UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> meaning of july 4th?


7/4/06 3:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killacox
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Jul-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1957
 
ive been thinking about this and its meaning and would like to hear some thoughts, would love to hear what non americans think this day for the usa is a celebration of freedom from oppression. we were being told how to live our lives and faught back. since then hasnt the usa done the same to nearly everyone we could? the tactics we used to win the wars against our oppressors are now wha we call terrorist tactics when used on us by others how is it people celebrate this day?
7/4/06 4:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Jul-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1215
People outside us couldn´t care less... honestly americans just need to get rid of the "world police" mentality...
7/7/06 4:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FiatLux
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 4300
"All parties to all wars will at some time employ terrorizing methods. But then everybody except a pacifist would be a potential supporter of terrorism. And if everything is terror, then nothing is?which would mean we had lost an important word of condemnation." ? Christopher Hitchens ... "the tactics we used to win the wars against our oppressors are now wha we call terrorist tactics when used on us by others" I seriously doubt you believe this. If you do, then you have no functional understanding of the contempary nature of global terrorism. As for this: "honestly americans just need to get rid of the "world police" mentality..." Oh exactly because it makes a lot more sense for the only superpower left in the world to be strict isolationists. American should stand by and let fascism, genocide, terrorism, and theocracy encompass the globe.
7/7/06 4:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1244
Dude sort your own country out before becoming world police - theocracy, unilateralism, prison camps, fundamentalist christianity in a never-before-seen-scale... and i am not talking about becoming isolationist - that is just as stupid. rather acting like a normal country with other normal countries..
7/7/06 5:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FiatLux
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 4302
America being the "world police" as you call it was a direct result of being the only nation able to rid the world of German and Japanese facism during WWII. I guess we should have kept the troops at home and focused on civil rights and social justice issues... As it relates to theocracy, unilateralism, prison camps, fundamentalist christianity in a never-before-seen-scale: just because you disagree (obviously) doesnt mean these things aren't right, or justified to do. Dealing with unilateralism: where is a meaningful standard of international law going to come from? Certainly not the U.N. Where is stability going to come from in the world? Who is going to stop genocide? Who is going to stop countries from invading their defenseless neighbors? I'm not an imperialist, but simply saying don't be "world police" isn't a mature or dynamic approach to international affairs. If you can't admit atleast that much then there's no purpose in going forward. As it relates to prison camps, rendition, detainment of enemy combatants, and the applicable standard of international law: this is an area of law both domestic and international that is largely unwritten. You'll have to forgive people in the American goverment for not liking foreign nationals that are picked up a battlefield. What would you do about fundamentalist Christianity in terms of sorting out your own country before becoming world police? Seriously? Would you ban people from having these types of beliefs? Would you deport them, maybe even kill them? Find some other way of denying them their constitutional right to freedom of religion? I don?t deny that fundamentalist religion of all types is a serious concern. But in a plural democratic society what options do you have to redress this even if you could prove fundamentalist Christianity was a danger of some type. Acting like other countries (which the US obviously is not) is probably analogous to acting systematically corrupt like France or Russia. Theirs is certainly a morally superior position to ours.
7/7/06 9:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06 02:56 PM
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1247
Regarding christian fundamentalism - I do believe that there is a right to believe whatever one wants, in his private life, keeping in mind he does not interfere violently with the beliefs of other people (a Millian idea). But in USA there seems to be a religious state emerging. Have you ever had a publicly atheist president? You we´re invited to help in WWII. Everybody is thankful of that. Yet you still sold out the Baltic states to Soviet Union without a problem. You also sold guns to Nazi Germany (according to the movie The corporation). What business did you have in Vietnam? Why do you think you are in Iraq. It has always been more about business than anything else...
7/7/06 11:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Six of Swords
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 05/23/2006
Posts: 6
There are (at least) two separate arguments here: -When should the United States play a militarily-oriented intercessionary role in foreign affairs? and -What should be the expected outcome of said interventions? Unfortunately, I believe the foreign policy of the past several decades has muddied the waters by confounding the two. The former question is actually far more complex than the latter. Intervention on economic grounds is ultimately often as critical to human welfare as intervention for purely humanitarian reasons. (Of course, the two can not really be separated so neatly.) That said, the U.S. has often had a pretty ham-handed way of dealing with, what has been viewed as, threats to security or the world finances. Our history of destabilization and regime-propping is coming home to roost. As for the second question, the current administration's working hypothesis of "democracy by insertion" is doomed to failure. A constitutionally liberal democracy is not something that can merely be introduced or imposed upon a people. Certain political and economic structures must be in place AND have emerged from contingencies in the country's history for one to even hope to have a sustained and successful democracy. Past trends have clearly shown that voting for a government, in and of itself, is nowhere near sufficient to guarantee a viable constitutionally liberal democracy. (For those interested, please read F. Zakaria's "The Road to Freedom".) I hate to say it, but watch Iraq's current government crumble. ~d[2]
7/8/06 5:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FiatLux
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jul-06
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 4305
"But in USA there seems to be a religious state emerging. Have you ever had a publicly atheist president?" The important part that you're missing is that this nation was founded by religious extremists. So to think it's a concern that a majority of citizens are Christian is bothersome: if they werent Christian and became something else that would be a real reason for concern. As far an there not being an openly atheist president that is more a matter of culture considering who makes up the nation. Also, people were very concerned when our first Catholic president John F. Kennedy took office considering his belief in the papacy. I would say that signficant fears in those times, along with similar ones now, are equally misplaced. "You we?re invited to help in WWII. Everybody is thankful of that. Yet you still sold out the Baltic states to Soviet Union without a problem. You also sold guns to Nazi Germany (according to the movie The corporation). What business did you have in Vietnam? Why do you think you are in Iraq. It has always been more about business than anything else..." Not sure what you mean about selling out the Baltic states. We could certainly go back and review what was talked about at the Yalta Conference. But if Stalin wanted to do something he was going to do it. To debate this point is silly considering the serious danger that an on going conflict would have created. I have no idea about selling guns to the Germans, but if thats the worst charge you can level (with a movie as your evidence) then I would say the final balance would show the US did Europe a great favor. As far a Vietnam, im not convinced either way if the situation was actually an internal revolution or a means to stop the spread of Communism. We are in Iraq finishing a job that should have been finished in 1991. The coalition forces made a grave mistake allowing the genocidal kleptocratic former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to remain in power. U.N. sanctions provided to be a little more than an opportunity for the U.N., France, Russia, and members of the British Parliament to take bribes and otherwise aid a brutal dictator. Certainly there must be some standard of law when you consider Hussein had directly attacked 3 of his neighbors with little consequence. And it is about business because at the very least the oil in Iraq and Kuwait belongs to the people of those countries. It's not there for Hussein to steal or burn as he might please. To say that these are not the matters for everyone is stupid considering the economic concerns involved and the massive environmental damage that was done.
7/12/06 11:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Jul-06 11:49 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13213
How did philosophyground turn into politicalground?
7/15/06 12:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FiatLux
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Jul-06
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 4319
I think when these topics came up: world police, theocracy, unilateralism, prison camps, fundamentalist christianity, and isolationism

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.