catapult magazine

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Hindsight is 20/20. On the other hand, how would the world be different if we hadn’t intervened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq…
Would it be better or worse? Maybe Hindsight isn’t 20/20.

There’s always a danger of helping bring a wolf in sheep’s clothing to power in a country. How much blame does the US take in supporting a regime like Hussein and how much do you chalk it up to “absolute power” corrupting?

I’m glad I don’t have to make the decisions.

Not to get off on a non sequitur or digression here, but on the topic of the UN, did I hear correctly the other day that Libian Leader M. Quaddafi (sp?) has been appointed the UN Commissioner on Human Rights? Was I having an auditory hallucination? Or is it his twin brother with the exact same name who was not a repressive foreign dictator?

No it wasn’t him, but a Libyan woman named Najat Al-Hajjaji was appointed to chair the UN Human Rights Commission.

For those Canadians and Europeans who are in constant awe of the apparent ignorance of America when it comes to the way most of the world sees us: you must understand that we are genuinely shocked that 1. people hate us enough to send planes into our own buildings 2. people aren’t more appreciative for the stability we’ve brought in many instances around the globe 3. people consider us to be a reincarnation of the expansionist Empire.

I think the last several years have been an identity crisis of sorts for the U.S. Many Americans believe, along with the philosophers of the French Enlightenment, that all human beings are born with a desire for liberty, for the kind of freedom that democracy offers. Because of this belief, America thinks of itself as the liberator, not the oppressor. The U.S. thinks of itself as the nation that makes it possible for other nations to enjoy the freedoms that is the natural right of all human beings.

America has never seen its actions as expansionist (America, after all, began as a revolt against such an Empire), but rather as acts of liberation. So to be cast by the world in the role of globally expansionist Superpower is a slap in the face and very difficult to accept.

Is it possible that the whole world doesn’t understand the U.S.? Does America’s standing as a superpower blind outsiders to the well-intended heart of American political activity? Unfortunately, it seems the world’s on-lookers simply reject this American ideal of innate human liberty as merely a great deception used to justify world-domination. From an American perspective, this perception of the U.S. does not seem accurate.

You’re right on grant. The whole world does not understand the America. And America does not understand the world. What a tragic situation we find ourselves in.

About your words: “well-intended heart of American political activity.” Do you really believe American policy makers have the good of the whole world in mind when they make policy? Well intended for America and Americans. If what is good for America somehow makes someone else happy too, all the better, but that’s not what it’s about.

Neither does America want to build an empire in the Roman, Persian, or Nazi sense. But American foreign policy is focused on removing roadblocks for American companies to do business around the world. It’s a different sort of empire building that funnels profits back to the homeland at the expense of other countries. Certainly there are other ways to look at it: one would be that we’re providing jobs and improving standards of living for people in Indonesia who would otherwise be working the rice patties. Funny how the world doesn’t see it that way though.

I agree with you grant, that Bush has good intentions. He probably thinks he’s doing the right thing and can’t figure out why so many people can’t see what he sees. I’m just pretty sure that good intentions are never enough. And please don’t ask the world to feel sorry for its lonely, misunderstood superpower: it looks like its going to get lonelier.

Hope this link works. It’s to an opinion piece about the “massive, spine-bending chip the Canadians have on their shoulders … I was simply staggered by the obsession Canadians have with the United States: about their superiority, about America’s problems compared to Canada’s, about how Canadians know so much about America but Americans know nothing about Canada …The Canadians have for a while now taken it upon themselves to be a ‘moral superpower,’ not a military superpower.” For the whole thing – and it’s got a humorous bent – is here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg110802.asp

To paraphrase: “Canadians are amoral, hypociritcal, spineless whiners!” Slight generalization. Don’t really see how it fits in here…

Lighten up, Jason.

You.

let’s try not resorting to bickering.

having said that, i don’t see how the article or canadian/american relations has much to do with a discussion on whether or not the united states is justified in pre-emptively attacking iraq.

it is interesting to note, though, that the article does basically amount to US chest-thumping. which, if canada considered such a thing a threat (along with our immense arsenal of nucleur weapons), might give them grounds to attack us. i’m just sayin’ . . .