| 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: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: On U.S. Motives... |
 |
|
"From 1945 to the present, the United States government, more often than not, has acted in good faith."
How does this statement strike you and why? And, as a bone to a social scientist friend, I am making this an odd-numbered poll with a neutral response... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think most countries act in good faith. However, I also think that there tends to be a convergence between what a country thinks is morally good and what a country deems to be in its best material interest.
I have heard arguments for and against third world child labor. But if tomorrow I found out that I was about to inherit a sweatshop that employed 12-year olds and would be earning me millions of dollars a year, I'd probably go over to the "pro-child labor" side of the debate PDQ. And I would probably feel myself to be quite sincere in arguing that I was preventing these kids from being driven into a life of prostitution or starvation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I think most countries act in good faith... |
I think the Nazi-Soviet Pact, with respect to Poland, stands as a nice, absolute example of the every bottom of the bad faith end of the spectrum.
Perhaps Castro's pledge to send doctors to New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath, and his having doctors actually stand by on the tarmac, stands as a fairly straightforward modern-day example of the other end of what I refer to in my question... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the whole, I "agree".
The US has mostly - invariably? - acted in good faith, at least until the present administration, and am confident that she will again soon.
Last edited by Wangja on Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two people strongly disagree, but didn't post their reasons why?
I think it's because we already know who they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually posted agree. I think that the underlying intentions of America have always been if not nobel at least based (usually) in the ideals of liberty and open society.
However, I think the biggest problem with US foriegn policy has been the way that big buisness (whether it be oil companies in the Gulf, or military suppliers in Africa) has gotten its hooks into the government. For such a clear example just look to the current adminstration of oil millionaires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| I actually posted agree... |
Pligganease might be slow to come around, Octavius. But I already had a pretty good idea you voted either "agree," "no opinion," or at worst, only "disagree." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Wangja. Even with an administration as incompetent as this one it's good to see that there's a strong underlying current that they can't seem to shake. Even while they were in power for example a lot of states have just decided to do things on their own re: the environment, especially California and the New England states. With the advent of Wikipedia as well it's almost impossible for a government to spin things the way they want and expect the rest of the world not to notice. And with the popularity of people like Obama it's pretty obvious that people don't want what they've been getting for the past while.
I voted agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| I actually posted agree... |
Pligganease might be slow to come around, Octavius. But I already had a pretty good idea you voted either "agree," "no opinion," or at worst, only "disagree." |
I actually wasn't referring to OH. I was thinking more like Green Tea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I voted agree.
I agree with OTOH, though, that it is necessary to distinguish 'good intentions' from 'best interests'. This is important to do because multiple, conflicting interests may be seen as 'best' by different actors in the American system, which may also lead to different intentions.
I would write more on this, but I'm in the States now, using a friend's connection and she needs to get some work done soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is good faith really? I think the US, like every country, always acts to protect its interest and consolidate or increase its position of power and leverage and wealth. Thats what countries do, the rest is just spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| has acted in good faith |
I also want to know what this phrase means. Does it mean: The Government acts for the publically stated reasons? Does it mean the Government has avoided acting for the benefit of a few corporations while ignoring the national interest? Very vague.
I do think all countries act primarily for their national interest. I also think that sometimes almost all countries act out of a sense of altruism. I think the US tends to do this a bit more than other countries because the US is an ideological construct rather than an ethnically based one. It's always possible to twist an altruistic motive into a self-serving one if you are of a cynical bent of mind, but that doesn't mean the cynics are right.
The current administration is a radical deviation from common American ideals. I've said this for some time. Americans get lambasted for coming in late to both world wars but then lambasted for being interventionist. Both cannot be true at the same time. Ask your average Joe in Dubuque why his uncle was sent to die in Korea and why his nephew is being sent to Korea today and he'll say he has no idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The current administration is a radical deviation from common American ideals. |
Well, I would say that the USA has been generally interventionist for some time now. But yeah, for most of that period, they were no more interventionist than European powers were.
Furthermore, with many if not most of their interventions, you can find other countries that were willing to go along with whatever the US was doing, presumbaly out of fidelity to their own national interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| ...That[']s what countries do, the rest is just spin. |
This is too dismissive.
"Good faith" is a common English-language expression, particularly in law and business. But here is my own clarification by what I mean in this particular poll nevertheless (add this to the contrast I presented between the Nazi-Soviet Pact and Castro, above)...
If you believe that U.S. policymakers act on behalf of "the national interest," which includes national-security and macroeconomics (without explicitly showing concern for any one or group of particular private corporations) in formulating and conducting foreign policy, then you probably believe that the U.S. govt tends to act in good faith. This includes that, more often than not, the govt tells the truth or something close to it.
This allows for honest differences in perspective and interpretation. Indeed, retrospectively, Washington was often wrong in its analyses of Third-World politics. But, in any case, Washington's Cold War motives are indeed best characterized by what policymakers claimed: overall national economic interests (read "open markets"), national-security, and anticommunism.
This interpretation's keystone is the following: you believe that policymakers tend to draw distinctions between national economic interests and particular corporations' special interests in foreign affairs.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the military-industrial complex and the so-called ins-and-outers formulate and conduct foreign policy on behalf of their own narrow, private interests, then you probably believe that the U.S. govt tends to act in bad faith. Just as 9/11 and the War on Terror were "all lies," so, too, was the entire Cold War "a lie": some allege, for example, that Washington manipulated North Korea into attacking in June 1950 in order to implement NSC 68 and force Cold War-era military spending, that Washington provoked the North Vietnamese in order to start that war and keep said spending running, and that the United States manipulated the Soviets into Afghanistan; Washington overthrew Arbenz to protect United Fruit Company's position, and the same with Allende and ITT and Halliburton in Iraq...(the list goes on).
Of course, those who share this worldview believe that 9/11 and the War on Terror have nothing to do with terrorism but rather the can be reduced to one word: "oil." Indeed, those who share this worldview claim that the W. Bush Administration, even if it did not perpetrate 9/11, was immensely pleased when it occurred, because it allowed the govt to resume Cold War-era military spending even in the absence of the Cold War.
This latter interpretation does not allow for honest differences in perspective and interpretation. Rather, it only sees "manipulation," "deception," "propaganda," "lies," and, underlying it all, corporate malfeasance and greed, and Wall Street's malicious desire to dominate the world economically -- in a word, "bad faith." (see, for example, The X-Files or any Igotthisguitar post on this board) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's usually a "back story" that never sees the light of day concerning decisions that are made public by any gov't.
Hard to judge about "good faith" without the back stories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
