The White Man's Burden

Recommended Videos

Danyavich

New member
Apr 19, 2008
4
0
0
Going to agree with the OP on this one. Honestly, I believe the US is held to a double standard by most of the world - If a country has a problem and can't fix it themselves, they expect us to tromp on over and fix it for them. Once it's fixed, we're expected to take our bows and leave; heavens forbid we stay to make sure that our interventions stick. Or, in a few cases, when we go in to attempt something noble, albeit put together in just a *slightly* bad fashion (referring to Vietnam, Moggy and our current conflict) and we start to make progress, it's not fast enough for everyone else, or we do something that some weak-myocardial person cries themselves to sleep about every night, and the world pressures us into leaving.

In Vietnam, it ended with the South Vietnamese in a bad way, with the absolutely batshit insane leadership of the NV and the VC free to prosper, and develop into their current Kim Jong Il'ish self. Why we couldn't do anything there was because of our fear of hitting the Communist Chinese benefactors of the North Vietnamese who were in their cities, and we were restrained in a hilarious fashion from doing anything but sending our men out on what were practically suicide missions.
In Mogadishu, the warlords slaughtered the populace, and we along with the UN got involved. While the UN was focused on getting the people food and other supplies, they were constantly attacked and overrun by militia who took the supplies so they could A: keep the armies of the warlords rolling, and B: so they could sell the supplies to the innocents and gain their support, along with their money. The Rangers got involved after the UN kept getting attacked, and tried to take out the leadership so the militia would crumble on itself and the UN could restore order. It might've actually worked if the militias had not been supported and supplied by Osama with RPGs and other such weaponry, allowing them to cause one of our biggest tragedies in a very long time at that point. We were forced to withdraw because there was no way for us to continue when they had weaponry of the sort; it simply was not cost effective to perform the raiding missions that we had been with the threat of that type of loss hanging in the air.
With our current war, I believe we started it to hunt for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11, and managed to divert ourselves to the worthwhile cause of letting the Iraqi people not suffer under an insane dictator anymore. After taking him down, we've been left with the mission of making sure it doesn't fall apart faster than the Iraqis can rebuild it, which is a fucking horrendous task. We're the only thing holding that country together right now, and we have to wait until the Iraqis are ready to hold everything in place themselves before we can leave, which sucks.


That's the main post - in responses to various opinions expressed, I'd like to say the following.
On Iraq and Oil; I do believe that if we'd been there for oil, we'd of seen a price drop in gas a couple years back, with prices holding steady thereafter from our newfound income. Unless, of course, you think that Bush and his buddies are funneling it into their invisible skyyacht, for only their use. Or maybe, we wouldn't be in an economic downturn! (Read, impending depression) Also, I'd prefer it if you didn't liken my brothers and sisters to mercenaries, dying in the pursuit of money. Hold someone who's just been mortally wounded, and tell them they died for nothing important. I'm sure they'll love it.
On the USA as the police force of the world: If not us, who? You may think that every country can handle itself, and honestly, it'd be great if that were true. Less of my guys dying for another country. Speaking of which... think about France, England, China, the Germans who weren't Hitler and his followers during the reign of Nazi Germany, the Jews, and all the other countries/People who were getting smacked around during World War II by the Axis. Hurrah for the Americans, the men who came to help in their time of need. Should we have shrugged them off, saying it was their own problem, and to handle it without us? Someone's got to be there for people not their own in need, and while no one particularly has that mission statement as their #1 goal, it's worthwhile and needs doing.

Finally, in reference to "Communist China" and soforth. I love these countries, I love the people; in most cases, I just hate the governments that want to oppress and kill their own for personal gain.
 

JohnSmith

New member
Jan 19, 2009
411
0
0
To give an example of why people get a might upset. The war in Iraq had nothing, i repeat nothing to do with "freeing" the Iraqi people and everything to do with George Bush wanting to finish what his father started. That war was sold on there being "WMD's" present there weren't and on inspection the evidence for there presence fell apart like wet tissue paper. If America stepped in to the conflict in Sudan, assuming that the heavy handed, culturally insensitive way there military operates didn't make it worse then your nation would be lauded for a humanitarian act.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Father Time said:
Has it ever occurred to you that the people who are calling for us to be the world's policemen and the people who criticize us for it are different people?
It has, actually, but I'm more talking about foreign leaders and media, rather than the rank and file citizens. And both of those groups are happy to flog us on both sides of the coin.

Zamn said:
I think you're making the mistake of generalising the rest of the world into a single homogenous mass. The people who criticise you for intervening in Iraq and the people who criticise for not intervening in Sudan are probably not the same people. And of course the comparison is extremely crude because Iraq and Sudan are very different countries.

Personally, I don't necessarily oppose American interventionism, my problem is that America is not consistent. You can't claim the moral high ground for toppling a brutal dictatorship in Iraq when you're supporting other brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Egypt to name just three. For America, a dictatorship is only a dictatorship if it's an enemy, otherwise it's a 'developing democracy'.

America's role as world policeman is a self-appointed one and one that is bitterly resented in much of the world, even in America's European allies (except for their British lapdogs) most people are hostile to this sort of policy. I think America could 'win' in the eyes of most non-Americans if abandons its role as world policeman and if it wants to keep it they keep they're going to have to start being consistent and stop sorting the 'good' dictatorships from the 'bad' dictatorships.
That's fair, and you get at the perfect response argument. My argument is that we should be allowed to intervene wherever we like if we're expected to intervene, and the response is that if we're going to intervene somewhere, we have to intervene everywhere.

In fairness, of course, what's wrong with being strategic about it? Take the moralistics out of it; no country has ever had a doctrine for intervention except where it served its own ends. England never did, France never did. Lord knows Germany never did. Maybe we should be honest about our intentions, but what would be so wrong with saying "we have an interest in a free, stable, democratic Iraq, and we don't care about Africa"?

I'd be fine abandoning our role as the world's police officers, I'm just not sure how fine the rest of the world would be. We tend to gloss over the fact that when there is something major about to go down, it's American forces usually on the line. If the time ever comes that we need to forcibly stop Iran or North Korea, it's not likely that anyone else is going to step to the plate.

Is the alternative (an isolationist America) really preferable?
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
Before anyone accuses me of racism (a topic on my mind this evening, obviously), it's a quotation from the Kipling poem by the same name.
...you do realize that poem was a satire right?
 

xkat

New member
Apr 20, 2009
3
0
0
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. I'm just responding to the first post. But...

The problem with America is that we have this egotistical idea that we are the champions of 'Freedom' and it's our moral responsibility to make other countries conform to our ideologies--->which kind of takes away their freedom to do as they choose. It's ironic.
 

Evilbunny

New member
Feb 23, 2008
2,099
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
steveo_justice said:
There is now far more stability and democracy in Iraq than there has been in any Middle Eastern country in the history of Earth, save Israel.
Good grief, you really need to brush up on your history.
There may have been more order under Sadaam to an extent, but there were hundreds of people being assasinated by secret police every month to make it happen.
For 50 years...
Now, last year, as a result of the Surge, there were Shiite and Sunni women voting in an open election more than one candidate. You were saying about having his facts straight?
Because open elections work around the world. Apart from Korea, and a lot of Africa, and Australia and a lot of other first world countries.

Simply restoring the status quo under military order doesn't work. That was the end result of World War 1; which created the spiralling debt in Germany which lead to the rise of the NASI party.
Woah, woah. Godwin's law.
 

xkat

New member
Apr 20, 2009
3
0
0
YuheJi said:
I think it comes from all the messed up things that we did during the Cold War, things that people still remember. We put up harsh dictators simply because they were on our side. We overthrew Iran's first democratically elected prime minister because he wanted to start taking control of his country's oil to be used for its people. We overthrew a Guatemalan democratically elected official because he wanted to kick out U.S. businesses that bought land but didn't use it (in order to have a monopoly). And in Iraq, we pushed a warlord named Saddam Hussein into power because he was thought to be anti-communist. And I haven't even mentioned what we did in Vietnam (support a corrupt, oppressive dictator and bomb a neutral Cambodia that led to the downfall of its government and a genocide by the people that came into power in Cambodia). So obviously anything America does on an international level is going to be looked at with skepticism.
Other countries are also probably upset with our excuses for the invasion of Iraq. They have WMDs? They don't? We gave them WMDs? We're fighting to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Why does that reason pop up last? And the Middle East has lots of oil?
I think we are seen as self-righteous, claiming that we represent freedom and equality, and all those other great things. We really do not. Now there's nothing wrong with not being the embodiment of everything good, but doing bad things and claiming that they're for good is obviously going to be looked down upon. And it's not like America hasn't done good things. We also definitely would not be able to hold down war-torn countries like Darfur or Somalia. It's just the fact that we claim to be helping so often, that people wonder why we don't help those nations that clearly need it.
I agree.
 

Ushario

New member
Mar 6, 2009
552
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
steveo_justice said:
There is now far more stability and democracy in Iraq than there has been in any Middle Eastern country in the history of Earth, save Israel.
Good grief, you really need to brush up on your history.
There may have been more order under Sadaam to an extent, but there were hundreds of people being assasinated by secret police every month to make it happen.
For 50 years...
Now, last year, as a result of the Surge, there were Shiite and Sunni women voting in an open election more than one candidate. You were saying about having his facts straight?
Because open elections work around the world. Apart from Korea, and a lot of Africa, and Australia and a lot of other first world countries.

Simply restoring the status quo under military order doesn't work. That was the end result of World War 1; which created the spiralling debt in Germany which lead to the rise of the NASI party.
Excuse me, but I live in Australia, so please inform me how open elections fail to work here.
I go down to a local school, which is designated for my area, and place my vote.

The police don't even bother having a presence there as we simply don't have any problems.

If that was an attempt at sarcasism it fails. If you seriously believe that, please remove yourself from the gene pool.
 

Cliff_m85

New member
Feb 6, 2009
2,581
0
0
Nmil-ek said:
Can i ask why your proud to be an American? Its little more than an accident of birth it dosent endeer anything special upon us just which lump of rock we had the fortune to land upon. Its cool to be happy your an American but i never got all this patriotism stuff flags and anthems do nothing for me.
Thank you!!! Why be proud of being American? Why be proud of being white/black/asian/drunk(irish)/whatnot? Why be proud of being male or female, gay or straight?


There's no reason to be proud of something beyond your control. Be proud of your choices, nothing else.....unless you have a big weiner.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Guitarmasterx7 said:
Seldon2639 said:
Before anyone accuses me of racism (a topic on my mind this evening, obviously), it's a quotation from the Kipling poem by the same name.
...you do realize that poem was a satire right?
There are different interpretations of it. One school believes Kipling was being satirical (given that he had abiding respect for the working classes). The other school (to which I subscribe) believes that Kipling was an unabashed imperialist, but simply without illusions about the results of imperialism (the hatred it engenders in the colonies, especially). So, please don't step in here with snippy condescension, at least not when there's legitimate disagreement about the author's intent.
 

Tech Team FTW!

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,049
0
0
The only work of Rudyard Kikling that I am familiar with is 'We and They'

I think it perfectly sums up your current dilema.
Father and Mother, and Me,
Sister and Auntie say
All the people like us are We,
And every one else is They.
And They live over the sea,
While We live over the way,
But-would you believe it? --They look upon We
As only a sort of They!

We eat pork and beef
With cow-horn-handled knives.
They who gobble Their rice off a leaf,
Are horrified out of Their lives;
While they who live up a tree,
And feast on grubs and clay,
(Isn't it scandalous? ) look upon We
As a simply disgusting They!

We shoot birds with a gun.
They stick lions with spears.
Their full-dress is un-.
We dress up to Our ears.
They like Their friends for tea.
We like Our friends to stay;
And, after all that, They look upon We
As an utterly ignorant They!

We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk or blood,
Under an open thatch.
We have Doctors to fee.
They have Wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!

All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!
Source: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/we_and_they.html
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
"
We're told we're selfish for not writing blank checks to the developing world, and then upbraided for "cultural imperialism".
A wise man once said: "You can't please everyone." If you're holding out for universal approval, you're ALWAYS going to be disappointed. Get over it.

If there is such a thing as a "white man's burden", it only exists because the white men (and numerous other people as well) keep insisting on picking up the check even when people with better sense insist loudly that they stop. It just goes to show: altruism is for the birds.
 

Aegwadar

New member
Apr 2, 2009
221
0
0
Whatever happen to the PUREST form of nature: Big fish eats little fish... But then I forget we all have a conscious, and each one differs from the last... Survival of the fittest? That's just my opinion...
 

Meta Like That

New member
Jan 30, 2009
444
0
0
Aegwadar said:
Whatever happen to the PUREST form of nature: Big fish eats little fish... But then I forget we all have a conscious, and each one differs from the last... Survival of the fittest? That's just my opinion...
WUT?
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Meta Like That said:
Aegwadar said:
Whatever happen to the PUREST form of nature: Big fish eats little fish... But then I forget we all have a conscious, and each one differs from the last... Survival of the fittest? That's just my opinion...
WUT?
What he's trying laboriously to say is that America should go back to sitting in our little corner of the world, and when World War 3 starts, we tell them all to fuck off until we're attacked. Wherein, we then initiate a nuclear retaliation, only to realize the entire war was orchestrated by SkyNet.

By this time, the human race is fucked. Our pitiful handful of survivors will huddle together in the post-apocalyptic wasteland desperately clinging to hope that John Conner may yet be born...

PS - No, I did not just finish a Terminator marathon. I don't know what you're talking about.