[quote]. Is the American the first benevolent superpower?..[/quote]
POSTED BY: Malbadinlatin
UPDATED: Monday, June 8, 2026 22:46
VIEWED: 10787
PAGE 3 of 8
When I read "world police force" all I could think was "America F**k yeah, we're gonna save the mother f***in day yeah!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My work here is done.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Here is my question...why do we think that we're the first superpower to be a just one?
In absolute terms, of course we're not just or benevolent. Compared to any other superpower I can think of, yes we are.
Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How about no world police?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
How are things in the Philippines? I've always wanted to visit.
Made sense to me. But one of my majors is Southeast Asian Studies and it seems to me that most of the former colonies/countries that have had democracy pushed on them usually have corrupt governments. Even Thailand, where the "democratic revolution" essentially happened from within, is pretty corrupt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
It's warm here?
The Philippines has some nice tourist destinations, but as with any 'declared ally of the Imperialist Powers (aka the US of A)', there are, every so often, acts of terrorism (conspiracy theory that applies to most governments, not just ours: inflict 'terrorism' on the masses and misinform them to increase reliance on the gov't.). That means that, on occasion, an American or European gets kidnapped (c'mon, didn't you see 'Proof of Life'? Our country was listed in the hot spot list near the start of the film
), or some locals get blown to bits (heh, had I been on the transit a few years back, I'd probably be in bits, too...).Depending on how much cash you have, there are really nice places to go to: the Banawe Rice Terraces (haven't been there myself, but I've been told that its pretty), Amanpulo (expensive beach place for rich folks), Boracay (popular beach island), Palawan (still a bit expensive, but then I'm coming from the Peso point-of-view. Dollars are ever welcome here).
Stuff is relatively cheap: a dollar can buy you a decent meal or get you around the metropolis.
(If I remember correctly, minimum wage here is less than 6 dollars/day)
There's also nice tracts of wilderness if you look for it.
I'm in Metro Manila, and it has it nice, clean parts, but we also have vast squatters' areas (the usual image of '3rd world countries').
Opportunists abound, but we've been called 'gracious hosts' and a very welcoming people. IMHO, its a case to case basis. If ever any of you do come, just be wary at all times (heck, I know I am...and I'm a local). Oh, and never trust local officials (including cops and customs), just to be safe.
Regarding corruption:
Yup. That does intend to be the case. Of course, what's to say that the governments prior to the arrival of the colonial powers weren't corrupt or decadent? And that they aren't, in a way, just perpetuating old practices (or, what some would argue, is simply human nature)?
Regarding World Police(s):
I'm kinda mixed on this one. On one side, I'd rather there not be one: let each state/culture police its own and handle its own problems, provided they do not interfere with their neighbors.
On the other hand, I'm all for a (and here's that word again) benevolent superpower that will unite 'all under heaven'. Not a world police, but a world government of sorts (unlike the seemingly impotent United Nations).
Of course, the benevolence of such a power should first be seen in how it unites the world (i.e., not by force of arms nor forceful manipulation by other means, such as economics).
Then again, uniting the world by convincing every state, through logic/dialogue, that it would be for the best of everyone is kinda unlikely at this stage.
Just my two cents, of course.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words, Geezer has a point.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:How about no world police?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?
All politics aside, in general, if you had to choose a ‘world police,’ history really doesn’t provide an example of one whose “client states” were able to achieve the military, political and financial support provided by the US and retain their independence. Even the British Empire, which I would consider in my own subjective way to be benevolent, didn’t do that. In that regard the US is really a very different type of superpower, one that really hasn’t existed before, in the past. One that does not take advantage of its hegemonic position for expansionistic policies, at least beyond its early Manifest Destiny. So in a lot of ways, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. The world has changed a great deal and it no longer has the same tolerance for ‘empires,’ as it once did.
What exactly does it main to be a benevolent empire? The Roman Empire, for instance, was a classic example of a true empire built on military expansionism. It is seen today as an example of an oppressive regime, and indeed by modern standards it would appear to be extremely similar to the Nazi Empire, certainly nothing that most Western culture would view as “benevolent.” And while there were many contemporary hatreds for the Romans, the Jews and the Germans among them, by and large, the majority of people subjugated by the Romans, benefited enormously from that subjugation. So much so that following their independence from Rome, in most provinces there was a general attempt by the people to reestablish a “Roman” home rule as it were, giving rise to the modern “Romance” cultures. And only where the province was overrun by previously unromanticized cultures, such as the Saxons in Britain, did this fail entirely. In fact, centuries after the fall of Rome in the West, there would be Western cultures that had never been subjugated by the Romans attempting to re-establish the Roman world order, the Holy Roman Empire, for instance. The politics and political thought of most of the Medieval world was in some way connected with the desire to rebuild the Roman Empire, and the reason for this is obvious when you look at the alternative to Roman rule, which was in most cases, rule by brutal unstable warlord regimes that were in constant state of military flux, and this was true even prior to Roman occupation. As opposed to Roman rule that was more stable and provided for large extravagant cities with many amenities and plenty of food and commerce. I wonder if a thousands years after the fall of Washington, if the world will be trying to reestablish the US world order? In many ways, while modern sensibilities would seem to reject the idea, the Romans in the first through the maybe third or fourth centuries may have been the most benevolent empire simply because the size of benefit they offered compared to their environment.
The early Romans even dabbled in a little bit of American style foreign policy over 2000 years before its time, when they invaded Greece in 197 BC to liberate it from a previous invasion by Philip of Macedonia in 200 BC, beginning a political period in Rome dominated by philhellenism. The Greeks always had a special place in the Roman mind. They were the only culture outside of Rome that was viewed as equal to Rome in many ways. Of course there were differing political thoughts in Rome and a few years later a more suspicious political atmosphere dominated in the Senate, leaving Rome to reinvade Greece and assert its military control over the region.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WARNING: You are entering a politically correct free zone. Words will _not_ be minced and things will _not_ be sugar coated.
B/c you guys are brainwashed from infancy to "know" that you are the best country in the world and the only one that is capable of democracy, etc. That everything you do is right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
The general populace is then given national ego strokes about how great they are and look at all the "good works" that "we" are doing. Then, given the general stupidity of the general populace, they buy into it and the delusion continues.
And by the way you are asking this question, you are one of those that buy into the delusion. Though I hope I'm wrong and you just phrased it poorly
I did phrase it poorly, because I do not buy into the delusion. I was trying to lure idiots into battle by acting like I understand. A freind of mine who works with schizophrenic homeless people told me that you'll scare them away if you don't crawl into their crazy world a bit. We didn't hear too much from the conservatives on this post. What we did was retarded anyway like it always is.
"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, as always an interesting and informative post. Are you sure you're on the right forum?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think America's relative benevolence has more to do with modern day ease of information flow and world political attitudes in the light of the First and Second World Wars than Americans being fundamentally better people more suited to being a 'World Police'.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In other words, Geezer has a point.
...
The world has changed a great deal and it no longer has the same tolerance for ‘empires,’ as it once did.
I think world police is rather a misnomer though, America is just as happy sending support, money and arms to violent oppressive regimes when those regimes are required for American interests. World Police engenders an idea that the US is out there for the good of the world which is not true at all, the US is out there for the good of the US, sometimes those aims coincide with a better world, sometimes they coincide with propping up murderous dictators.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you're being a little harsh on the Americans. Viewed critically any Empire exists primarily for the benefit of the Imperial power, after all they are putting up the "blood and treasure" to make the Empire happen, hard to imagine them doing that with no benefit for themselves.
I think the big differences between the American system and ones that existed before as as follows.
1) America was not interested in occupying land and while you could argue that in place of military occupation you had cultural imperialism, merchantile imperialism and the formation of pro-American governments there were few if any "boots on the ground" occupying territory.
2) The use of "soft power." America has been extremely generous over the years both in terms of "Marshall Plan" style government funded programs and private charitable lending. Couple that with the power that comes with controlling (what was) the largest world market and the primary reserve currency and America has a lot of other levers it can use appart from military action.
3) Cultural imperialism. America exports a rightous image of itself abroard via movies and TV. If you see James T Kirk saving the world on TV every day you tend to have a preconception that Americans are brave and righteous. It could be that none Romans in the Roman Empire saw citizens the same way, but I doubt it was that pervasive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME