Aviv Hod wrote:

Frank wrote:

Much snipped

But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better
understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we
see ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it.
Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that
conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other
countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are
naturally suspicious of our motives.


The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and
benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations,
does what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those
unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and
means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else
simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the
U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our
actions
are interpreted that way.

Perception is reality.... I think you are falling into the same trap I was
trying to illustrate (well kinda anyway). Coercing other people to do what
we want based on "our military and economic dominance" IS a definition of a
"bully".

And let me add here that I am not refering to protecting ourselves. I am
refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business
comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated
at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to
perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease,
but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to find
a way to justify our actions.


snip


I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is
somehow exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has
pulled
more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain
about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they
may
have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations"
weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they
be
better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American
corporation'?


You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American
corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an
"Amercian" corporation.


The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations
have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards
of
living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich
neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff.


Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that
apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be
prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to
address: It costs money to do the right thing.

Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards they
are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those
standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst
cause harm.



This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration
as
a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest
of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look
for some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When
they don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be
trusted
absolutely.

Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While
some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi
Arabia, democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said,
countries do what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is
influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100%
consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but
no one should expect fascist style consistency.

I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made
it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past
commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that since
they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in the
case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient.


We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send
when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others.
There cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it
ruins our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught
that until all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that
today.

You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that
there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights.
However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not
allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make
even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast
as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph
for human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently
and
consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights
people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life.


I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here.

I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I supported
the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people.

But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the source
of a lot of opposition.

I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do
think that war should always be a last resort because of this consideration
though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started.

No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe
this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you would
agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying".


This is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong
arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do
what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S.
got there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are,
what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO.
Decisions
about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my
point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic,
since
there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind
anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that
would satisfy everyone.


I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for
absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking
place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new heights
and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to
opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the
contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous".

So not everyone gets to make up their own mind (here or abroad) based on
good information. Somewhat tongue in cheek, I now say "You are _not_
entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own _informed_
opinion.".


We seem
to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to
apply
a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate
ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men
are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly)
hold
so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US
passports.


snip

Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of
confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to
build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry
is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue.

This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a
better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to
be
made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and
who they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human
rights.


So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of
concern?

Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis have
the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans
will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here and
armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will.


It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term,
a
whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get
from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady
state, so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep
it on the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you
alluded to before.


This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate
other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the
situations were reversed?


How many other countries would invade an oil rich
country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal
oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by
its
leader.


If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly.
We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we
endured.


I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was,
since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done,
and the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better
life to look forward to, eventually.

Agree 100%.


Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights
of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as
they would if it happened to them.


Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ.

I would differ along with you....

Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better.

What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is
*illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine
conflict.

And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last
20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of
suicide bombing.

But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied basic
human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was
writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them
in their cause.

There are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are
downtrodden
and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant
to minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to
give some
perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low
intensity. So far in
the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have
been killed, spread over almost three years.


I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the
suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over a
longer period than the last 3 years.


The Rwanda conflict probably
killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered
there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not
Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it.


Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever be
one of the most shameful episodes in our history.


Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes
from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.


I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out
this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I
tell it to do!)



Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many.
One of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel
cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like
Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the
sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and
Iran
are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At
least Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care
of by the U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The
United States
would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm
not
kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people
forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically
surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army
and air force.


What you say here is absolutly true. But the argument is no longer relavent.
No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world
in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that
eliminating Israel is not an option. If any of the countries you list were
to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force.

What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the point
where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our
policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed.


That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the
current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly
leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both
sides
and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not
loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing
exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This
hardly counts as "most of America's troubles."


Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we
should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just to
use the same yardstick everywhere.



Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always
good
to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and
is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take
incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time
to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults
and striving to correct them.


Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people
are
free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a
country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is
number one.

-Aviv


Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't
written this much for a long time.
--
Frank....H