|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 03:35 Introvert wrote:
Perhaps, but it doesn't imply "America, always right!" either. It implies that you hold America to a different standard than other countries, or that America is inherently superior than everybody else. You can obviously play the good old "I'll just redefine the word so you can't possibly criticize it" game, hence the Scotsman reference. I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another. I'm not redefining words. Your definition was incorrect. Moreover, your implication that even a feeling of "superiority" implies a sense of infallibility is wrong anyway. Your own logic doesn't even follow. Edit: Also I disagree that exceptionalism necessarily implies superiority. But yes, I would hope we all hold our respective countries to high standards, which is one reason what is going on today annoys me so much. We're going in the wrong direction.
The US doesn't even hold ourselves up to a standard. We set and standard and "exceptional" our way into the lead. We fall behind in so many ways to so many countries when you take actual measurements on various factors, like healthcare, education, and inequality.
|
On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country.
A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US.
|
On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country.
Ok then, I won't talk about that bold part, though I still think your view suffers from a lack of information. But whatever.
All the Americans in this thread have criticized the US, feeling things are going worse. More people now think that life will be worse for their children then it is for them. True or not, the American people are acutely aware of what they feel to be the decline of the country. Is it overstated? Is it understated? Does it matter, since that's what everyone thinks, right or wrong? (To go back to the italicized comment.)
Our citizens have values and expectations from our country and government. Right now, we don't feel they are being met. We do not, and have never, thought we always did the right thing.
|
On September 01 2014 04:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:On September 01 2014 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 03:35 Introvert wrote:
Perhaps, but it doesn't imply "America, always right!" either. It implies that you hold America to a different standard than other countries, or that America is inherently superior than everybody else. You can obviously play the good old "I'll just redefine the word so you can't possibly criticize it" game, hence the Scotsman reference. I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another. I'm not redefining words. Your definition was incorrect. Moreover, your implication that even a feeling of "superiority" implies a sense of infallibility is wrong anyway. Your own logic doesn't even follow. Edit: Also I disagree that exceptionalism necessarily implies superiority. But yes, I would hope we all hold our respective countries to high standards, which is one reason what is going on today annoys me so much. We're going in the wrong direction. The US doesn't even hold ourselves up to a standard. We set and standard and "exceptional" our way into the lead. We fall behind in so many ways to so many countries when you take actual measurements on various factors, like healthcare, education, and inequality.
I agree, we are falling behind in so many areas. On that I think all sides can agree. But nor can we be numero uno at everything. But we should always be trying.
|
On September 01 2014 04:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:On September 01 2014 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 03:35 Introvert wrote:
Perhaps, but it doesn't imply "America, always right!" either. It implies that you hold America to a different standard than other countries, or that America is inherently superior than everybody else. You can obviously play the good old "I'll just redefine the word so you can't possibly criticize it" game, hence the Scotsman reference. I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another. I'm not redefining words. Your definition was incorrect. Moreover, your implication that even a feeling of "superiority" implies a sense of infallibility is wrong anyway. Your own logic doesn't even follow. Edit: Also I disagree that exceptionalism necessarily implies superiority. But yes, I would hope we all hold our respective countries to high standards, which is one reason what is going on today annoys me so much. We're going in the wrong direction. The US doesn't even hold ourselves up to a standard. We set and standard and "exceptional" our way into the lead. We fall behind in so many ways to so many countries when you take actual measurements on various factors, like healthcare, education, and inequality.
We can't be no. 1 in every metric all the time. Yes sometimes we fall behind, other times we catch up and take the lead. That's how life goes.
|
On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US.
When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything.
edit: if you look at how Russia is being sanctioned into the ground (which I think is okay, no apologetics) and look at what kind of response the US has received for their numerous military adventures over the last few decades, I think it's pretty clear that there is a completely different standard for the US and everybody else.
|
Except during the Obamacare debate, there were countless "counter-arguments" stating that the American healthcare system is the best (when you add 60 asterisks to the end of all the metrics), and that the costs we paid were justified in our results.
|
On September 01 2014 04:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US. When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything.
Iraq was complicated. We were in a ceasefire state with the country with military skirmishes taking place regularly. Iraq was also repeatedly in violation of both UN and US rules regarding the ceasefire.
To your edit: you know we didn't annex Iraq just because we wanted to, right?
|
On September 01 2014 04:37 aksfjh wrote:
Except during the Obamacare debate, there were countless "counter-arguments" stating that the American healthcare system is the best (when you add 60 asterisks to the end of all the metrics), and that the costs we paid were justified in our results.
on healthcare yes, there was a disagreement. But overall I think my point stands. We don't like the direction the country is heading in. Wasn't there some story about the Canadian middle class living better than ours (I forgot the exact story). Unless it's been debunked, that's a really sucky fact.
But we agree that K-12 education needs help, for example. That's not ignored in favor of "rah rah America!"
|
On September 01 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:32 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US. When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything. Iraq was complicated. We were in a ceasefire state with the country with military skirmishes taking place regularly. Iraq was also repeatedly in violation of both UN and US rules regarding the ceasefire. To your edit: you know we didn't annex Iraq just because we wanted to, right?
I'm well aware that the US didn't annex Iraq. Which doesn't bring two hundred thousand people back to live. And 'complications' aren't an excuse. Russia claims that their situation is very complicated. There are many more examples Grenada, Panama, proxy wars and not to mention that the US has sanctioned countries like Iran or Cuba off the map just because they politically drifted away from what the US thought is desirable. If it's all about the values what about Saudi-Arabia?
And for all of this the US never felt any kind of repercussions, simply because the US is too big of a power. And if you are not able to see this then you simply are holding the US to a very different(read, lower) standard. If you think the US has been harshly criticized what the fuck would you call what the US has done to a country like Cuba?
|
On September 01 2014 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:32 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US. When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything. Iraq was complicated. We were in a ceasefire state with the country with military skirmishes taking place regularly. Iraq was also repeatedly in violation of both UN and US rules regarding the ceasefire. To your edit: you know we didn't annex Iraq just because we wanted to, right? I'm well aware that the US didn't annex Iraq. Which doesn't bring two hundred thousand people back to live. And 'complications' aren't an excuse. Russia claims that their situation is very complicated. There are many more examples Grenada, Panama, proxy wars and not to mention that the US has sanctioned countries like Iran or Cuba off the map just because they politically drifted away from what the US thought is desirable. If it's all about the values what about Saudi-Arabia? And for all of this the US never felt any kind of repercussions, simply because the US is too big of a power. And if you are not able to see this then you simply are holding the US to a very different standard. If you think the US has been harshly criticized what the fuck would you call what the US has done to a country like Cuba?
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Yes the cold war was messy, but... it was the Cold War and the US was allied with Western Europe. The dirtier things we did was in cohort with you. As for Cuba, Cuban refugees lobby pretty hard for the US to oppose what they see as a totalitarian dictatorship and the history of the Cuban missile crisis gives most American no desire to make friendly with Cuba.
Who says "it's all about values?" Saudi Arabia is a long-time, cooperative ally of the US. They have a lot of economic ties to the US via oil and a lot of social ties via education (many Saudis are educated in the US).
|
On September 01 2014 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:32 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote:
I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US. When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything. Iraq was complicated. We were in a ceasefire state with the country with military skirmishes taking place regularly. Iraq was also repeatedly in violation of both UN and US rules regarding the ceasefire. To your edit: you know we didn't annex Iraq just because we wanted to, right? I'm well aware that the US didn't annex Iraq. Which doesn't bring two hundred thousand people back to live. And 'complications' aren't an excuse. Russia claims that their situation is very complicated. There are many more examples Grenada, Panama, proxy wars and not to mention that the US has sanctioned countries like Iran or Cuba off the map just because they politically drifted away from what the US thought is desirable. If it's all about the values what about Saudi-Arabia? And for all of this the US never felt any kind of repercussions, simply because the US is too big of a power. And if you are not able to see this then you simply are holding the US to a very different(read, lower) standard. If you think the US has been harshly criticized what the fuck would you call what the US has done to a country like Cuba? If you're attempting to compare the Iraq war with the Russian invasion(s), Grenada, Panama, and military group funding, then it really does sound like your problem isn't about a complicated case. You simply do not grasp what made the Iraq war complicated and different from the prior involvements. Is this even dialogue or do you try to throw enough policy mud at the wall and hope some of it sticks? You act like declaring something an internationally illegal war is meaningful. It's your side's mud and about as substantive as everything you seek to criticize.
|
The history of the US and Cuba goes back a bit further than the Cuban missile crisis
|
On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
The only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense.
|
On September 01 2014 05:14 Danglars wrote:
You act like declaring something an internationally illegal war is meaningful. It's your side's mud and about as substantive as everything you seek to criticize.
If that's your position than you're not an inch better than Russia. The only difference is that the US has been more successful. We can go through every war in detail if you want to, there's nothing muddy about it.
|
On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense.
Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality?
WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with.
|
On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with.
Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this.
|
On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this.
I'm literally asking a question - is it?
|
There's no such thing as international legality
|
On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it?
As the spokesperson of the UN, and as the UN being the generally acknowledged body that represents international law.. I guess the answer is yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
