|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| On U.S. Motives... |
| Strongly Agree |
|
13% |
[ 4 ] |
| Agree |
|
34% |
[ 10 ] |
| No Opinion |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
| Disagree |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| Strongly Disagree |
|
27% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 29 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...Hard to judge about "good faith" without the back stories. |
In the United States open Congressional hearings, such devices as the Freedom of Information Act, a very healthy production of memoirs (which often conflict with and argue with each other, shedding much light on multiple historical problems and interpretations), a fairly aggressive and at times oppositionist press with people dealing with as much "back story" as you can take in (Jack Anderson, Hersh, or Woodward, for example), and a functioning declassification system all combine to mitigate this.
And all of this allows professional historians to bring much to the light of day. They have indeed done just that.
One only needs to engage the literature and see what is out there, then.
So I think yours is a particularly overly-cynical worldview, Canuckistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, I would say that the USA has been generally interventionist for some time now. |
I didn't express myself very well. I'll try again.
The neocons seem to like military adventures, and that is not the usual case with the average American. Since WWII we've been involved in three long wars, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and in all three the public went along rather begrudgingly at first and then the opposition grew vocal. Other interventions were short, like Grenada and Panama. No way to say what would've been the public reaction had they lasted longer, but I think the pattern is clear. It's my belief that most Americans are rather isolationist at heart.
In today's Asia Times Online there is an article (a reprint from Foreign Policy in Focus) claiming the neocons are still plotting war with Iran and the writer says an attack on Iran in the next two years is more than likely. "Indeed, if you are putting down a wager, the odds are better than
even that the United States will attack Iran in the next two years, and the assault will have a great deal of support from both sides of the aisle."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL14Ak04.html
I don't think the public will go for this (without a clear provocation from Iran). It doesn't help that Iran has a loud-mouth hot head for a president, but he doesn't have much power. "The authority to go to war rests with Ayatollah Ali al-Khamenei, who in May 2003 offered to open up Iran's nuclear plants for inspection, rein in Hezbollah, accept a two-state solution, and cooperate against al-Qaeda. He also issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. The initiative was shot down by US Vice President Dick Cheney and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
But I didn't mean to limit my statement saying the neocons are radically different to just military adventures. It seems to me that their Patriot Act, far-flung prisons, renditions and torture etc. flies in the face of the values of most Americans. I think historically we've been relatively progressive in the area of expanding rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There should be an option "I don't give a toss".
"No opinion" doesn't really suffice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
What about China?
Has China, more often than not, acted in good faith over the past 50 years?
What countries haven't?
Which ones have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
What about China?
Has China, more often than not, acted in good faith over the past 50 years?
What countries haven't?
Which ones have? |
The British Empire was saintly altruistic.
Poor buggers in India and the Americas and Australasia needed civilizing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
There should be an option "I don't give a toss".
"No opinion" doesn't really suffice. |
And don't forget for those of us from the North: Ah couldna gi' a shyte mun
| SPINOZA wrote: |
The British Empire was saintly altruistic.
Poor buggers in India and the Americas and Australasia needed civilizing. |
That's a good point. Many Brits at that time deluded themselves that they were doing their stuff for the good of the natives, bringing them civilisation and what have you (while all the time stealing from them, using them as cheap/slave labour, brutally surpressing indigenous uprisings and all that malarky). So people of that time may well have argued that what they were doing was done in good faith. Good faith seems a very subjective concept to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...Hard to judge about "good faith" without the back stories. |
In the United States open Congressional hearings, such devices as the Freedom of Information Act, a very healthy production of memoirs (which often conflict with and argue with each other, shedding much light on multiple historical problems and interpretations), a fairly aggressive and at times oppositionist press with people dealing with as much "back story" as you can take in (Jack Anderson, Hersh, or Woodward, for example), and a functioning declassification system all combine to mitigate this.
And all of this allows professional historians to bring much to the light of day. They have indeed done just that.
One only needs to engage the literature and see what is out there, then.
So I think yours is a particularly overly-cynical worldview, Canuckistan. |
Back stories will not appear on any freedom of information material available to the public. It is far more obscured, borderless, and further away than knowable Washington peon intrigue.
Not overly-cynical, just pragmatic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
Back stories will not appear on any freedom of information material available to the public. It is far more obscured, borderless, and further away than knowable Washington peon intrigue.
Not overly-cynical, just pragmatic. |
Great. Sounds like you have something novel to contribute. But if it is not just a product of your overly-cynical worldview, then please share how, exactly, you know what you say you know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But if it is not just a product of your overly-cynical worldview, then please share how, exactly, you know what you say you know... |
So, you create a loaded poll and then start labeling those who don't toe the obvious line you expect of "normal" people?
That's rubbish, and so is your poll.
Why?
A) It's subjective (as OTOH points out) and based on incomplete information (as Canuckistan points out).
B) The time period covers a whole succession of administrations that you're lumping together, not to mention the rather arbitrary 1945. Why did you choose this date? Rather, what happened before then that you want to exclude? Incidentally, the Nazi-Soviet Pact happened pre-1945, so you haven't actually given an example of bad faith that fits the context you've stipulated.
C) Consider the laughter and joy that John Wayne Gacy must have brought to thousands of children in his job as a clown. More often than not, we might say that he acted in good faith. Compared to thousands he entertained, the 10+ boys he murdered is relatively small. That's not to compare the US to Gacy, it's just an example of how "more often than not" is not really meaningful.
D) Instead, given the fuzziness of "good faith" and meaninglessness of "more often than not", this poll is more indicative of the OP's own inherent bias, something said individual either refuses to aknowledge or chooses to ignore.
Essentially, it's a sloppy attempt most likely intended to expose treacherously pessimistic anti-establishment extremist attitudes under the guise of "social scientist" objectivity while practically begging the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:47 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But if it is not just a product of your overly-cynical worldview, then please share how, exactly, you know what you say you know... |
So, you create a loaded poll and then start labeling those who don't toe the obvious line you expect of "normal" people?
|
I tend to agree with Nowhere Man. So often it seems you only appreciate comments to polls/threads that fall within your views on the matter at hand. It's uncivilized.
Perhaps you should include caveats and/or footnotes to your comments/polls/threads stating what you expect is acceptable as far as responses go.
Last edited by canuckistan on Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But if it is not just a product of your overly-cynical worldview, then please share how, exactly, you know what you say you know... |
So, you create a loaded poll and then start labeling those who don't toe the obvious line you expect of "normal" people?
|
I tend to agree with Nowhere Man. So often it seems you only appreciate comments to polls/threads that fall within your views on the matter at hand. It's uncivilized.
Perhaps you should include caveats and/or footnotes to your comments/polls/threads stating what you expect is acceptable as far as responses go. |
It seems unfair to put this upon Gopher when almost every single poster on the CE forum does the exact same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...It's uncivilized. |
Canuckistan: first you come onto the thread to proclaim that you will not partipate in the poll. You assert/allege that it is impossible to judge the issue I pose because there are "back stories" (apparently that only you and your secret, antiAmerican decoder-ring -- which you deny bears any relation to your worldview -- can perceive).
Then, when pressed to explain how you concluded that the decisive information on U.S. motives remains hidden, you join the other far-left poster -- neither of you being able to stand any discussion at all on the United States that is not bitterly denouncing it in one way or another -- in attacking my civility. You and he also dismiss that "good faith" actually means anything at all. Very fine. I have seen philosophers attack the Declaration of Independence as a meaningless document as well. That is, you can make anything meaningless if you are so inclined.
Yet just as the Declaration of Independence has moved people's minds and thus history, so, too, can I claim that my "meaningless poll" has so far drawn positive responses (that is, an answer, qualified or not) from twenty-five posters. Compare and contrast my turnout in less than two pages with the fifty or so a nearly two-hundred page thread on evolution turned out and, all things considered, my poll seems to mean something to those who post here.
And still you fail to answer my question. What you and he are doing is called "squirming" -- sniping at the issue from its margins, criticizing me for asking about the United States when I might have asked about China or any other country in the world, bringing in serial killers, failing to understand the significance of dividing U.S. history into colonial to Civil War, Civil War to the present, and 1945 to the present blocks, etc.
In any case, how do you know that "back stories" exist and that they are so different from what we now know about foreign policy formulation in the United States? And if you cannot take me through the steps and show me how you arrived at this conclusion, then we need to clarify that you should have specified that you "believe" or "suspect" but, at the end of the day, you do not have anything more than your worldview to guide you on this.
I will interpret your failure to address this and/or future squirming as tacit recognition of my point's soundness and validity.
Finally, you and Nowhere Man complain that I am "subjective." Presumably, and implicit in such a complaint, not only does "objectivity" exist, but you two are closer to it than I. This is not uncivilized but rather absurd -- the most meaningless of all meaningless complaints. Pligganease is dead on with his objection.
And show me where I have ever claimed to occupy an Olympian perspective. Indeed, my politics are straightfoward and relatively simple to understand: as the thread on our own ideologies confirms, my politics go just to the left of center. In my voting lifetime, I supported the H.W. Bush and Clinton presidencies. But I do not agree with W. Bush at all. And, in the final analysis, barring unforseen developments in Washington (military coup, etc.), in world affairs I will always side with the United States government. As we proudly say in the Marine Corps, Semper Fi; we were not chosen to protect the President in Marine One and at Camp David over Army Rangers for nothing.
And to further clarify the difference between good faith and bad faith in my poll's context, I present President Hugo Chavez Frias and his allegation that the U.S. acts in utter bad faith in world affairs...
| Quote: |
"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."
Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil -- 1:06)
"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "
Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated." |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html
I know this will ring "truer" to your ears than my "subjective" poll results so I leave you three together to nod your heads "yes" in satisfaction... 
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:01 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...It's uncivilized. |
Canuckistan: first you come onto the thread to proclaim that you will not partipate in the poll. You assert/allege that it is impossible to judge the issue I pose because there are "back stories" (apparently that only you and your secret, antiAmerican decoder-ring -- which you deny bears any relation to your worldview -- can perceive).
Then, when pressed to explain how you concluded that the decisive information on U.S. motives remains hidden, you join the other far-left poster -- neither of you being able to stand any discussion at all on the United States that is not bitterly denouncing it in one way or another -- in attacking my civility. You and he also dismiss that "good faith" actually means anything at all. Very fine. I have seen philosophers attack the Declaration of Independence as a meaningless document as well. That is, you can make anything meaningless if you are so inclined.
Yet just as the Declaration of Independence has moved people's minds and thus history, so, too, can I claim that my "meaningless poll" has so far drawn positive responses (that is, an answer, qualified or not) from twenty-five posters. Compare and contrast my turnout in less than two pages with the fifty or so a nearly two-hundred page thread on evolution turned out and, all things considered, my poll seems to mean something to those who post here.
And still you fail to answer my question. What you and he are doing is called "squirming" -- sniping at the issue from its margins, bringing in serial killers, etc.
In any case, how do you know that "back stories" exist and that they are so different from what we now know about foreign policy formulation in the United States? And if you cannot take me through the steps and show me how you arrived at this conclusion, then we need to clarify that you should have specified that you "believe" or "suspect" but, at the end of the day, you do not have anything more than your worldview to guide you on this.
I will interpret your failure to address this and/or future squirming as tacit recognition of my point's soundness and validity.
Finally, you and Nowhere Man complain that I am "subjective." Presumably, and implicit in such a complaint, not only does "objectivity" exist, but you two are closer to it than I. This is not uncivilized but rather absurd -- the most meaningless of all meaningless complaints.
Show me where I have ever claimed to occupy an Olympian perspective.
And to further clarify the difference between good faith and bad faith in my poll's context, I present President Hugo Chavez Frias and his allegation that the U.S. acts in utter bad faith in world affairs...
| Quote: |
"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."
Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil -- 1:06)
"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "
Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated." |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html
I know this will ring "truer" to your ears than my "subjective" poll results so I leave you three together to nod your heads "yes" in satisfactoin... |
There's Gopher's usual fallback label of "anti-American" when I haven't said anything of the sort.
What took you so long?
*Yawn*
You're proving Nowhere Man quite right in his rather lucid assessment of your control issues that come screaming through when you start threads for "discussion" (and I use that term very loosely in your case).
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
...how do you know that "back stories" exist and that they are so different from what we now know about foreign policy formulation in the United States? And if you cannot take me through the steps and show me how you arrived at this conclusion, then we need to clarify that you should have specified that you "believe" or "suspect" but, at the end of the day, you do not have anything more than your worldview to guide you on this.
I will interpret your failure to address this and/or future squirming as tacit recognition of my point's soundness and validity. |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. |
LOL.
Thought so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
The British Empire was saintly altruistic.
Poor buggers in India and the Americas and Australasia needed civilizing. |
That's a good point. Many Brits at that time deluded themselves that they were doing their stuff for the good of the natives, bringing them civilisation and what have you (while all the time stealing from them, using them as cheap/slave labour, brutally surpressing indigenous uprisings and all that malarky). So people of that time may well have argued that what they were doing was done in good faith. Good faith seems a very subjective concept to me. |
Wow, twice in one day where I've come across posts that I agree with nearly 100%. Sweet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
