Long live democracy

[Pentarctagon]

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between your mom and your cousin. I think it's generally safe to say that every culture in the world has something against marrying your sister or mom, while people have been marrying their cousins for thousands of years.

Some royal families have used familial relationships as a way to keep power centralized within their own family, or just simply to keep their royal bloodline "pure". Also I took it as meaning someone closely related to you instead of someone in your immediate family.

Thousands and thousands of civilians? The big question is: Who killed them? Are you counting terrorist organizations as civilian? Where did you learn that American military personal have killed 'thousands and thousands of civilians'? One big reason the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started because innocent people were dying, and the terrorist organizations have actually been recorded to slaughter entire villages of civilians when retreating, not the Democratic armies deployed there to fix things.

Afghanistan
Iraq

[szopen]

Where did you learn that American military personal have killed 'thousands and thousands of civilians'?

To countries enumerated by Pentarctgon, I would want to add Serbia (a hospital bombed, civilian train, civilian suburbia etc) and all that without formal declaration of war.

One big reason the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started because innocent people were dying,

No. When Saddam was gassing innocent people, he was ally of USA, and no one was bombing him. No one is bombing Turkey, despite their campaigns against the Kurds. No one is attacking several other countries, were innocent civilians are dying. The innocent people were not reason -- they were used to justify the war.

I beg your pardon? Where does America's 'imperialistic nature' appear in it's society, military, or any other highlight of its culture?

For one, you are always innocent and whenever you attack some country without declaration of war, you always right and your enemies are cowards and member of evil axis.

As fr Pentarctgon: we are all members of the same species. As such, some things are shared amongst all people. For example, it is hard to argue that feeling that something is "salty" is really relative, DESPITE we have different tastes. You can always find things which will be universally considered salty or not salty, by all people in the world -- and those few, who will disagree, will be universally considered as having no taste.

The same is with morality. While some things may be relative, some are clearly not. Generally, there are some rules which are universally considered evil, and those, who do disagree, are pretty much universally considered evil. And even if not, I was raised in a culture, in which some things are evil, and judge by my set values -- especially when people judged by me were also raised in the same culture. Note that for communists, oficially they condemned Hitler for mass killings and oficially they were praising freedom and democracy. Therefore, I feell I have right to condemnd them and consider them evil (and lie being inherent part of the communist system is part of the reason).

[pyrophorus]

In some places being gay is considered very evil could get you killed, while in others it is completely ok and even celebrated. I believe that being gay is fine, they think its an insult to God. I can act to prevent this if I have the power, but who am I to say that my beliefs are "more right" than theirs? FDR, who is a celebrated president of the USA and was president during WWII married his own cousin, yet you say that such a thing would cause society to collapse (and then there's Genesis, if you believe that).

I think you didn't get my point. When I say society could collapse, the mechanism is not some god or universal judge punishing individual transgressions. Everywhere there is and there was murderers, robbers, incestuous people and so on, and societies can live with it as long as this is not a widely spread behavior, as long as murder, stealing, incest is not the rule and way of life of the majority. Individual transgressions are never a social problem if they keep marginal.

You quoted the gays: fine. We have nothing against them, of course. But reverse the ratio gays/hetero somewhere, and the children number will drop accordingly, so what ? Is it wrong to tell such a society would collapse ? Incest is prohibited, because it breaks social links which are fundamentally exchanges (women, goods, artifacts and so on). The same with robbery: imagine a place where people steal what they need instead of working to produce supplies: there will be quickly nothing to eat. And so on.

More of it, what I said about murder and stealing prohibition apply only to members of the society one belong to. Of course Most societies considered foreign countries as a no-man land in the plain sense of the term. Foreign people were seen as game, monsters, potential slaves, and so on. That's why wars, conquests and razzias have nothing to do with murder and robbery. It's lawful and most often honourable. Of course, nobody today will admit to profess such ideas. We all claim loudly we believe all humans being share the same rights and the same dignity, but in the facts, one can find easily the good old ideas are still alive. It is still "They and us", even if the boundary is an endless matter of discussion. IMO, drawing boundaries is the problem, not where they lies.

Friendly,

[Pentarctagon]

I think you didn't get my point. When I say society could collapse, the mechanism is not some god or universal judge punishing individual transgressions. Everywhere there is and there was murderers, robbers, incestuous people and so on, and societies can live with it as long as this is not a widely spread behavior, as long as murder, stealing, incest is not the rule and way of life of the majority. Individual transgressions are never a social problem if they keep marginal.

Yeah, it seems I was misunderstanding you.

You quoted the gays: fine. We have nothing against them, of course. But reverse the ratio gays/hetero somewhere, and the children number will drop accordingly, so what ? Is it wrong to tell such a society would collapse ? The same with robbery: imagine a place where people steal what they need instead of working to produce supplies: there will be quickly nothing to eat. And so on.

The population might decline, but an all-out collapse is highly unlikely I'd say. Plus now with artificial insemination it is less of an issue regardless.

As for the robbery part, while it may seem bad it the short term, it may lead people to form a group in order to defend what's theirs. So it could also lead to a much stronger and closely knit society in the long term. A lot of the things (more than it really should...) that have led to improvements are often preempted by some catastrophe. The immediate aftermath is terrible, but we emerge stronger from it in the long term.

[battlestar]

From poverty through desire wealth is born, where there's things of value there's robbery, the individualized level of conflict such as robbery causes groups to form, groups causes larger conflicts like wars, wars advance technology, advance in technology create deadly weapons, deadly weapons scare people into peace... good bad good bad good bad bad good good bad. In the long run, have we become better than animals? Some say yes, some say no. In the end, we may all perish while earth lives on; when earth vanish, galaxy lives on; when galaxy vanish, the universe lives on. Perhaps there's no good and no evil, only perception.

[Boldek]

I think you didn't get my point. When I say society could collapse, the mechanism is not some god or universal judge punishing individual transgressions. Everywhere there is and there was murderers, robbers, incestuous people and so on, and societies can live with it as long as this is not a widely spread behavior, as long as murder, stealing, incest is not the rule and way of life of the majority. Individual transgressions are never a social problem if they keep marginal.

??? So it's only wrong if other people do it? You do realize that societies are made out of individuals, that all make individual decisions, and will disregard laws and morals the more the rest of society does. Societies don't live with these kind of people, because that's what laws are for.

As for the robbery part, while it may seem bad it the short term, it may lead people to form a group in order to defend what's theirs. So it could also lead to a much stronger and closely knit society in the long term. A lot of the things (more than it really should...) that have led to improvements are often preempted by some catastrophe. The immediate aftermath is terrible, but we emerge stronger from it in the long term.

Yeah, survival of the fittest and natural selection would get rid of all the wimps in the world, wouldn't it? There's nothing like degrading society (which trust me, has been tried many, many times in the past) to remove all law and order. Anarchy doesn't mean individual freedom, it means might makes right.

For one, you are always innocent and whenever you attack some country without declaration of war, you always right and your enemies are cowards and member of evil axis.

??? Let's have a look at what the wiki has to say:

Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human body , is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, merchantilist policies".[1]
Cecil Rhodes: Cape-Cairo railway project. Founded the De Beers Mining Company and owned the British South Africa Company, which established Rhodesia for itself. He liked to "paint the map British red," and declared: "all of these stars ... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets."[2]

The term as such primarily has been applied to Western political and economic dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organized with an imperial center and a dominated periphery.

Seriously, your answer is quite silly. If your army deploys to attack an enemy of your country, are you going to call yourself an Imperialistic jerk for assuming that you are right and your enemy is wrong?

@pentarctagon: Many of the civilans killed were by terrorists, such as the al-queda. Killing unarmed people is always wrong, whether they are POWs or civilans. I myself feel that some of the accidents and clumsy air raids and such that have claimed civilan lives should have been attempted cleaner, but then I'm no tactician. From what I know, all the cases of US army soldeirs who murdered civilians were punished, not as severely as I wished, but condemned as villains. For the most part, the civilian violent death toll is from villains like the Al Queda, not US army.

I think you didn't get my point. When I say society could collapse, the mechanism is not some god or universal judge punishing individual transgressions. Everywhere there is and there was murderers, robbers, incestuous people and so on, and societies can live with it as long as this is not a widely spread behavior, as long as murder, stealing, incest is not the rule and way of life of the majority. Individual transgressions are never a social problem if they keep marginal.

You quoted the gays: fine. We have nothing against them, of course. But reverse the ratio gays/hetero somewhere, and the children number will drop accordingly, so what ? Is it wrong to tell such a society would collapse ? ...The same with robbery: imagine a place where people steal what they need instead of working to produce supplies: there will be quickly nothing to eat. And so on.

...So individual sins are okay as long as my neighbor doesn't do it, but at the same time you are warning that an influx in transgressions is very dangerous.

Incest is prohibited, because it breaks social links which are fundamentally exchanges (women, goods, artifacts and so on)

Am I misunderstanding you somewhat? Are you saying that women are just an item to be exchanged, that social links is the only thing that held marriage together for thousands of years!?

[Pentarctagon]

Yeah, survival of the fittest and natural selection would get rid of all the wimps in the world, wouldn't it? There's nothing like degrading society (which trust me, has been tried many, many times in the past) to remove all law and order. Anarchy doesn't mean individual freedom, it means might makes right.

Natural selection means survival of the fittest where the fittest means the best suited to survive, not the most physically strong. Also I know what anarchy means, but what that has to do with what I said?

[pyrophorus]

You quoted the gays: fine. We have nothing against them, of course. But reverse the ratio gays/hetero somewhere, and the children number will drop accordingly, so what ? Is it wrong to tell such a society would collapse ? The same with robbery: imagine a place where people steal what they need instead of working to produce supplies: there will be quickly nothing to eat. And so on.

The population might decline, but an all-out collapse is highly unlikely I'd say. Plus now with artificial insemination it is less of an issue regardless.

I think you're underestimating the problems which would arise. For instance, (as I think nobody really can anticipate how would behave such a society), do you think women will give willingly some of their children to men couples who want them ? If not, do you think women would accept the whole responsability and expanse to educate children ?

As for the robbery part, while it may seem bad it the short term, it may lead people to form a group in order to defend what's theirs. So it could also lead to a much stronger and closely knit society in the long term. A lot of the things (more than it really should...) that have led to improvements are often preempted by some catastrophe. The immediate aftermath is terrible, but we emerge stronger from it in the long term.

Or maybe not only one group, which would likely lead to civil war. Look at what is happening in Somalia.

??? So it's only wrong if other people do it? You do realize that societies are made out of individuals, that all make individual decisions, and will disregard laws and morals the more the rest of society does. Societies don't live with these kind of people, because that's what laws are for.

Societies can live with some. Everywhere, you have murderers and robbers. Police and laws are here to keep the ratio as low as possible, because societies works badly when they are too much. Same with the poors. They are not guilty of anything, but too much poor people drive a society into trouble for many reasons.

...So individual sins are okay as long as my neighbor doesn't do it, but at the same time you are warning that an influx in transgressions is very dangerous.

There's no contradiction here. I'm developing a sociologic point of view: societies can't live with no rules and must set at least something to prevent mass murder, robbery and incest. "Sin" is not a sociologic category. It belongs to ethics, so to speak, a superstructure the society develops to justify and enforce its rules. From this point of view, of course, all transgressions must be forbidden and punished.

Am I misunderstanding you somewhat? Are you saying that women are just an item to be exchanged,

From a sociologic point of view, women are exchanged like other things. It's a structural fact, meaningless in the ethic sphere. This means only if you want to get married, you have to find a bride out of your family, and reciprocally, your sisters will marry out too. This is an exchange beetween two familial groups, and most often, it involve some goods or money too.

... that social links is the only thing that held marriage together for thousands of years!?

Which marriage are you speaking of ? There are many of them, not only the one you have in mind.

Friendly,

[Pentarctagon]

I think you're underestimating the problems which would arise. For instance, (as I think nobody really can anticipate how would behave such a society), do you think women will give willingly some of their children to men couples who want them ? If not, do you think women would accept the whole responsability and expanse to educate children ?

Its really too complex a question for me to even guess at, though there is adoption.

Or maybe not only one group, which would likely lead to civil war. Look at what is happening in Somalia.

The operative word there was "could'. It *could* lead to a stronger and more united society, but it could also end up exactly the opposite.

[szopen]

First of all, I am Polish which means almos tinevitably pro-american. The part of why I still love America because I met so may people like you Boldek, who genuinely believe that wars you waged were not because of oil, or power, but because of civilians. Not to mention that I stikl met many americans, who can provide me with links like these one:

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

From what I know, all the cases of US army soldeirs who murdered civilians were punished, not as severely as I wished, but condemned as villains. For the most part, the civilian violent death toll is from villains like the Al Queda, not US army.

Not really. For example. during bombing of Serbia some targets were bombed delibaretely (TV tower) while USA argued it was valid military target, despite all victims were civilians. Also USA used bombs which are forbidden by international law. Note also that this international law is questioned by USA, even though these law and the international courts were established partially because USA (president Wilson IIRC?) was pressing for their establishment, while now USA refuses to recognise their authority (their, meaning these courts) over their troops.

Also, I was answering the question hwo this "imperialistic" nature is reflected in the society. In my opinion, treating all wars as justified is one example. Non-imperialistic societies generally do not think all wars waged are justified just because someone is a danger to our superiority or our interests. I wouldn't think it is justified to attack a country only because it is hostile or have interests other than my country. E.g. USA clearly is a danger to Russian or Chinese interests, yet I think you wouldn't think this would be good excuse for those countries to attack USA (or would you?). However, seems to me you think that it is justify to attack a country only becaise you think they are "enemies", and definition of enemy is so wide that it includes any country which may endanger american interests or domination over the world. Because neither Serbia, Panama or Granada were deploying army to attack USA and hence you would have to have very broad definition of enemy to justify aggresion on those countries [1] Therefore, your clam that "your answer is quite silly. If your army deploys to attack an enemy of your country, are you going to call yourself an Imperialistic jerk for assuming that you are right and your enemy is wrong? ". I think this attitude is a sign that american society has, at least to some extend, imperialistic tendencies.

[1] The case with Afganistan here is at least partly defendable (due to ties with Al-Quada) but others are clearly not.

[Boldek]

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

Offtopic: Did anyone realize that the icon for military movements are the sprite for the marine in freeciv?

Not really. For example. during bombing of Serbia some targets were bombed delibaretely (TV tower) while USA argued it was valid military target, despite all victims were civilians. Also USA used bombs which are forbidden by international law. Note also that this international law is questioned by USA, even though these law and the international courts were established partially because USA (president Wilson IIRC?) was pressing for their establishment, while now USA refuses to recognise their authority (their, meaning these courts) over their troops.

I was speaking about the afghan and Iraq wars, I am not too clear on many of the minor engagements in central america and the balkans. I am hazy on the balkans a lot, though I would like to point out that many air raids and bombings performed by the US caused large amounts of civilian deaths and I am not saying that they should be defended. I wasn't there to see what strategies these bombings had, so I am not going to either defend or attack your claims about the SerbianTV tower.

Also, I was answering the question hwo this "imperialistic" nature is reflected in the society. In my opinion, treating all wars as justified is one example. Non-imperialistic societies generally do not think all wars waged are justified just because someone is a danger to our superiority or our interests. I wouldn't think it is justified to attack a country only because it is hostile or have interests other than my country. E.g. USA clearly is a danger to Russian or Chinese interests, yet I think you wouldn't think this would be good excuse for those countries to attack USA (or would you?). However, seems to me you think that it is justify to attack a country only becaise you think they are "enemies", and definition of enemy is so wide that it includes any country which may endanger american interests or domination over the world. Because neither Serbia, Panama or Granada were deploying army to attack USA and hence you would have to have very broad definition of enemy to justify aggresion on those countries [1] Therefore, your clam that "your answer is quite silly. If your army deploys to attack an enemy of your country, are you going to call yourself an Imperialistic jerk for assuming that you are right and your enemy is wrong? ". I think this attitude is a sign that american society has, at least to some extend, imperialistic tendencies.

1: Well I would first point out that Panama, Grenada, and Serbia were all mayhem hotspots, and it wasn't necessarily the US at war with those countries as much as they were attempting to stop the bedlam. And just like Vietnam and Central America, there was plenty of confusion, bad air raids that butchered civilians, strange unjustified movements, and so forth. I would justify the US army for sending troops, but I wouldn't justify the death of civilians any more that you would. I wouldn't condemn the entire operation, but I see plenty of cases were I blame the military for not striving harder to protect civilians from danger, rather than harm them. And though this sounds a little wooden, I would point out that compared to other countries, the US military has been known for valuing human life the highest (That I know of).
2: "I think this attitude is a sign that american society has, at least to some extend, imperialistic tendencies." Let's have a little example: some hundred years ago (correct me if I'm wrong) the Polish had a sizable kingdom (maybe empire would be a good word) in the 1700's, when the cossack uprising (somewhere around 1760's I think) waged war with Poland and killed thousands of Poles and Jews, Catholic priests and other harmless civilians. Would you denounce your polish ancestors for their wars with the cossacks as being selfish, arrogant and imperialistic? Would you say that the Polish were right while the ukrainians were evil rabble? I thin saying I am arrogant, self assured, or narow minded might be better terms to call me.

[Dunno]

I read an article in a newspaper that was a comment to Keny 2012. The author claims that USA policy can be called "neo-colonialistic". US government intervenes in other countries' affairs in order to establish pro-american governments and gain power. I find it funny that many Americans honestly believe their country is the True Keeper of Democracy.

I was speaking about the afghan and Iraq wars, I am not too clear on many of the minor engagements in central america and the balkans. I am hazy on the balkans a lot, though I would like to point out that many air raids and bombings performed by the US caused large amounts of civilian deaths and I am not saying that they should be defended. I wasn't there to see what strategies these bombings had, so I am not going to either defend or attack your claims about the SerbianTV tower.

Exactly! Isn't that how propaganda is supposed to work?

the US military has been known for valuing human life the highest (That I know of).

Fun fact - USA is the only country in the world which used nukes as a weapon.

2: "I think this attitude is a sign that american society has, at least to some extend, imperialistic tendencies." Let's have a little example: some hundred years ago (correct me if I'm wrong) the Polish had a sizable kingdom (maybe empire would be a good word) in the 1700's, when the cossack uprising (somewhere around 1760's I think) waged war with Poland and killed thousands of Poles and Jews, Catholic priests and other harmless civilians. Would you denounce your polish ancestors for their wars with the cossacks as being selfish, arrogant and imperialistic? Would you say that the Polish were right while the ukrainians were evil rabble? I thin saying I am arrogant, self assured, or narow minded might be better terms to call me.

Yes, our ancestors were imperialistic. They fit the definition perfectly.
You see, the paradox here is that you cannot accept that US is a country like any other. I don't support imperialistic ideologies, but I understand that this is how the world works. Every big country that can extend its power, will do it. It's normal. Wrong, and bad, but there isn't much we can do about this.
And cossack uprising is from XVII century. In 1760 Poland was very, very far from being an empire.

[The_Other]

1: Well I would first point out that Panama, Grenada, and Serbia were all mayhem hotspots, and it wasn't necessarily the US at war with those countries as much as they were attempting to stop the bedlam.

This is the reason why many people, rightly or wrongly, consider US foreign policy and military operations to be imperialistic. The issue is that the USA tends to intervene in such situations without being invited to do so, or at least when the invitation is not common knowledge. This creates a widespread perception that the USA considers itself to be a kind of 'global policemen', often independent of and sometimes even above the UN. I do not know whether the American government and people genuinely see themselves in this way, but that is how it sometimes comes across to the rest of the world.
An example would be the assassination of Osama bin-Laden by US special forces, while he was located within a sovereign state whose government was not (AFAIK) aware of the operation until afterwards. While I have no objection to killing a mass murderer, the way in which it was conducted implies a certain disregard for international law and other countries' rights.
However, at the same time I recognise that informing the Pakistani government could have compromised the operation, so practically speaking the way in which it was done was clearly the best option. But legally and morally, it was and remains highly questionable. This is tricky, because obviously great military and economic power carries the responsibility to use said power for the benefit of the global community. I suspect that it is probably impossible to effectively live up to this responsibility without at times appearing 'imperialistic'. And you must, I fear, accept that you will be seen in this way, whether it is justified or not.

[Boldek]

Yes, our ancestors were imperialistic. They fit the definition perfectly.
You see, the paradox here is that you cannot accept that US is a country like any other. I don't support imperialistic ideologies, but I understand that this is how the world works. Every big country that can extend its power, will do it. It's normal. Wrong, and bad, but there isn't much we can do about this.
And cossack uprising is from XVII century. In 1760 Poland was very, very far from being an empire.

But if America has been extending it's power, how come it still remains in one area, simply spreading democracy and US standards of living, before pulling out again? Other empires immediately expanded, not only increased their influence, but colonized, conquered, and would use their size to continue their momentum. America could easily, and can easily, seize large parts of the world, possibly all of it, with it's military prowess and nuclear weapons cache. It would probably cause a war that would devastate large parts of America as well, but if America wanted to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries into colonies, assimilate them into the Union, they could. So why would America deploy soldiers fight wars that span decades, try to improve the living conditions and then move out? Why didn't they just keep the Panama canal?
"Yes, our ancestors were imperialistic. They fit the definition perfectly." Would you denounce them for that? Would you blame the Cossack violence to be a result from the Polish imperialism? Would you pardon the cossacks as merely fighting for freedom? Would you say the Polish were villainous for this?

Fun fact - USA is the only country in the world which used nukes as a weapon.

Fun fact: USA managed to achieve the nuclear bombs first thanks to the abducted german scientists, and then used it only then and there. Many countries now have bombs, but nobody has used them in 60 years. I myself grieve the fact that Japan was devastated by the firebombing and nuclear bombs in such a terrible way, but I would point out that had they not killed that cities, the marine invasion operation would have lead to grim tolls of some estimates one hundred times that number. Bear in ming that if the americans wanted to, they could have bombed major cities and killed triple that amount of people. They chose insignificant and unstrategic postions to frighten the Japanese, not kill them.

Exactly! Isn't that how propaganda is supposed to work?

You mean I don't read on the balkans, I read on the Iraq wars a lot more? If you look at the propoganda today, it is almost all anti Military. I don't quite follow you on this. I am researching central america and the balkans right now, because I neglected to read about them before. All the villainies caused by the US military in the Iraq and Afgan wars that we know of were punished, on varying degrees, but only the ones I know of. Beyond that, it's back to guessing and blogging.

And cossack uprising is from XVII century. In 1760 Poland was very, very far from being an empire.

Thanks for the clarification, I read very little about this a year ago.

economic power carries the responsibility to use said power for the benefit of the global community. I suspect that it is probably impossible to effectively live up to this responsibility without at times appearing 'imperialistic'. And you must, I fear, accept that you will be seen in this way, whether it is justified or not.

That's generally my opinion as well.

I read an article in a newspaper that was a comment to Keny 2012. The author claims that USA policy can be called "neo-colonialistic". US government intervenes in other countries' affairs in order to establish pro-american governments and gain power. I find it funny that many Americans honestly believe their country is the True Keeper of Democracy.

By pro-american, set a system that doesn't slaughter it's people, oppress the public(as much) and won't suppert dangerous organizations that will harm the entire world as well.
But I'm also interested in your idea that large countries are inevitably evil. What would be your solution to prevent imperialistic countries?

[szopen]

Yes, our ancestors were imperialistic. They fit the definition perfectly.

Eeer, not really. Or rather, it depends. E.g. when one of Vasas (Władysław iV? I can't remember) proposes that Poland should wage war on Turkey, conquer Balkans etc whole parliament was against, with on e of envoys asking "and if we will conquer those lands, then to whome they will belong, to our republic, or to king?". The same was with wars with Russia, with part of gentry being strongly against them.

However it's truth, that I think starting with 1620, our ancestors became a bit.. maybe not imperialistic, but more like jerks. Especially actions of Koniecpolski, Czarniecki and others on Ukraine (note -- this land was NOT conquered. We gained it _mostly_ in peaceful way) were.. well, way too harsh. But then, there was still this movement which culminated in 165... 1654 or soemthing? union of Hadziacz, which was never implemented despite parliament ratified it. This union was about ending this civil war (since at least in the beginning it was civil war) and transforming Republic of Two Nations into Republic of Three Nations (Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine).