Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:26 pm
Any examples of modern day appeasement to a type of imperialism?
 
Insty
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:46 pm
@Quinn phil,
Some would say that the UN's response to the U.S.'s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as a type of appeasement of American imperialism.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:21 am
@Insty,
Insty;132685 wrote:
Some would say that the UN's response to the U.S.'s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as a type of appeasement of American imperialism.


Who would say that? The Taliban in Afganistan had supported the 9/11 attack on America, and sheltered the attackers. So how could the UN be appeasing the victims of the attack when the victims retaliated?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:43 am
@Quinn phil,
The obvious example would be North Korea, or wasn't there something about the food for oil UN thing and Iraq? I really don't remember.
 
Insty
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132687 wrote:
Who would say that? The Taliban in Afganistan had supported the 9/11 attack on America, and sheltered the attackers. So how could the UN be appeasing the victims of the attack when the victims retaliated?

The U.S.'s intervention in Afghanistan, like the intervention in Iraq, has not been supported by the international community. Bush wasn't able to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action in Afghanistan. Even though the UN didn't approve of the intervention, however, it also didn't oppose America too strongly. This was partly because of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was also because, as a practical matter, there wasn't much the UN could do to stop the intervention. The case is even clearer with the Iraq War.

I personally do not oppose the interventions in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can understand why people from other countries view the interventions as a form of imperialism; and it makes perfect sense to say that the international community's reaction has been one of appeasement.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------

Jebediah;132693 wrote:
The obvious example would be North Korea, or wasn't there something about the food for oil UN thing and Iraq? I really don't remember.

North Korea would be a decent example of a strategy of appeasement, but it lacks the element of imperialism.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 02:14 am
@Insty,
Insty;132698 wrote:
The U.S.'s intervention in Afghanistan, like the intervention in Iraq, has not been supported by the international community. Bush wasn't able to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action in Afghanistan. Even though the UN didn't approve of the intervention, however, it also didn't oppose America too strongly. This was partly because of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was also because, as a practical matter, there wasn't much the UN could do to stop the intervention. The case is even clearer with the Iraq War.

I personally do not oppose the interventions in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can understand why people from other countries view the interventions as a form of imperialism; and it makes perfect sense to say that the international community's reaction has been one of appeasement.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------


North Korea would be a decent example of a strategy of appeasement, but it lacks the element of imperialism.


The fact that someone views an action as appeasement, and the fact that we can understand why they do, in no way shows that the action is one of appeasement. Those people may just be wrong. They may consider the Afghanistan action as appeasement because they just dislike America. I can understand that easily. But that does not mean they are right. Munich was a clear case (the paradigm case) of appeasement. The UN's behavior was not.
 
Insty
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 02:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132734 wrote:
The fact that someone views an action as appeasement, and the fact that we can understand why they do, in no way shows that the action is one of appeasement. Those people may just be wrong. They may consider the Afghanistan action as appeasement because they just dislike America. I can understand that easily. But that does not mean they are right. Munich was a clear case (the paradigm case) of appeasement. The UN's behavior was not.

The fact that someone does not view a particular course of action as appeasement doesn't mean that the course of action wasn't in fact one of appeasement. That person may simply be mistaken. I can understand why you hold your position, but I think it's wrong.

Appeasement can take on many different forms, and it's to be expected that strategies of appeasement will look different under varying geopolitical circumstances. The fact that current events don't form a strict analogy with Nazi Germany isn't very surprising.

I would also point out that my answer spoke of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These military interventions, and the UN's responses to them, should be viewed together.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:23 am
@Quinn phil,
Iran and it's desire for nuclear weapons -- not having used any could be viewed as an appeasement to U.S. imperial power.

Lost1
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:22 am
@Insty,
Insty;132746 wrote:
The fact that someone does not view a particular course of action as appeasement doesn't mean that the course of action wasn't in fact one of appeasement. That person may simply be mistaken. I can understand why you hold your position, but I think it's wrong.

Appeasement can take on many different forms, and it's to be expected that strategies of appeasement will look different under varying geopolitical circumstances. The fact that current events don't form a strict analogy with Nazi Germany isn't very surprising.

I would also point out that my answer spoke of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These military interventions, and the UN's responses to them, should be viewed together.


But I would have thought that the response of the UN to the invasion of Iraq was anything but appeasement of the US. It did not sanction the invasion as the US asked it to do. What else could the UN have done? Attack two (Britain too) of its charter members?
 
melonkali
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:45 am
@Quinn phil,
I'm going to avoid the Afghanistan/Iraq topic -- I don't want to start another battle royale that runs everyone except me and one or two others off the thread. I'll just say that if anyone really believes the U.S. wasn't bullying Afghanistan and Iraq for a UNOCAL pipeline route and a sweet oil deal, respectively, send me a private mail and I'll be happy to discuss/debate the issue with you. I will say no more here about that.

I'll give a smaller example which directly affected me. Not long ago, any U.S. citizen could buy music from Russian mp3 sites, at Russian prices. It was considered no different than someone traveling to Russia and buying CDs at Russian prices, or someone traveling anywhere abroad and buying anything (legal in the U.S.) at cheaper prices, or someone ordering, say, wine to be shipped from another country at that country's prices. I believe that is how free-market capitalism works? But we can't do this anymore. The sites, privately owned, have either shut down or lost 75% of their catalogs.

Why? From what I've read, the U.S.'s ability to veto Russia's entry into the WTO. I even read in one article that the WTO is set up so that its presidency is always U.S. Does anyone know if that is true?? Whether or not that is the case, the U.S. apparently does have ultimate veto power in the WTO. And the U.S. made the privately owned Russian mp3 sites a deal-breaker for Russia's entry into the WTO.

(There has been, for some time, an international agreement among most Western nations concerning creative copyright and purchasing laws, but that treaty did not include Russia.)

thanking God for mp3 sister-sites in the Ukraine,
rebecca
 
Insty
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132798 wrote:
But I would have thought that the response of the UN to the invasion of Iraq was anything but appeasement of the US. It did not sanction the invasion as the US asked it to do. What else could the UN have done? Attack two (Britain too) of its charter members?

The UN had lots of options. In theory, it could have imposed a whole range of sanctions on the US (embargoes, things of that nature). Even if these would have had very little practical effect, they would have been very important symbolically. The UN could also simply have passed a hortatory resolution condemning the US action. Not only did the UN fail to adopt any of these measures, from what I recall, it actually authorized the use of UN peace-keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But I agree that this thread shouldn't be turned into a debate about one particular example I've given. The OP was asking for examples of current-day imperialism. You've had an opportunity to say why you don't agree with my example. It would probably be more useful now to try to come up with alternative examples.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:50 am
@melonkali,
melonkali;132800 wrote:
I'm going to avoid the Afghanistan/Iraq topic -- I don't want to start another battle royale that runs everyone except me and one or two others off the thread. I'll just say that if anyone really believes the U.S. wasn't bullying Afghanistan and Iraq for a UNOCAL pipeline route and a sweet oil deal, respectively, send me a private mail and I'll be happy to discuss/debate the issue with you. I will say no more here about that.




I guess I don't understand what the alleged oil deal has to do with the issue about appeasement of the United States by the UN. What has it to do with it? Big nations always bully small nations. We do it less than most.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:29 am
@Quinn phil,
Are the terms "appeasement" and "imperialism" even applicable to the current state of affairs without a redefinition of both words? Don't we need to attempt to be clear about what we mean in using these terms, and clear about what would constitute criteria for applying them to modern situations?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:31 am
@melonkali,
Quinn;132680 wrote:
Any examples of modern day appeasement to a type of imperialism?
Culture and Imperialism
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:34 am
@Quinn phil,
I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:41 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132834 wrote:
I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.


Could be. ....................
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 01:37 pm
@Quinn phil,
:brickwall:I disagree with VideCor:lol: about the status of the USA; being an Imperial Organisation doesn't mean you need to have an Emperor. A nation organised as a merchant-economy under a plutocraty formed the basis for many empires.

Smaller independent polis founded colonies to provide food, slaves and precious metals. Things did change, but oil, cheap labour and food & water still are imported in the USA. Western allies help in Afganistan, pumped trillions in the banking system and are urged to buy new jets to help the US defense industry.

Are american veterans still supported to go to university after their duty is done? Maybe it's wiser to sent your youth first to school, and afterwards to war. Or Canada...
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:43 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:
I disagree with VideCor about the status of the USA; being an Imperial Organisation doesn't mean you need to have an Emperor. A nation organised as a merchant-economy under a plutocraty formed the basis for many empires.

I completely agree with you that an Imperial power does not need to have an emperor. However, the foundation of an imperial power necessarily entails that a foreign power hold political sovereignty over another political society. Basically, if I were to say that the United States (say Washington DC) were the central nexus for political decisions of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, then an imperial moniker could be given. But it is not. As far as I am aware of, there is no country outside the federalized system which bends to the political will of Washington DC in respect to imperial influence. And even within it, state sovereignty is foremost.

However, I would mention that a plutocracy (as well as on which is a merchant based economy) is one of many formulas for imperial administration. The Athenian Empire for example would not fall under your statement because the Cleisthenic reforms, boule of 500 representation, etc. Not only open to the rich and powerful but to the regular gorgoi as well.

Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:
Smaller independent polis founded colonies to provide food, slaves and precious metals. Things did change, but oil, cheap labour and food & water still are imported in the USA. Western allies help in Afganistan, pumped trillions in the banking system and are urged to buy new jets to help the US defense industry.
Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:
Are american veterans still supported to go to university after their duty is done? Maybe it's wiser to sent your youth first to school, and afterwards to war. Or Canada...
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:21 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132834 wrote:
I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.


It totally was. Homework, that is.

Thanks everyone!
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 12:53 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:
I completely agree with you that an Imperial power does not need to have an emperor. However, the foundation of an imperial power necessarily entails that a foreign power hold political sovereignty over another political society.

I do see, being Dutch, USA as a foreign power. The US has political sovereignity over native american nations. And Puerto Rico p.e..
Furthermore US has suzerainty over many countries. This can be political, military, economical or cultural. In the case of Athens it was intellectual.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:
Basically, if I were to say that the United States (say Washington DC) were the central nexus for political decisions of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, then an imperial moniker could be given.

It is not necessary that DC is the centre nexus; other agencies in Virginia are fully capable to run USA.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:
As far as western allies pumping money into Afghanistan (and Iraq) and being urged to buy new jets from the US defense industry, unfortunately, Europe is not a major player in that field. Sales with Europe pales in comparison to the business done with Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.


Luckily so; there still is industry in EU. But in Holland we are getting presured to buy US fighters, while we can easily make them in Sweden and France.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:


I agree with you people should have a free choice to join the Army. Or the Navy... I also strongly believe in just wars. Most of all I want fairness.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:
That it would be wiser to send the youth to school first and war second, that seems a little biased and misinformed. Many college graduates enter the armed forces after college to pay for it and make a career out of it. In fact, one cannot enter the military without at least a high school equivalency. And many skills taught to enlisted personnel make them very competitive out in the private sector.


I did not realize you see the militairy as part of the educational system. I admit to be biased and misinformed.
:a-ok:
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 09:30:14