liberal Democrat governments. It has been consistent.

Yes, I just spoke of the near-universal belief in the US of American exceptionalism.

quote: I also don't agree with the dichotomy that you're either warlike OR isolationist. Isolationism was a movement from the '20's and '30's. It is not accurate to describe today's anti-war or multi-lateralist views as "isolationist".

An isolationist state simply can;t be warlike. But American isolationism goes beyond 1920's and 30's. Wilson won reelection in 1916 by promissing to keep the US out of the European War, and Washington in his fairwell apoke against international alliences.

	04-01-2005 01:01									#170
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

GePap needs to spend some time outside New York and Chicago before saying Americans aren't warlike. Americans are always talking about we should bomb somebody or another.

	04-01-2005 01:04									#171
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Colon I think what you're describing is very typical to the nation-state. I'd say it was just as common in Europe before the idea got discredited by WWII. Maybe it's rather Europe that's the odd case out there because the idea of being exceptional appears to remain just as lively outside western Europe. (China, Japan, Russia...)

Nothing in Europe is like this attitude, or in east Asia.

Yes, China and Japan both are self-centered, but they do not really think they have any fundamentally universal message to the world- THEY are special, period. Noone else is.

This is the difference-the American "nation" is based on a set of common ideals, NOT blood, NOT ancestral history- and hence Americans do believe them to be universal. Yes, Victorians and Europeans in the late 19th century saw this "White Man's burden", but they never really believed the lower races to be capable of uplift-certainly Americans at the time thought the same, but the notion that American are special never ended, because in the end, it is too central to the American identity. Germans and Britons can remain that and accept that they are not special in any way, just another nation-BUT not the US.

	04-01-2005 01:07									#172
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara GePap needs to spend some time outside New York and Chicago before saying Americans aren't warlike. Americans are always talking about we should bomb somebody or another.

I have, and I have heard all that, and for all the bull people say (same morons who say the % of foreign aid in the budget is something like 10%), they rarely push anyone into war, now do they?

	04-01-2005 02:13									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara GePap needs to spend some time outside New York and Chicago before saying Americans aren't warlike. Americans are always talking about we should bomb somebody or another.

No, he's right. The !Kung are warlike people. The Yanomami are warlike people. The Government of Nazi Germany circa the 1940s was warlike. Americans are not "warlike"... bar room chit chat aside.

Warlike implies war for the sake of war, and as Gepap has said, Americans only go to war when they honestly believe it is a last resort... rightly or wrongly so. And only occassionally have they (US) done so for the express purpose of territorial acquisition (unlike most European countries/kingdoms in the past 250 years).

	04-01-2005 03:20									#174
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara GePap needs to spend some time outside New York and Chicago before saying Americans aren't warlike. Americans are always talking about we should bomb somebody or another.

I rarely hear anything like that & when I do the person isn't serious. This includes outside of the big cities.

	04-01-2005 03:40									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn No, he's right. The !Kung are warlike people. The Yanomami are warlike people. The Government of Nazi Germany circa the 1940s was warlike. Americans are not "warlike"... bar room chit chat aside. Warlike implies war for the sake of war, and as Gepap has said, Americans only go to war when they honestly believe it is a last resort... rightly or wrongly so. And only occassionally have they (US) done so for the express purpose of territorial acquisition (unlike most European countries/kingdoms in the past 250 years).

The US populace was certainly as warlike as your examples until the civil war. After the civil war the population became much less cavalier about warfare and ww1 seemed to validate the new attitudes further. The Us population isn't truly warlike but it certainly was in the beginning.

	04-01-2005 03:42									#176
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Pyrodrew I rarely hear anything like that & when I do the person isn't serious. This includes outside of the big cities.

I would hear that sort of thing sometimes when I was in grade school. I think che might have kept that impression of peoples attitudes from childhood lunchroom conversations.

	04-01-2005 03:59									#177
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn Warlike implies war for the sake of war, and as Gepap has said, Americans only go to war when they honestly believe it is a last resort... rightly or wrongly so. And only occassionally have they (US) done so for the express purpose of territorial acquisition (unlike most European countries/kingdoms in the past 250 years).

Warlike doesn't necessarily imply war for the sake of war. Here's the Cambridge Online Dictionary definition:

"Definition
warlike
adjective FORMAL
often involved in and eager to start wars:
It has often been said, perhaps unfairly, that they are a warlike nation/people."

"Often involved in and eager to start wars." The US? Say it ain't so!

Do they resort to force only when they honestly believed it was the last resort? How many of the previously listed examples of American aggression can you honestly say that about?

In Iraq the weapons inspectors hadn't even finished their work. In Haiti the US supported a revolt of the ex-soldiers of former dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier against the elected President before stepping in to "restore order". In Grenada the US peddled a **** and bull story about the leftist government's plans to build a tourist airport being a threat to American security to justify that invasion.

Territorial expansion is no longer the motive. It's access to markets, freedom for capital, and control of natural resources. Colonial administration has been replaced with local regimes installed by the imperial power. It's neo-colonalism.

Are Britain and France warlike as well? Probably. The 3 countries are together responsible for 90% of the world's aggression (based on the lists above). All are all neo-colonial powers.

	04-01-2005 04:21									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn The !Kung are warlike people

The Bushmen are warlike?

Che,

quote: GePap needs to spend some time outside New York and Chicago before saying Americans aren't warlike. Americans are always talking about we should bomb somebody or another.

Around here the only time people said stuff like that was right after 9/11 (myself included) and when everyone was being told Saddam was making nukes by Shrub & Co.

	04-01-2005 04:27									#179
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Warlike doesn't necessarily imply war for the sake of war. Here's the Cambridge Online Dictionary definition: "Definition warlike adjective FORMAL often involved in and eager to start wars: It has often been said, perhaps unfairly, that they are a warlike nation/people." "Often involved in and eager to start wars." The US? Say it ain't so! Do they resort to force only when they honestly believed it was the last resort? How many of the previously listed examples of American aggression can you honestly say that about? In Iraq the weapons inspectors hadn't even finished their work. In Haiti the US supported a revolt of the ex-soldiers of former dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier against the elected President before stepping in to "restore order". In Grenada the US peddled a **** and bull story about the leftist government's plans to build a tourist airport being a threat to American security to justify that invasion. Territorial expansion is no longer the motive. It's access to markets, freedom for capital, and control of natural resources. Colonial administration has been replaced with local regimes installed by the imperial power. It's neo-colonalism. Are Britain and France warlike as well? Probably. The 3 countries are together responsible for 90% of the world's aggression (based on the lists above). All are all neo-colonial powers.

It is a total no brainer that the US populace is not eager to start wars. not by any stretch of the imagination. Wars are universally regarded as an aberation amongst americans.

	04-01-2005 04:30									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

First, "intervention" is not the same as war- going in an having a coup is not warmongering. Not even sending in troops is "warmongering"-sending troops to Haiti in 1994, or to Lebanon in 1983 was not "warmongering"

India has been involved in as many shooting wars as the US in the last 50 years:

US: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq
India: Pakistan, China, Pakistan, Pakistan

India has also intervened in various local conflicts- do you call India a warmongering state?

quote: Are Britain and France warlike as well? Probably. The 3 countries are together responsible for 90% of the world's aggression (based on the lists above). All are all neo-colonial powers.

But we are nowhere even close to being responsible for the mayority of human beings slaughtered in war- Heck, the Ethiopia-Eritrea war lead to more dead that the first Iraq war, and the ethnic conflict and then state fighting in the Congo has killed millions.

I certainly agree that the US has countless time for self-interested reasons interfered in the politics of minor states for its own selfish reasons- the US has and does though mainly out of the fact IT CAN than any cultural situation. Any state will mess with weaker neighbors if it can for its own interests- if only a few nations do it frequently and worldwide, its because only a few nations are capable of doing so.