Posted on 09/12/2002 3:57:32 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
Let me say immediately that I am not talking about the war on terrorism. That, we can win. I’m talking about the war we have been fighting for the hearts and minds of the international community. It is un-winnable and I’ll tell you why.
First we have to deal with the perception that the US is somehow economically exploiting third world countries. This perception exists because we are rich and they – for whatever reasons – are not. An author on a recent thread pointed out that the US carries a trade imbalance with 2/3rds of our trading partners. That is, we import more than we export from the poorest countries. We are, in other words, reliable customers, just the sort a business needs to get on its feet.
We even hand the manufacturers in these countries an advantage over our own citizens in allowing them to import, duty-free, their cheaply made goods. Ask an American tobacco farmer about tariffs. Ask an American factory-owner about labor laws. Our industries operate at a financial disadvantage, giving the poorer countries an edge. Ah, but, say our critics, you are merely exploiting the poor (who work in these third world sweatshops) in order to get cheap goods.
What should we do? Should we insist that these poorer countries improve the working conditions of their laborers? Okay. How?
Should we offer poorer countries financial support conditionally, to be withdrawn if they don’t adopt the values we cherish? We could. That’s called “forcing other cultures to conform to the American model,” also known as “attempting to imprint our values on others” and “using our power to starve them into submission if they refuse to do things the way America wants them done.” This tendency of ours, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we offer poorer countries financial support unconditionally in hopes that those in government and business will use it to improve the workers’ lot? We could. However, that’s called “propping up unpopular dictatorships,” and this tendency of ours, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we refuse, then, to deal with countries that exploit and oppress their workers? We could. We do it with Cuba. It’s called an embargo, and our use of this method, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we, then, deal with these countries and let them set their own terms? We could. We do it with China. But we’d be back where we started, profiting from the imbalance, and our willingness to do this, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
That’s just a quick run-down of the economic choices.
Then there’s the matter of our military. Should we ever use it to help beleaguered countries? We could. We did it for Kuwait. Using our superior technology instead of, say, using only sabers if that’s all that the enemy has (in the name of fair play, apparently) can usually win us victory. It’s not “fair” though, say our critics, and it’s one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we refuse to help any country in distress and stand by while slaughters take place? We could. We did it with Rwanda. But this refusal to aid others, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we compromise and just send financial aid to our allies, and not get involved militarily? We could. We do this with Israel and it’s one of the reasons, say our critics, that we are hated all over the world.
Should we only get involved if we have interests at stake? We could, it was one of the reasons we helped Kuwait. But this selfishness, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Should we only get involved if we have no interests to protect? We could. There are those who feel we did it in Vietnam and our nosiness, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world.
Perhaps it’s not what we do but how we do it. Our independent, cowboy unilateralism, say our critics, is one of the reasons we are hated all over the world. We should include others in our decisions, we should let the UN make these decisions, and do nothing unless other countries agree with us on what should be done. Like we did in 1991, when we, with other members of the UN, voted on sanctions for Iraq…. For which the Arab world blames us alone, and in consequence of which, our critics say, we are hated all over the world.
By now you should be seeing a pattern. There is nothing the United States can do, nothing, that will not provoke our critics. So shall we then do nothing? It would be a waste of time, doing nothing provokes them too. They do not hate us for what we do, if that were the case, there would be something we could do to diminish that hatred. As the above roll call evidences, there is nothing. Frankly, even if we all committed mass suicide, after the initial delight of the international community had abated, the devastating economic results that would follow, it would be universally agreed, would be all our fault, and our memory would be hated …all over the world.
What to do, then? There is only one option. Go forth and do whatever is in our best interest, without regard to anyone else’s whim and opinions on the matter. And if the international community objects, bomb the snot out of them.
Arabs want to return to the dubious glory of the Caliphate, the French to the glory of France that never was -- and never will be. Likewise, the Germans, Russians, Cubans, North Koreans and many other minor players.
The English, and to a lesser extent, the Italians -- whose countries both actually once were glorious empires -- actually seem to sympathize with us somewhat because of it, in part, knowing well the pain of empire lost. And for this we should try to maintain their friendship, I think. The new China is a joke, having nothing whatsoever to do with the glorious dynasties of old.
Now America is the new empire, like it or not, a benign one unlike any ever seen. And the world's envy is palpable because of it. And despite our having repeatedly and quite generously rescued some of them from tyranny and oppression several times during the last century, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars in aid into their hopelessly corrupt and decaying societies, are treacherously plotting against us with the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs, to defeat and destroy us.
I like your conclusion. We should press ahead unilaterally in every respect, as long as it serves our interests, no matter what they say. And if they stand in our way, sweep them aside; they are irrelevant. We are the world's new super-empire. May we reign for a thousand years.
The peanut farmers have no right to expect the other 280M American consumers to bail them out because they haven't done enough to make themselves competitive with their competition. I for one feel no obligation to protect them or any other industry unless they are competing against state-run or state-subsidized individuals/corporations.
Wake up and smell the coffee people, when it comes to subsidizing its economy, the US is just as Socialist as the EU.
However, even if I agreed with you, my essay is my way of saying that no matter how we go about helping other countries, our international critics attack us. Do you disagree with my thesis, and if so, specifically where and how, please.
Are you saying then that US Government owes no restitution to the owners of the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that the Clinton administration bombed? The West, as a whole, pushed Socialism on the developing world. It indoctrinated its intellectual elites in its universities, it manipulated governments to its advantage which often meant Socialistic policies. Most "right wing" regimes are in fact Fascist ergo they are in reality leftist. So yes, the West has a very real obligation to provide assistance in the form of equal trade with said nations so they can rebuild themselves. Free trade is the most efficient form of foreign aid.
However, even if I agreed with you, my essay is my way of saying that no matter how we go about helping other countries, our international critics attack us.
So what? If they interfere with us in a violent way, eliminate them. If not, ignore them while it is convenient.
Do you disagree with my thesis, and if so, specifically where and how, please.
Do you see the Swiss giving a flying donkey about the opinions of the majority of the world about their role in WWII? No. Why? Because they realize that opinions are like asses, everyone has one. BTW re: the Swiss in WWII I sympathize with them, they were a nation of 5 million surrounded by 3 large, mature Fascist states.
We should be more like the Swiss IMO. Do you see the Swiss rushing out to exert their relative military might? No. They could easily crush France or Germany in a ground war if one was declared tomorrow because ~20-25% of their people are in their Army reserves. For some reason the US feels the need to make its might known to every tinpot dictator and his entire extended family. Stay out of world affairs and if we are attacked, make an example out of the aggressor that is so cruel and inhumane that no one f#$%s with the US for another 50 years even if that means killing 50-70% of a country's civilian population if they side with their government. We should concentrate on fair, free trade with those who would fairly and freely trade with us and refuse to trade with those who won't. Those who would harm us should be told, clearly and unequivocably that they will be hunted down no matter where they hide and be executed with less compassion than a barn yard animal sent to market. We should let every nation state that would harm us know that we have no ethics when preserving our country's existance and that we will regard any means as acceptable to protect ourselves unless that means harms our people. In politics, might makes right. The best defense is usually giving the impression that you're the nastiest and most ruthless SOB on the block when you're threatened.
The West as a whole? A tiny handful of European intellectuals are to blame and I haven't the slightest interest in taking that blame onto America. I am amazed that you think this way but I thank you for your input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.