Replies

Thanks for your reply. Also thanks to all the people on this thread who were kind and polite enough to respond to my rant with arguments and dialogue. To the rest, I can only say that I acknowledge that this is your site and I'm a trespasser of sorts. You are free to Zot me if you will. Also, I have to recognize that the title you gave to my post was funny and witty, and that the tumultuous spectacle of a pitiful sould being Zotted is something to behold. It looks like fun. I'd like to try it sometime.

Now I wanted to reply to your post (before, what I fear, is my inevitable fate).

1. "The US... has done far more good than evil."
I couldn't agree more and I don't think that anyone but the most myopic antiamericans could argue otherwise.
Let's face it. Given human nature it would be naive to assume that any alternative world power would act any differently in defense of its own interests. In fact, if we're going to have a "world cop", I would much, much, much, much, much rather have the US be that cop than the Third Reich or the Soviets or Chinese (this stills sounds like a horrible understatement). I give thanks to God that the most powerful nation in the world is also (most of the time) also among the most democratic, free and one that (most of the time) holds itself to such a high moral standard.

What I lament is that sometimes it is actually harmful to believe all the reason and good are on your side and all the folly and evil on the other. It is important to be alert to the very real posiblity that at least some of the things that you believe or do as a nation may actually be harmful or misguided. I'm not suggesting that the US should then remain in a state of inaction afraid of any bad consequences of its acts. But it is here where it is very, very important to rely on your good friends and neighbors (and it is not really helpful if you change the definition of friends to mean only those who agree with you all the time). As a nation you may be right most of the time, but if you are also humble, you may be able to avoid costly errors.

2. "We have established the independence of the Western hemishphere from colonial European domination, abolished slavery, defeated both fascism and communism, and maintained the freedom of half the world for over half a century. If you want to take a look at the Cold War as a whole, do you really doubt that those nations on the US side were freer and more prosperous than those on the Soviets'?"
I've already said that I agree 100% with the statement that the US has done far more good than evil. However, I wanted to make some precisions to your other statements:
- Established the independence of the Western Hemisphere from European Colonial Domination.
Technically not correct in that the independence processes of most of other countries in the Americas were not materially reliant (other than for inspiration and ideas) on the United States. Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, but this was more a result of Spain's own issues at the time than on any material help from the young United States.

I guess you could say though that the Monroe doctrine ("America for the Americans") did play a role in ensuring that European nations would not regain a colonial foothold in the Americas. Sadly, this was not an altogether altruistic endeavor but often one guided by self interest. Latin American countries thus gradually became satellites of the emerging world power. Is this still BETTER than being a colony? I would argue it is (for example, compare the outcomes in Africa and Latin America), but again, it was not ALL good.

As Winston Churchill, a great US ally, once said (and I'm quoting freely): "Americans can alway be trusted to do the right thing... after trying every other posible alternative".

-Abolished slavery. Actually, most European and Latin American nations abolished slavery before the United States.
Some relevant dates are as follows:
France 1794 (later reestablished, reabolished in 1848)
England 1833
Russia 1861
Mexico 1824
Venezuela 1816
Brazil 1888
United States 1865

- Defeated both fascism and communism.
No issues here, although you could say communism failed on account of its own inherently fatal flaws.

- Maintained the freedom of half of the world for over half a century. If you want to take a look at the Cold War as a whole, do you really doubt that those nations on the US side were freer and more prosperous than those on the Soviets'?
I would not argue against the fact that those nations on the US side were freer and more prosperous. I just don't think there's a lot to celebrate about being in the car in which people were less hurt after a game of chicken that ended in one car turning over and the other one skidding off the road (especially if you considered that the game could have ended with all occupants of both cars dead).

3. "The UN does far more evil than good. Put the UN in charge and there's genocide in Rwanda, genocide in Sudan, nukes in North Korea and Iran, child sex scandals, money laundering on an unprecedented scale."

One obvious problem (although I'm sure you would argue otherwise) is that the UN is not really in charge of anything. It is an organism with little if any teeth. This is by virtue of design, not incompetence (although there may be incompetence to). Yes, the UN has humanitarian missions in Rwanda and Sudan and El Baradei is supposed to contain nuclear proliferation, but they don't have the authority or the means to accomplish anything. As such, it is not really fair to say that these results are a proof of their failure.

4. "It (the UN) allows tyrannies to act on equal terms with representative goverments, as if they were equally legitimate. It's profoundly anti-Semitic and overtly supports terrorists in Israel. Search keyword: Oil for Food"
I pointed out to this problem on my first posting. The system is clearly imperfect.

However, it is inaccurate to say that tyrannies (or even many non-powerful representative governments)act equally inside the UN. Remember there is a Security Council. Remember that only a handful of nations are permanent members and have veto power. The system is not designed as a democracy, and probably it can't be. It is imperfect and can result in gridlock and inaction.
However, it has the virtue of being a sounding board for the US. True multilateralism would be utopic, but a semblance of multilateralism can be a healthy balance to US power. Even ancient emperors often had "official naysayers" in their court to remind them of their fallibility and mortality.