I think we’re kinda missing the point here. It’s all well and good to complain about American influence on the world ... but where do we find a BETTER influence?

It’s been 236 years since the USA established the first modern democracy, and they’ve been pretty active in spreading that system. In the process, they’ve made things fairly hard for countries with other ideas: Germany in WWI & WWII; Cuba, Vietnam and Chile in the Cold War; Libya and North Korea since. One could argue that the USA should’ve be more respectful of other choices.

That assumes, though, that US restraint would’ve been reflected in the behaviour of countries preferring other systems. Is that realistic? What SHOULD they have done?

Yes, the USA built the first atom bomb. The Manhattan Project was the result of a letter Einstein wrote to Roosevelt, assuring him that such a thing was theoretically possible. Einstein didn’t reach that conclusion alone, though -- he bounced the idea off his German colleagues, whose research confirmed the concept was feasible. You can blame the Yanks for that, but the point is, if they’d held back, Hitler wouldn’t have. Or Stalin, Mao, Kim il-sung. SOMEONE would’ve followed through. What prevention? Burning heretics at the stake? Establishing a new Index Librorum Prohibitorum? We’re lucky that really bad actors didn’t do it first.

Yes, I demonstrated against the Vietnam War. I didn’t demonstrate against Pol Pot’s slaughter afterwards, though, and that’s something I very much regret. I read Marx and bought his arguments for a bit ... until I saw of people shot in the back trying to climb over the Berlin Wall. My doubts about the capacity of the UN to improve things are confirmed at least monthly.

I’ve lost patience with criticisms that don’t offer positive alternatives. Capitalism is a flawed way to run the world; it succeeds because all known alternatives are much, much worse. The US isn’t an ideal world leader, but we aren’t blessed with many choices. What’s so wrong with making a good fist of the hand we’ve been dealt?

Donkey god :
Good clear comment . But your preference to just accept what is happening will please & encourage the US & backers but not me , as I don't think that US behavior is sustainable .
Appease the US in whatever it wants to do ? What if they decide that they want to start eating out pets ? Don't laugh .

sorry . That should be - eating OUR pets

I see your point, Oz, but you’re not alone in getting sucked into what I perceive as a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t to a) denounce the US, or b) ‘just accept what is happening’. We don’t have to choose between a) capitalism, b ) communism, or c) socialism. When searching for values, maybe it’s unwise to begin with broad abstractions like ‘America’ and ‘capitalism’. Generalisation is a fraught exercise; assertions obtained by inference from specific cases depend on one’s choice of specific cases. I assert that those choices are often grossly biased.

What I’m fumbling around for is a way to argue outside an either/or square. It’s easy and common to denounce the British Empire; how many died in its innumerable wars? Lots, but still no more than the tiniest fraction of 1% of the numbers felled by smallpox, which Edward Jenner’s vaccine finally ended. Jenner, the Royal Society, and Britain saved more lives than all the wars in history have managed to kill, but who remembers that?

In the 1960s, famine loomed in Asia. Tens of millions were certain to starve in a Malthusian catastrophe encompassing Pakistan and India. Meanwhile, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, a fellow by the name of Norman Borlaug was busy developing new short-straw wheat varieties which increased yield. The US government donated seed to the region, and by 1968 the threat of famine was eliminated; six years later, India was a net exporter of wheat. Borlaug and the institutions which supported him saved more lives than were lost in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars combined, many times over. We’re still denouncing the wars, but not a soul remembers Borlaug. I could list 100 more examples ...

There’s something positively menacing in the enthusiasm with which we search for atrocities to denounce, especially when juxtaposed against the wholesale lack of enthusiasm for celebrating genuine triumphs. It’s as if highlighting good examples were bad form, and only intemperate accusations were virtuous. Like old-time preachers, we’re always on about sin, but almost ashamed to advertise virtue. That, I think, can’t be good.

Thank you, Donkey God. It's an imperfect, multi-dynamic, world, isn't it ?

Joe

Donkygod :
It is good of you to elaborate your point with all those facts . But I feel that you have misunderstood my point .

you're getting sucked into ...a false dicotomy . The choice is'nt to (a) denounce the US or (b) 'just accept what is happening'

I agree with with you there & have not said otherwise . In fact (a) covers the vocal position I have chosen , (b) covers your vocal position , but most other people (whether for or against the US) choose to keep quiet, & not vocalize their position (whether for or against the US) - that makes it a trilogy of choices , does'nt it ?

We dont have to choose between (a)Capitalism (b)Communism or (c)Socialism .

My posts said nothing about any Economic or Political Systems .

It's as if highlighting good examples (ie.of US behaviour) is bad form & only accusations are virtuous .

I acknowledge the US capacity for good - much much more than most countries . But how can that give rise to a license for them to commit whatever physical & other atrocities they choose to perpetrate ? Let alone making it taboo for even their friends to suggest that there is room for improvement ?

In your first post yesterday , you ask -
Where do we find a better influence (ie. than the US) ?

One answer to that is - a US with a higher Decency Quotient , thus , with better behaviour .