Exploring Anti-Americanism
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2007 03:01
VIEWED: 18266
PAGE 16 of 23
I can sum up the corporate issue in two words.
Corporate Personhood.
Go on, google it, you'll see exactly where *that* problem originated, and snowballed to where it is today.
A corporation is an entity, but not a person, it is by nature incapable of moral judgement, and cannot be effectively held to account for it's actions, yet somehow due to this retains all the rights of a person, who is capable of moral judgement and can be effectively held to account for what they do.
So basically Corporations were given all of the rights, with few or none of the responsibilities of a human being.
That's only part of it, of course, over time our legal and economic systems have been so subverted that any remedy short of violence is ineffective in forestalling a Corporations continued malfeasance.
I mean, if a Corp commits a series of criminal actions that result in a 10 million dollar fine, but the actions net 140 million in profit, can you really say the fine is any deterrent ?
The Sherman and Clayton anti-trust laws were created in part to forestall the emergence of any company economically and politically powerful enough to subvert the government, but due to lax, almost negligable enforcement, save for certain business's *competitors*, we do indeed have companies who can practically write their own laws and hand them to pet congressfolk to submit and vote on.
Enough of THAT system has landed us where we are now, and due to the fact that against a large Corporation, a screwed persons ability to resolve the matter is approximately nil, eventually this *will* come to terrorism against american Corporations, by americans.
Already has. in fact, if you count the bombing of Paypal HQ Oct 31 2006, likely by some ripped off, pissed off ex-customer using halloween festivities as cover.
Not justifying it, just sayin that eventually the rapacious nature of americas ultra exploitive Corporations is going to boomerang in a bad bad blowback kinda way.
And my bet is on a sleazy mortgage company being the first target, with things going as they are.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not justifying it, just sayin that eventually the rapacious nature of americas ultra exploitive Corporations is going to boomerang in a bad bad blowback kinda way.
I can see it going this way, but I also wouldn't be surprised if we end up in a cyberpunk-style world where the governments have either collapsed or become unimportant and the corporations run things.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If a nation has projected its military power around the world, how does that NOT imply that it's about military takeovers?
But projection of military power wasn't what Geezer was talking about. He's saying that facts about spending and bases don't entail the belief that, to quote from above, "the US is all about military takeovers.... And he's right--it doesn't follow from the projection of military power alone that we are doing those things.
What is the purpose of military power? It means that by defintion a nation is willing to impose its will, through force of arms, on others. The imposition may not necessarily be on the host, but on its neighbors or on the region.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quick point on Liberalism/Conservatism:
Bruce Lee's personal style of Gung-Fu was considered liberal by the martial arts establishment back in the day, yet in actuality, it was quite conservative in it's approach....
Jackie Chan's style(s) were considered conservative in his training and earlier films, yet he emerged as quite the liberal martial artist.
Which is better?
Both are my heroes Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's my observation. Being Anti-American is simply a vacuous statement that fails to really MEAN anything. It's sort of like saying you're anti-weather, you know? "I hate gorgeous, crisp, blue skied saturday mornings in springtime here in Minnesota because Hurricaine Katrina killed thousands in Louisiana. Because its all "weather" don't ya know." And the fact is, culturally, Minnesota is as different from Louisiana as they both are from France. And they are as far apart geographically as France is from North Africa. So to be "anti-american" is so vague as to dilute any useful meaning. Detest the policies of the Bush administration--as I do--but detesting America makes no sense.
I am reminded of a story hero of mine--Richard Feynman--used to tell. Apparantly one day young Richard is out for a walk with is father and he is feeling rather blue because a schoolmate was bragging about how he could name every bird they see in the park. Richards father scoffed. "what good does it do if he knows the names of all the bird? See that bird up there? That's a redheaded thrush. But in german it will be called something else. As in French, chinese, and every other language. Knowing the name of something tells you nothing whatsoever about the thing itself."
I think a lot of people make that mistake in hating "america. Saying you hate america tells me nothing about what you are for, or against. Even if you tear out the heart of some bad organization--Enron say--you still get just a myriad variety of simply people, none perfect, some worse thatn others, but people just like everyone else anywhere.
BSG-38
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If a nation has projected its military power around the world, how does that NOT imply that it's about military takeovers?
Not sure if you're going to be able to hear this, but it can't be all about military takeovers. If that were the case, we're doing a pretty crummy job in most countries where there's a U.S. military base--to my knowledge we've not yet executed a "military takeover" in Germany, Japan, or Italy (that is, in the post-WWII era, the only one when we've had long-term bases in those countries). It's a little simplistic to say that the only reason to project military power beyond a nation's borders is to execute "military takeovers." Maybe all the other purposes are just as nefarious, but that can't be all. Take, for instance, the Taiwan Relations Act which makes it a matter of nation U.S. National Policy to defend Taiwan against aggression. The projection of military force means that we can put teeth into our policy of defending a democratic nation. That seems fairly benevolent to me (though I'm sure you'll find a way to make it not be
). Quote:
What is the purpose of military power? It means that by defintion a nation is willing to impose its will, through force of arms, on others. The imposition may not necessarily be on the host, but on its neighbors or on the region.
Well, I hate to get all technical on you, but I'm not sure that I agree that that is what military power is by definition. That may be part of the definition, or one of the uses to which military power is put, but that's not the sum total of what military power is for. Consider the use the French put their military power to from 1914 to 1918: they used it to defend their nation against the agression of Germany. Or the use to which military force was put by the Allies in the Second World War: stopping fascist states (one of which was exterminating millions of people). My point is not that the use of military force is always noble--just that it isn't always malicious, as you seem to suggest.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Causal- not sure if you can hear ME. but when a military power is outside of national borders (which is what we're talking about, so I will not address armies w/in national borders) somebody, somewhere is being threatened. The line between "defense" and "offense" is not clearcut. For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal- not sure if you can hear ME. but when a military power is outside of national borders, somebody, somewhere is being threatened. The line between "defense" and "offense" is not clearcut. For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?
If it's the case, as you say, that the line between offense and defense is not clear cut, than what justifies you in saying that anytime a military unit leaves the borders of its home nation, it is threatening someone? Seems like it can't be that muddled, if its also the case that every military deployment is a threat. Seems like things would have to be a deal clearer for you to make that assertion so confidently. Perhaps what you really think is something closer to the notion that there is no truly non-offensive use of the military?
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?
Depends on the situation. Is the US threatening to attack or invade Venezuela, Cuba, or Brazil at the time of your example? Are Venezuelan, Brazilian, and Chinese troops massing on the borders of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana? Are Chinese patrol boats based in Cuba stopping cruise ships passing between Cuba and Haiti? Without a frame of reference it's impossible to analyse the situation.
For example, American troops in Europe from the '50s to the '90s were there to defend against the Soviet Union, who had made it pretty clear they'd like to add the rest of the continent to the collective. In the '90s and early '00s they were part of NATO and UN peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Macedonia, etc. Being NATO and the UN's major muscle, forward basing to perform NATO and UN missions was a lot more logical than having to deploy forces from the continental US every time someone needs peacekeepers. Admittedly, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has made it less likely we'd be asked to do normal peacekeeping any time soon, but if something serious enough to un-deadlock the UN flares up, I'd bet we get a call.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Admittedly, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has made it less likely we'd be asked to do normal peacekeeping any time soon
Hmmmm...I guess some good has come from this after all!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME