What we support and defend

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Bored troops will always get in or cause trouble...

"Standing" armies of that time were often half-time armies. The soldiers were on leave during crop harvest to work, reducing the fiscal cost and increasing critical seasonal manpower supply. The ratio of civilians to active army personnel was furthermore quite high. The townsfolk and the people living close to forts were probably the only ones who got their life affected by the military to a noticeable degree (and quite often advantageously so, for the soldiers' budget did overwhelmingly not come from taxation in the vicinity).


I'm not exactly a scholar of U.S. history, but I am under the impression that Americans probably see the redcoats of the 18th century a bit more critically than justified. There have been more than 200 years of propaganda at work, after all.

I only need to look at the reputation of German soldiers from WWI and how English propaganda shaped it to remember a historical example of how propaganda (especially by victors) can distort an army's reputation.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I'm not exactly a scholar of U.S. history, but I am under the impression that Americans probably see the redcoats of the 18th century a bit more critically than justified. There have been more than 200 years of propaganda at work, after all.

Historical memory rarely maps 1:1 with how things actually occurred. In the words of our eventual second President while serving as council to the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

[wm]

Originally Posted by ganulv

Historical memory rarely maps 1:1 with how things actually occurred. In the words of our eventual second President while serving as council to the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Or as Grandpa Jones used to say on HeeHaw, "Fact is stranger than true."

[wm]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Did some "want to be in charge?" Perhaps, but more accurately they wanted not to be the charges of others.

Are not the two phrases here synonymous? Not to be the charge of another is to be the charge of oneself. "Controlling" and "being controlled by," in addition to being active and passive voice respectively, are also, IMHO, contradictory. They are like "alive" and "dead," despite what Miracle Max says in the Princess Bride

By returning to our roots we find the foundation we need to build upon as we move forward. But first we must refresh ourselves as to why that foundation is so important to our future security.

I suggest you return to the educational roots of guys like Sam Adams and the rest of the members of the Continental Congress/Declaration signers who were educated at Harvard, Yale and the forerunners of Princeton and Penn (as well as those who studied law at the Middle Court back in merry old England) back in the mid 1700s: the political writers from the Scottish Enlightenment--guys like Hutcheson, Hume, and Adam Smith as the more famous names of the bunch. Then refresh youreslf on the notion of a paradigm shift as describe by Thomas Kuhn. After that, consider whether Americans of today may well have moved on from the paradigm that undergirded the thinking of the people we call the Founding Fathers.

[Bob's World]

More than the books they read, it was the times they lived in that shaped both the books they opted to read and how they interpreted their meaning.

I can read Mein Kamph and think, "huh, that's some crazy stuff." But if I were a 30-something German male reading it shortly after it was published I am sure I would perceive it quite differently.

This was not a movement caused by an ideology of liberty and liberalism learned in Ivy League colleges that caused a few to become brainwashed and decide to challenge the very effective governance provided by their King. It was a populace that was evolving over generations to have very different expectations of governance and perceptions of themself than that shared by their government in England. When such gaps grow there is the potential for exploitation.

Such gaps exist and continue to grow today between governments in the Middle East who are quite happy with the status quo and vast segments of their populaces who have rapidly evolving expectations of governace (fueled by the demise of the Soviet threat, the advances in information technology that have overcome governmental/cultural controls on knowledge, and a growing intollerence for external governments that are growingly perceived as inappropriate and unnecessary intruders in the dymanic between populaces and their governments. So it is not an ideology of islamist extremism learned in Mosques and Madrassas moving people to action here either.

Ideology is a critical requirement for revolution, but it does not start them. Ideology is like a lit match thrown into a bucket filled with the perceptions of some popualce and their government. If those perceptions are volitile it will burn, but if not, it will simply fizzle. (Something our insane insurgent friend needs to come to grips with as well).

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Effective governance that the governed have come to feel infringes upon their fundamental human dignities of Liberty, Justice and Legitimacy will find resistance nearly as fast as ineffective systems of governance. Particularly when the populace feels disempowered and disrespected by said system of governance.

There are fundamental aspects of human nature that consistently come into play in these dramas between governments and those who are affected by governments (which may be citizens of completely different countries altogether as the US was rudely reminded on 9/11).

I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by pretending that 9/11 had anything to do with liberty, justice, legitimacy, or any similar construct.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

By returning to our roots we find the foundation we need to build upon as we move forward. But first we must refresh ourselves as to why that foundation is so important to our future security.

If "returning to our roots" means minding our own business and not messing in the affairs of others without compelling reason, all well and good. If we persuade ourselves that "returning to our roots" means deciding that our principles apply to others and trying to impose (in the name of giving and sharing) those principles on others, we're likely to make a great deal of mess.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by JMA

Of course. This could be applied to any number of wars fought supposedly for freedom and democracy since WW2.

The only guys who did not understand it then were the US State Department and it seems that the tradition continues today.

Yes, all too often the US tried to sustain the unsustainable in the name of fighting Communism, or some other such construct that had a good deal more meaning to Americans than to those trying to rid themselves of a colonial master or a dictator. There are a few suggestions that this may be changing: several of the dictators that fell in the Arab Spring tried to convince the US that their opponents were Islamists and their fall would promote terrorism, but the US didn't fall for it. That might mean that the US is starting to realize that trying to roll back history in the name of ideology is a fool's game, or it might be a lucky accident. The cynic in me inclines toward the latter view.

[wm]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

More than the books they read, it was the times they lived in that shaped both the books they opted to read and how they interpreted their meaning.

Then as now, the books they read while in their collegiate courses tended not to be optional. And I submit that you have the last phrase just backwards--how they were taught to understood the books they read shaped the times in which they lived. (But this is a "chicken or the egg" type dispute in my view)

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I can read Mein Kamph and think, "huh, that's some crazy stuff." But if I were a 30-something German male reading it shortly after it was published I am sure I would perceive it quite differently.

That is quite correct, you would have perceived it as a 30-year old German living in post World War I Germany. Since I have no real affinity for what that was like (and I suspect you are in a similar position), I do not know what that reaction might be like. However, I can appeal to my experiences with the Hippie/Yippie/anti-Vietnam literature. I responded then as "Obviously someone has been taking way too many mind altering substances of questionable legality." But many of my peers became caught up in "right on" movements and, in the words of Buffalo Springfield, "singing songs and a carrying signs," protested things without any real knowledge about what they were doing or why.

Originally Posted by Bob's World

This was not a movement caused by an ideology of liberty and liberalism learned in Ivy League colleges that caused a few to become brainwashed and decide to challenge the very effective governance provided by their King. It was a populace that was evolving over generations to have very different expectations of governance and perceptions of themself than that shared by their government in England. When such gaps grow there is the potential for exploitation.

Where is your proof? You allege a much broader basis of support than my reading and research about 1770s America indicates. Based on anecdotal evidence, I'd say that in the aggregate, the Loyalists may have been about as numerous as the rebels with a whole lot of Mugwumps who would just as soon preferred to have been left alone than have to pick a side. You might remember that the Green Jackets of today's British Army started life as the Royal American Regiment before becoming the 60th Regiment of Foot and the King's Royal Rifle Regiment along the way to its present designation after fusing with other regiments (like the Ox and Bucks IIRC). Ban Tarleton also raised his British Legion from colonists. Look at this interesting link on Loyalist Regiments.

The rest of your post was a diversion from this sub-thread. The Arab Spring is not germane to what motivated the ostensible leaders of the American Revolution to foment revolt. We are not disputing the causes of revolution; rather we are disputing what was meant by the Founding Fathers in American government's foundational documents and whether those meanings are applicable as motivating influences for American defense policy today.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by wm

Then as now, the books they read while in their collegiate courses tended not to be optional. And I submit that you have the last phrase just backwards--how they were taught to understood the books they read shaped the times in which they lived. (But this is a "chicken or the egg" type dispute in my view)

The American Revolutionary War preceded the French Revolution preceded the Haitian Revolution. It would be interesting to know what was on Toussaint Louverture’s reading list.

[Bob's World]

All revolutions are germane to the understanding of revolution.

Most like to focus on the differences, and those differences are indeed important to understanding a particular revolution in greater detail. What I find much more interesting are the similarities, for in the similarities is where one finds the keys to begin understanding other situations occurring now and yet to occur.

Why a minority of Americans stood up to the Crown, or why a minority of French did the same a few years later, or the differences between Arab Spring in Tunisia vs Egypt vs any of the other several countries is all very fascinating. But the similarities? Those are the missing keys to our understanding of this dynamic in general.

This is the type of analysis that Clausewitz applied to the study of conflict between states, and yes, while all wars are different, his work provides a start point for understanding war in general because he thought about what are the commonalities of war. I am sure he was told time and again "Carl, all wars are different." I suspect he agreed, yet he continued his study and thinking about the commonalities all the same.

One thing that holds us back today is that most just lump internal revolution and insurgency in with all other types of warfare. I believe this is a huge mistake that has led to much of the struggles governments have in resolving these internal conflicts. The nature of the roles and relationships between the parties, the fact that there is a shared populace that both sides emerge from, etc all combine to make insurgency and particularly revolutionary insurgency unique from war between states, or resistance insurgency (which is a continuation of war between states).

People can point out distinctions all day long. Noted. It is not hard to notice the differences. What about the similarities, and of those which are important in that they provide clues to better understanding where such conditions are brewing today and how to best resolve such conflicts where they already occur? Equally important, how does a major power such as the US engage the world in the pursuit of her interests in a manner that does not put her into the middle of such conflicts. On 9/11 we learned (or should have learned) that it is equally dangerous to simply put ones self in the middle of a pre-conflict situation as well.

Did George Washington volunteer to lead a revolution that could well have cost him his fortune, his life, and most importantly to that proud and honorable man, his reputation, because he read a book? Unlikely, and not according to anything I have read on the man and the times.

But spending a life constantly held in a cash poor condition due to laws levied on him from England no matter how land rich he became. Being treated his entire life as a second class citizen by every citizen who just happened to be born in England, regardless of their actual stations in life. Being ordered to take orders from a wet behind the ears regular officer far junior to himself even though he was far more experienced, a true hero of the British Army, and a natural leader in battle and peace that men followed instinctively. Being force to spend what little he had to purchase inferior goods unfit for sell in England that were exported to the colonies and sold at grossly inflated prices. Never underestimate the motivational power of processes that systematically disrespect some group that has every right to be treated with respect. It is powerful forces of human nature like these that lead populaces to revolt

The British were not intentionally arrogant, controlling a-holes, but the people they affected around the world perceived them as such. Similarly with Americans and the people we interact with in the modern age. The British saw friction to their governance as the acts of a few ungrateful radicals, and most could not empathize with the grievances they heard, and blew off the opinions of those British voices who found merit in those same complaints. We see the same in America today.

Our Declaration, our Constitution, these are more than just foundational articles of governance for a new nation. They are wise oracles from the past warning future generations of how to guard a society against the type of instability and unrest that led to the revolt they lived through. Would we pay more attention if they were found in a clay jar in some desert cave? Would we pay more attention if they were found with in some strange spacecraft crashed into an Iowa corn field? Probably not.

I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world, with the firm belief that any rights we hold for ourselves we grant equally to others.

[wm]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world, with the firm belief that any rights we hold for ourselves we grant equally to others.

Two sets of quotations from Joseph Heller's Catch 22 come to mind.
Yossarian says,

Originally Posted by Catch 22

“From now on I'm thinking only of me.”
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: “But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?”
“Then,” said Yossarian, “I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”

Yossarian also says, to Major Major Major Major this time,

Originally Posted by Catch 22

"Let someone else get killed!"
"Suppose everyone on our side felt that way?"
"Well then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

What if America's principles are just wrong? The origins of the Declaration's claims to life, liberty, and happiness are found in John Locke, who also happened to believe that the world had a surplus of natural resources. His predecessor, Thomas Hobbes thought that the world was characterized by a scarcity of resources. Hobbes had a different view of the nature of human interrelationships as a result--this view spawned a duty to seek peace rather than a right to accumulate property; it also denied a right of revolution. Early Chinese philosophers tended to have two different views of human nature. As a result, we get stuff like Confucianism on one hand, and the Legalism of Han Fei Tzu on the other--which is right?

Rather than trying to force America's principles on others, maybe America ought to review the bidding and try adopting those held by much of the rest of the civilized world.

Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

How did the Soviet Union fall? The Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships? I think you'll find that more Communist states have fallen to internal opposition than to external opposition, and that internal opposition is by far the greatest threat to the few that remain.

I said that people living in police states get to do what they are allowed to do, or else. But to be more clear, there are strong police states and weak ones and sometimes the strong get weak, by circumstances or choice or a combination thereof. In a strong one, people don't get to do much. In a weak one they get to do more, which is when it gets dangerous for the tyrants for the internal opposition has some room to work in.

The Soviet Union fell mostly because the economic system was hopeless. It was going to go sooner or later. It went sooner because Gorby let up on the reins in an attempt to get some productivity out of a hopeless system. That system was being stressed from without in addition to its own hopelessness. We supported the Poles, the Vatican encouraged the Poles, the Saudis increased oil production to cut out Soviet oil and the money the got from that, we didn't back off on developing arms the Soviets felt compelled to match, we helped bleed them in Afghanistan etc. All of that helped to strain the system economically to the point where Gorby had to take the calculated risk to get things going by opening up some. It didn't work out well for the party.

The Eastern European Communist dictatorships were held in place by the armed might of the Red Army. Once that support was no longer certain they were doomed. Internal opposition didn't do so well against the Red Army in 1956 or 1968. Starry eyed idealism aside, if the Red Army was there, it was a no go.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

You miss the point. In most fights, and especially when you intervene in someone else's fight, what you fight against is usually less important than what you fight for. Opposing Communism by supporting hated and decrepit colonial masters or doddering tinpot dictators was utterly self-defeating; we ended up handing the opposition the mantle of legitimacy and the moral high ground of opposition to what was obviously unsustainable. Of course what they offered proved no better, but at least they offered something.

I didn't miss any point. All that high minded idealist communist claptrap was tinsel on a murderous regime, almost always more murderous than the one replace. An awful lot of people in those various countries realized that at the time which is one of the reasons they fought them. They were right about what would ensue after the high minded commies took the joint over.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The extent to which "Reagan and the boys" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union is I think much overrated: bad decisions on the Soviet side and the fundamental inadequacy of Communist economics had a lot more to do with it.

I don't think it is overrated. (see above) You do. We're even.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Anti-communism in what form? I can't think of a nation on the planet where Communists are seriously threatening to take power through insurgency; that's yesterday's problem. How do you propose to "oppose" the few remaining Communist states in any way that doesn't do as much harm to us as to them, or that doesn't actually help them? Bearing in mind, of course, that the greatest threat to Communist states has typically been internal unrest...

You will note that my comment that prompted referred to the past. You reply with things as they are now. That is like my commenting on how they did anti piracy patrolling in the Caribbean in the 1700s and you replying that there isn't any piracy in the Caribbean now.

How I propose opposing the Reds now is in post 197. Bearing in mind that internal unrest only makes a difference if the police state has been weakened and the grip thereby loosened. There is no evidence of that happening in NK or Red China yet.

[This is an aside, but it is surprising how much Soviet arms decisions were reactions to what the West did, at least in tanks. Often they did things just to beat the west just a little. The 100 mm gun had to be bigger than the 90 mm gun. The 115 mm gun had to be bigger than the 105 mm. I was surprised when I read that.]

[carl]

Originally Posted by wm

Rather than trying to force America's principles on others, maybe America ought to review the bidding and try adopting those held by much of the rest of the civilized world.

Would that have held in 1940, 1920, 1960 or 1910? For most of history life in the rest of the civilized world has been pretty stinko for the average guy. It seems to me that there hasn't been much worth adopting.

Originally Posted by wm

Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

I think Americans believe they have the right to what they can pay for. If the other guys bid up the price, thems the breaks and we adapt. That has been the way in the oil bidness. The rest of the world may resent not being able to pay but they have been working hard and are catching up in that respect.

[Bob's World]

If we adopted the "principles" held by the rest of the world the Middle East would be an American gas station and every piece of geostrategically key terrain and waterway around the world would have a US Flag over it. We would pay far less than wholesale for any products we extracted, and we would pay with some form of currencny that in no way depleted our own national treasury.

No, I for one reject your notion. Note, I am always very clear that we should not attempt to make others more like us. I think that is the most dangerous line of logic in our current national security strategy. But I do firmly believe that we should act in accordance with our professed principles, and that rights we demand for ourself should be rights that we equally respect for others.

If we are "Wrong," well at least we will go down with our honor intact. A nation that declared what it stood for and then lived and died by those same principles. Better that than to continue to profess those same bold principles, but to disregard them in our actions as inconvenient obstacles to exercising the degrees of control certain parties believe are necessary to secure our interests.

[carl]

Originally Posted by wm

Maybe a little terminological clarification would help. Communism is an economic theory. Perhaps your point would be better made by referring to totalitarian regimes.

Popular usage and all that. Everybody knows exactly what is meant when "communist regimes" are referred to.

Originally Posted by wm

Everybody does it in the private sector too. Check out these guys . Competitive intelligence is a nice cover phrase for economic or corporate espionage. Although such practices are illegal in the United States, that does not preclude folks in the private sector from conducting "business intelligence" every day. I can't count the number of non-disclosure agreements I've had to sign to protect the proprietary information of companies competing with each other for Defense contracts. You can bet that Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin are all using competitive intelligence (nice euphemism for "spy on" )to determine what IR&D the other two are working on to get a leg up in winning business from Uncle Sam.
The difference is that in China, the state (since it practices a form of communism) is the holder of the means of production and is, therefore, the company/corporation that is conducting business or competitive intelligence.

As you say, in the US that kind of stuff is illegal. In Red China, it is not only not illegal, it is sponsored and supported by the state. That is a pretty telling commentary of the differing nature of the respective states.

Lawyerly contentions about "competitive intelligence" doesn't make the biggest spy operation and transfer of wealth in the history of the world into something else.

Originally Posted by wm

How do you feel about this alternative rewrite of your paragraph that could well have been written about a significant "shadow government" that existed in the US in the Prohibition era or almost any time since?

I'm all for calling the Reds murderous criminals. Accuracy is to be desired. The FBI and all the state and local police agencies will be very surprised to learn that we have known about organized crime in the US and haven't done anything about it.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Long history of how to do it successfully? When and where has any of this succeeded? The success that's been had against Communist nations has been generated by sustaining the status quo until they rot out from the inside. Efforts to obstruct Communist revolutions through military action or support for puppet regimes led us into a series of miserable overseas ventures and saddled us with the legacy of support for a long series of governments that inspired little beyond hatred in their own countries.

Well let's see. The Soviet Union and all those east European satellites are no more. And all the things I talked about helped maintain the status quo until they rotted as you said.

Military action kept South Korea, South Korea. A lot of South Koreans are happy about that. The Philippines aren't communist. Thailand ain't either, nor is Taiwan. Some places our assistance didn't keep the commies out like Cambodia and Laos the poor people who lived there suffered for it. So I what I see is Commies in=mass murder and suffering. Commies out=a lot less mass murder and suffering. I am not a sophisticated guy but that seems a simple choice.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Since you're talking about the Chinese here, not about "Communism" in any generic sense... how exactly do you propose to not let them shove allies around? Some suggestion of actual policy or concrete actions that might be taken to advance what seems a largely rhetorical position might be useful.

No, you say I am talking about the Chinese. I always make it clear that I am talking about the RED Chinese, the gov. The poor Chinese have suffered more at their hands than anybody.

I have made it clear in this thread and the other about the South China Sea what I mean when I say not letting them shove allies around. But I will say it again. For starters make it clear that Taiwan stays Taiwan unless there is a free decision by the Taiwanese to subject themselves to Red Chinese authority. Any sort of violence or coercion to effect that outcome is a no go. The South China Sea stays an open sea. Any claim of soveriegnty (sic) by anybody is a no go. How's that?

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Of course they will try. Don't think for a moment that the Chinese people have no access to information. China is not North Korea. In order to achieve the economic growth that's made them a threat, the Chinese have had to develop a large number of sophisticated, connected individuals that they cannot fully control. Lots of people have access to information, and it does spread. That doesn't mean it isn't manipulated, but it would be a huge mistake to think the Chinese government can fully control its own populace, or that they don't have to worry about what their own people think. They worry a lot more about what their people think than they do about what we think. They badly want to inspire a rush of jingoistic nationalism to distract the populace from the overwhelming corruption, growing inequality, and an economic future that's suddenly looking less secure than it once did, and it would be silly of us to reinforce that effort, especially with actions that wouldn't accomplish anything.

The Reds may not be able to fully control that large number of sophisticated people but they have been doing well enough so far. I see no weakening of party control. I see that blind guy was genuinely concerned when word was passed that somebody might beat his wife to death. Seems a pretty strong police state to me.

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

What exactly do you propose to do about it? The realization alone doesn't get you anywhere. For many years Americans who shared your views adopted policies - notably support for a long series of troglodyte dictators - that played into Communist propaganda, endowed Communism with a perception of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had, and did our cause more harm than good. Pronouncing Communism an irretrievable evil doesn't provide an intelligent or useful policy for opposing it, and it can do the opposite.

Opposing evil is a good thing. Not opposing it is a bad thing. But first you have to recognize that the evil exists. If you don't see it, you won't do the good thing. That is why it is important to see communism for what it is. Now once you see that, you can oppose it adroitly or maladroitly, but you gotta see it for what it is.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

True in part, and it's certainly true that the Chinese economy is not the juggernaut it's sometimes claimed to be. All the more reason not to panic, and one more indicator that political change in China is going to come from the inside, not from anything the US does. That change may not be for the better, and may end up posing a greater rather than a lesser threat, but that can't be fully anticipated and will have to be managed as it emerges.

Wait a second, I am panicking again. Okay that passed. Wait a little while longer while I clean up the pools of drool, stitch myself up, fix the car and stop seeing double. There. I can talk now. (I know I will never stop you from characterizing concerns that you disagree with as "panic" but at least I can play around with it sometimes.)

Ultimately political change in Red China will come from within. But our actions can help maintain the status quo so as to give the system time to rot from within.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

If we adopted the "principles" held by the rest of the world the Middle East would be an American gas station and every piece of geostrategically key terrain and waterway around the world would have a US Flag over it. We would pay far less than wholesale for any products we extracted, and we would pay with some form of currencny that in no way depleted our own national treasury.

Well said.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by wm

Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

In fairness, I think this applies to most nations. America is simply larger (making it an easy target for criticism) and (at times) more vocal about it.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

In fairness, I think this applies to most nations. America is simply larger (making it an easy target for criticism) and (at times) more vocal about it.

It applies to most people, certainly not to most nations.

[wm]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

If we are "Wrong," well at least we will go down with our honor intact. A nation that declared what it stood for and then lived and died by those same principles. Better that than to continue to profess those same bold principles, but to disregard them in our actions as inconvenient obstacles to exercising the degrees of control certain parties believe are necessary to secure our interests.

I agree with the position in the last sentence above: that hypocrisy is not a good trait for a nation. I think that was the gist of my previous point about the world viewing America's position as "do as I say, not as I do."

However, the first sentence is a little more problematic. Do you want to assert that Hitler died with his honor intact because he never backed off from his principles? I think honor demands a little more than steadfast adherence to one's principles. In terms of their content, the principles one holds must also be the right kind. I would also assert that the motives one has for being steadfast to principles figure into the evaluative calculus.