Controversy inside.

I suppose it's just boredom at work that spurs me to post this.

I have a rather unpopular political view, particularly in regards to the war in Iraq, and felt like expressing it and seeing what feedback came of it. I suppose this could be called trolling by some, but it is my honest opinion based on reading of history, and so on.

First off, let me cite America as my primary example of the point I have not yet made. Please note that I am part native American.

America was an untamed wilderness with a tribal people. Europe arrived en masse, and conquered the native people. Then, at the end of a sword/musket/what have you, they were forced off their land and onto reservations, or to embrace their new lifestyles in part of the new society. A few centuries later, America and Canada have become productive members of the world economy.

Rewind in history to the Roman empire. It, through better technology, better tactics, and better social structure conquered a vast amount of nations and modernized them, making them have better technology, quality of life, education.

I suppose the point is that imperialism is good. Societies are unwilling to change on their own. They cannot be coerced. The most effective way to achieve turning a weak solitary nation into a more powerful, productive one is to take it over completely, take what parts of their culture are useful, and purge the rest. This can largely only be done through war, and through militant occupation.

Ultimately, everyone benefits, just not initially. The nation itself becomes a modern nation, with their standard of living, education, economy, etc. brought up to much higher levels. The neighbors of the nation benefit from having a more productive and stable neighbor. The home country that took it over gains a trade partner. The only downside is the loss of life, which honestly would probably occur regardless in battles that would change nothing about the nation.

My frustration about how Iraq is being handled is that the Bush administration (and many Americans) seem to honestly believe that the nation will simply give up its culture and embrace a modern American lifestyle. This will not happen. We should take over the middle east and africa, both, and bring them up to a higher standard of everything. That seems to be the declared goal of the Bush administration in regards to Iraq, but they will not take the steps necessary to cause it to come to fruition.

My view is that if a nation is socially, technologically, and economically more advanced, it should be imperialistic, and spread its influence around the world, sharing their advances. Might becomes right. Level the playing field until someone topples you. War and imperialism are the biggest contributors to advancements in political structure, technology (not just weaponry, but all else as well), social beliefs, education.. Only the best fit will survive.

It is perhaps a very Machiavellian view of things -- the ends justify the means.



Comments and flames follow.

Too much reading. Post ignored.

- speed reading posts before I go on holidays.

We Had to Destroy the Village to Save It.

Hey, that's a good idea. Now I know exactly what to do about religion and new agers. Thanks.

Not a bad view, but I feel it doesn't take into account modern weaponry (nuclear and biological particularly).

Next time don't bother posting to let us know you won't be posting.

Please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Often the failure of the present is to assume the models of the past will work in a new environment. If you don't even recognize the new environment, you were already lost. If you do recognize that the evolution of culture and society creates a new environment and persist in emulating the behavior of past, then you are doomed anyway.

Is the goal to continue colonialist expansion until the state collapses (see Roman Empire, etc.)?

Actually European countries did colonize Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia. I think the primary difference there is that they didn't end up displacing the native populace. In the Americas, the native population was drastically reduced from its pre-contact levels (current hypothesis is that diseases caused widespread deaths). What we see in the US is not a "modernization" of the native population but rather a replacement of the population with European immigrants.

I fear that the model only works if you're willing to decimate the local population and replace them.

The ideology that 'might makes right' is one that has been touted quite long enough, I think. I suppose if one's maximum depth of consideration for other people stops at what they can do for you or how much better it would be if they thought like you did, then it is quite impossible to contemplate, let alone grasp that the only thing propelling humanity foward is our capacity to exceed and excel in spite of the various constructs designed to pin us in/up.

The OP is obviously not ready or willing to embrace the lesson of his people (half or not), nor to begin the contemplation that force and fear only work when you're up against people who have no alternative but death to joining you and only then for as long as you can keep your foot on their neck. Hardly the underpinnings of long-lasting progress -- as demonstrated by the US's increasingly splintering factions; politically, religiously, and otherwise.

The act of using force implicitly acknowledges that you place yourself, your cause, and your interests/needs/desires above those of others. The irony lies in the fact that this is the very behavior that sets in motion the war machine. The truth is, governments and people hate nothing more than someone who will not bow to the possibility of force.

What does that say about how far we have 'progressed'?

No it doesn't, forcibly holding down someone who's trying to throw themself out of a window for instance.

Force is the final word in anything and a very important part of things. You can harp on about how nice peace is, but it doesn't change the fact that force is the natural way of things and that's (probably) always going to be the case.

This isn't a personal safety discussion, it's an international politics discussion. I don't think we are trying to prevent Iraq as a nation from throwing themselves out a window are we?

Pfft. Pedants.

A country is capable of using force to stop another country damaging itself, just the same as people do. If it makes you happy I'll try and think of the best possible example rather than just using the first one that pops into my head next time.

YAY! Lets kill people - that will make everything better in the end, I swear!
==Chris

Oooh! Oooh! When do we get the "kill them off with foreign disease" part?

Absolutely shocking post. I feel sorry for people who have this world view. No Native person I have ever met (and I know quite a few), would agree with you on this at all.

Come on. The parallel between trying to save an individual from herself and saving a country from itself is weak. I'm not being pedantic. I am looking for a better discussion as to the proper application of "force is the natural way of things" as it relates to international politics. Especially in a world where many see Fiscal Strength as the new world order.

You have no more right to stop someone from throwing themselves out the window than you do to stop them from making any other choice.

That you rationalise it based upon your values, morals, and philosophy is precisely the issue, problem, and matter.

Sorry but 'that's the way it has always been' is not an excuse, nor is it a reason to stop attempting to progress, though I admit it is one that is quite effectively used by politicans and others in general to justify any matter of evil in the world.

I must admit, imperialism did great things for Europe in the first few decades of this century.

No, hold on, I'm confusing "great things" with "almost completely wrecking it and killing millions of people". Sorry, I'm always doing that. But perhaps that's because it wasn't successful imperialism... should have let ourselves be taken over and the useless parts (communists, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies et al) be purged.

Ack, I've gone and got myself into a political discussion again. I keep telling myself I won't do that any more.

Okay, I've started so I better carry on. Lets do this one quote at a time...I apologise for thinking you were being pedantic, I just don't see the problem with the parallel, if you could explain it to me I'd appreciate it. I was using it to illustrate that force can be used for good, nothing more.

I'm not entirely sure exactly how it relates to modern politics, it's all got really twisted up inside. I blame mass media for that. I'm not I can have a discussion on force and modern politics further than theory but, if that'll do you, what's your opinion of it?

I agree totally, but that doesn't change the fact that you can and people will.

Again, I agree. I'd never suggest doing anything to interfere with anything unless you're some kind of godlike entity that can forsee all outcomes for eternity. Unfortunately nobody is, but people often want to help others and will do so based on their best judgements.

Excuse? No. Just a fact. You destroy something, it can't impede your progress any more. I feel I must note that I don't, in any way, think that force is usually the best thing to use. (Although, on the flip side, there may be times where it will do less harm to innocent citizens than sanctions.)

Who wants to invoke Godwin?

Not me. I only use them as an example of how dictators can actually do good.

I'll do it if nobody else does. I've been on a roll with that lately anyway.

It does if you actually believe in living in attunement with what you know is true. Admittedly, many people conveniently overlook inconsistancies to further their own ends. This is the thing to progress beyond of which I previously spoke.



By supporting 'might makes right' as a philosophy, you are very distinctly suggesting that such interference is not only ok, but preferrable.

If one begins any contemplation on 'what to do' with making a decision as to whether or not they have the right to do anything, it is much easier to see that usually, one does not have the right. Which is, of course, why so many people begin any such contemplation not by asking if they have the right, but by telling themselves all the reasons why their opinion/belief is superior and thus, more important than the question of whether or not they have a right to thrust upon another.



If all you're interested in is getting your way, perhaps. But generally, people who support 'might makes right' prefer to rationalise and justify their decision to force others rather than simply admit they really don't care about others, only about getting their way. Which is the ultimate reason that anyone uses 'might makes right' upon another.

I think I'm misunderstanding what the phrase "might makes right" means. Can someone clarify for me so I can make a useful response?

your history lesson is generally correct, save it glosses over that imperialism plunders only profitable areas, and ignores the poor half of the world. now it appears that this action is happening at the expense of the nation's own population. (not to mention to the world...)

is imperialism really all we've got to show, after all this time? there's such a lack of positive imagination of how this world, and everyone on it, can advance into this next century without the need for unnecessary conflict. the culprit, in the end, is always selfishness... such the creeping thing; selfishness literally is 'robbery of other's property or rights.'

besides, remember, we will for a long, long time be negatively looked upon, distrusted by most of the world's population, for having to -lie- our way into the middle-east.