• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the USA be the Focus of a Global BDS Movement re: Militarism?

Tigerace117:



Please read the following article if you wish to learn more about how the US is using think-tanks to enable extra-constitutional political change in Latin American countries today, sometimes by violent means.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09...-libertarian-think-tank-latin-america-brazil/

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

the USA was behind the coup of Brasilian President Dilma Rousseff

and then the CIA with the help of the UK removed Aussie Prime Minister Gough Whitlam because he wanted the USA bases out of Australia including the CIA and 5 eyes

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...itlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
 
Should a global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement be focused on America in order to punish it for (and dissuade it from) its greater and greater reliance on using coercive, military might instead of soft-power and diplomacy to solve its disputes with foreign states, nations and groups in a post Cold War world? Is the USA the greatest rogue-nation in the world today and if so should it be sanctioned for flouting international norms of behaviour through its over-reliance on military threats, interventions and adventurism? Should a world and international system which is being increasingly destabilised by US military threats and operations (both overt and covert) react by peacefully destabilising the US economy in response to such behaviour by America? Is it time for the world to turn its collective back on America for a period of time and simply refuse to trade with or invest in America until it abandons its reliance on offensive militarism to promote its economic and political interests abroad? Is it the time for the global ostracism of America as a safeguard for more global peace and the triumph of non-violent dispute resolution in the international system?

Please make reasoned arguments rather than emotional responses or unnecessary threats in addressing this issue. I would prefer to keep this a sober debate rather than a "Camlok-esque" polemic with countering diatribes poisoning civilised debate. It may be a forlorn hope but please try to keep this discussion academic and respectful.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Promoting self-interest is a doctrine of all nations with epochal prominence on the international stage. No nations obtain superpower status merely by lighting votive candles.

What are your personal ideas, propositions, and proposals for achieving global kumbaya sans episodic violence?
 
You didn't say which one attacked us. Is your ignorance ingrained or do you work at it? Can't you respond to a simple question? Who attacked us in our constant battles of the last 50 years?
/

Way to steal my line buddy. But then again, I'm not surprised you CTers don't have an original thought in your heads.

Must be hard, having to be so historically ignorant to support such horrific regimes all the time.
 
the Japanese Empire didn't come close to killing 25 million like the USA has done since 1946 ... but you have some way to catch up with the most brutal empire ever The British Empire murdered 150 million and enslaved 10s of millions

Oh, lovely. You are an Imperial Japanese apologist too.
 
Should a global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement be focused on America in order to punish it for (and dissuade it from) its greater and greater reliance on using coercive, military might instead of soft-power and diplomacy to solve its disputes with foreign states, nations and groups in a post Cold War world? Is the USA the greatest rogue-nation in the world today and if so should it be sanctioned for flouting international norms of behaviour through its over-reliance on military threats, interventions and adventurism? Should a world and international system which is being increasingly destabilised by US military threats and operations (both overt and covert) react by peacefully destabilising the US economy in response to such behaviour by America? Is it time for the world to turn its collective back on America for a period of time and simply refuse to trade with or invest in America until it abandons its reliance on offensive militarism to promote its economic and political interests abroad? Is it the time for the global ostracism of America as a safeguard for more global peace and the triumph of non-violent dispute resolution in the international system?

Please make reasoned arguments rather than emotional responses or unnecessary threats in addressing this issue. I would prefer to keep this a sober debate rather than a "Camlok-esque" polemic with countering diatribes poisoning civilised debate. It may be a forlorn hope but please try to keep this discussion academic and respectful.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

That isn't how international security works, I'm afraid. First of all, security is an essential public good that needs to be produced. It doesn't exist ex ante, it is expensive to enforce and it always requires mortal violence at least as a believable threat and quite often in fact.
International security is the same as with any system of security, actually. If you don't have a communal one that reliably protects the population the individuals or groups of them have to produce it themselves.
If you don't want those securing the trade routs and keeping a tentative state of security, you must replace it or you get a breakdown of civil order very rapidly.

This is well understood in the US and was intensely discussed after the collapse of the UdSSR quite publicly in the relevant journals under participation of specialists and politicians from around the world. It was quite clear, what the possible solutions are. But it was also obvious that for the time being the US would pay for it even if nobody else did, because the country needed security of trade routes. As it is a public good, it made sense for other countries to free ride and let the Americans pay alone. It was this rational that led to a reduction in military spending among America's economic competitors.

BTW, I don't know, whether you know these things. But posts like your's read like a Putin bot production.
 
Should a global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement be focused on America in order to punish it for (and dissuade it from) its greater and greater reliance on using coercive, military might instead of soft-power and diplomacy to solve its disputes with foreign states, nations and groups in a post Cold War world? Is it time for the world to turn its collective back on America for a period of time and simply refuse to trade with or invest in America until it abandons ...

Yes, the world should have long ago held the USA to account for its war crimes/terrorism/theft of trillions of dollars in wealth.

Will it happen, not very likely at all given that the vast majority of people actually are very evil. Look at how rabidly many people defend the US even though it has been as evil as the Nazis were.

Is the USA the greatest rogue-nation in the world today and if so should it be sanctioned for flouting international norms of behaviour through its over-reliance on military threats, interventions and adventurism? Should a world and international system which is being increasingly destabilised by US military threats and operations (both overt and covert) react by peacefully destabilising the US economy in response to such behaviour by America?

Most assuredly the US is "the greatest rogue-nation in the world today". You don't illegally invade over 70 times, killing tens of millions of people, plan genocides, unfairly position US business interests without being a rogue nation.

It should be sanctioned for its war crimes and its terrorism, its theft of trillions, its genocides, its oh so transparent lies.
 
Any state which thuggishly attacks its people for protesting said state's incompetence---like Venezuela--- deserves what it gets and is by no means a democracy.

The USA is Thugs 'R Us Inc.

4 Dead in Ohio; Wounded Knee where the USA slaughtered 300; California offers bounties for Indian heads; Army suppresses Idaho silver miners' strike; Hawaii overthrown and annexed; Guam stolen; the Philippines stolen; Chicago 1894; ...

https://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
 
Promoting self-interest is a doctrine of all nations with epochal prominence on the international stage. No nations obtain superpower status merely by lighting votive candles.

Why do folks always go from "Yes, I know that the US has been as evil as the Nazis were" and then leap right to the lame excuse above, completely forgetting that the USA/Robert Jackson/Nuremberg stated oh so clearly;

"To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice." Robert H Jackson

Remember, the USA was supposed/is supposed to be different than those other evil states that tried to prevent people from attaining freedom and their own chosen form of government.

What are your personal ideas, propositions, and proposals for achieving global kumbaya sans episodic violence?

Another of those dishonest approaches.

That's easy. The periodic violence comes mostly from the USA. Stop USA periodic violence/war crimes/terrorism and most things are solved. The odd outbreak of violence could be easily and well handled by the world community, acting as a community.
 
the only way the UN will be capable to guarantee global trade is by upping sticks and moving to Geneva in Switzerland along with the WTO it is the only way neutrality can be guaranteed .... America refuses to play by international rules instead believes it should follow it's own rules .... Russia should close it's US diplomatic missions in america except for the UN and boot out all American diplomatic staff from Russia ... America is not interested in diplomacy

That is another Putin bot type post. But moving the UN to Lausanne is fine, if it means it can believably guarantee peace and protection of populations even against their rulers communally. The US has been working towards thi goal for some time now.
 
But moving the UN to Lausanne is fine, if it means it can believably guarantee peace and protection of populations even against their rulers communally. The US has been working towards thi goal for some time now.

You might want to give some examples where the US has ever been doing what you suggest above, joG.
 
Originally Posted by Godric1970 View Post
the only way the UN will be capable to guarantee global trade is by upping sticks and moving to Geneva in Switzerland along with the WTO it is the only way neutrality can be guaranteed .... America refuses to play by international rules instead believes it should follow it's own rules .... Russia should close it's US diplomatic missions in america except for the UN and boot out all American diplomatic staff from Russia ... America is not interested in diplomacy

The UN should be a much more neutral place. Actually it is. The world is together on a lot of/most issues and the USA is the great outsider. US propaganda badly distorts this. Just consider where the West get the vast majority of its "news" from?

joG: That is another Putin bot type post.

That is a typical propagandist US response.
 
You might want to give some examples where the US has ever been doing what you suggest above, joG.

Well, the idea dates back to Wilson, but became unfunctionable for the period after 1950. After the discussions of the 1990s a proposal initiated by US parties was approved by the UN and in 2005 changes the UN norms by introducing a responsibility to protect. This was a major change, as it shifts the focus from protecting nations to protection of persons. This was deemed important, as it is necessary to increase the legitimacy of the UN, if it was to assume a more important role in guarantying international security. Actually, this was a very interesting process that escaped general attention. But there were a few articles in the better news venues.
 
Promoting self-interest is a doctrine of all nations with epochal prominence on the international stage. No nations obtain superpower status merely by lighting votive candles.

What are your personal ideas, propositions, and proposals for achieving global kumbaya sans episodic violence?

Rogue Valley:

All human nature is a balance between self-interest/greed and altruism/generosity in my estimation. Everyone, no matter what culture they come from nor what creed they follow, sits somewhere on the greed-generosity spectrum. Those who balance these drivers in their personal and public lives are generally capable of dealing with other human beings in a sane and civil way and can get along in a society through negotiation and compromise. Those who tend towards either extreme of the spectrum tend to be less flexible, less prone to compromise, more absolute in their beliefs and more authoritarian in their social and societal interactions.

Any system which promotes the extremes of this spectrum is a vehicle for fanatics to accumulate social or financial capital and thus rise in influence and political power over time, at the expense of their more balanced peers. A fanatical communist who is consumed by altruistic extremism and demands that a society confiscate and collectivise all private property and who ignores human nature while doing so is profoundly dangerous to that society. A fanatical capitalist who is consumed by greedy extremism and demands that a society allow and promote the individual's right to accumulate unlimited wealth through the imposed exploitation and paupering of his peers and who ignores human nature while doing so is profoundly dangerous too. Unfortunately, both poles of fanatics are blinded by their convictions and either cannot or will not comprehend the damage they do to others around them. I strongly suspect that since the end of WWII and especially since the end of the Cold War that the USA has had its collective values and national ethos co-opted by capitalist greed-fanatics who have begun to use the military and economic dominance of the USA as tool for enhancing their own selfish interests and that the actions of the US state is no longer tempered by people of effective influence who lie more towards the middle of the spectrum.

Thus the "public good" has been eclipsed and supplanted by the "private good" in American politics and national policy and the drivers of militarism have changed from enforcing peace and a fairer global status quo to enforcing one-way exploitation through the use of state delivered societal dislocation and violence. This violence is used to dislocate uncooperative and resisting populations or societies enough that they accept subservience and exploitation rather than suffer morecshocks. They are periodically shocked into subservient compliance with that exploitation, through cyclical applications of political interference, economic trauma, military force or threats of same. This can also be achieved by economic or political shocks so engineering local financial disasters and political coups are less kinetic levels of shocking uncooperative populations into subservient compliance.

These shocks however have diminishing impacts on the societies which they are repeatedly inflicted upon as the targeted populations adjust to being shocked, build up a tolerance to such shocks and become better able to endure violence done upon them without losing the will to resist such imposed exploitation. This hardening of targeted populations means that each shock applied must be more dislocating and violent than the last. Thus the frequency and the levels of destabilisation and applied violence must cycle up and escalate over time to maintain the subservient compliance of repeatedly targeted populations. Serial victims of dislocation develop a strong tolerance to dislocating violence so dislocation must escalate over time to remain effective. I believe we are now experiencing that escalation turning the corner on a J-curve of dislocation and violence, where the frequency and level of force is rapidly increasing to maintain the conditions necessary to feed the greed of those individuals and corporate entities which have come to dominate US foreign policy making decisions and militarism.


Continued on next post.
 
Rogue Valley:

That is the back-drop to my question regarding boycotts, divestment and sanctions. Such programmes hurt the greedy aspirations of the fanatically self-interested and force them by non-violent means to suffer losses of income and wealth. This is intolerable to greed-fanatics so it will trigger them to use dislocation and violence against non-violent resistors which will hopefully tip their hand to the vast majority of Americans who are not as polarised as the fanatics in power. The danger, and ironically the best hope for stopping this escalating cyclical of dislocation and violence, is that a greed-driven state, co-opted by fanatics, will turn on its own population and begin applying dislocating shocks and violence at home as well as abroad. Then the electorate/citizenry, having been awakened to the threat from above, can dispose of such fanatics from positions of power either by peaceful democratic means, by civil disobedience and covert resistance or by open rebellion and revolution.

Military force is sometimes necessary as a tool by which balanced people and states can thwart the ambitions of individuals and peoples who have gravitated towards extremism and can no longer compromise. That's a reality and thus this is not a kumbaya-utopian pipe-dream. But when a world becomes victimised by a monopolar superpower which uses force more and more regularly to promote limited self-interest at the expense of too many and worse still the fanatical greed of those who have co-opted the superpower state then such a superpower is no longer a force for good and is rather a pathology which must be managed and hopefully cured. Confronting the US by miltary means is suicidal and a non-starter for effecting change. Confronting it by economic and political ostracism may have a better chance of awakening the dormant US citizenry to the appaling militarism and violence being done in their names and could either force positive change or totalitarian authoritarianism reaction to reveal its demonic face, thus triggering a revolt of the US people to such a predatory state.

That is the thinking behind creating this thread here.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The USA is Thugs 'R Us Inc.

And people like you are "Historical Ignorance R'US".

Nobody "stole" anything.

Go back to crying about the Taliban being overthrown.
 
That isn't how international security works, I'm afraid. First of all, security is an essential public good that needs to be produced. It doesn't exist ex ante, it is expensive to enforce and it always requires mortal violence at least as a believable threat and quite often in fact.
International security is the same as with any system of security, actually. If you don't have a communal one that reliably protects the population the individuals or groups of them have to produce it themselves.
If you don't want those securing the trade routs and keeping a tentative state of security, you must replace it or you get a breakdown of civil order very rapidly.

This is well understood in the US and was intensely discussed after the collapse of the UdSSR quite publicly in the relevant journals under participation of specialists and politicians from around the world. It was quite clear, what the possible solutions are. But it was also obvious that for the time being the US would pay for it even if nobody else did, because the country needed security of trade routes. As it is a public good, it made sense for other countries to free ride and let the Americans pay alone. It was this rational that led to a reduction in military spending among America's economic competitors.

BTW, I don't know, whether you know these things. But posts like your's read like a Putin bot production.

International security grows out of more than just tribal or national military threats and violence. It also depends on understanding others' needs and wants, others' beliefs and faiths, others' motives and drivers and promoting an international culture conducive to negotiation in good faith and compromise so that all can realise a better life. Military threat and military intervention should be a tool of last-resort and not a bludgeon of first instance in international security. Militarism reduces the barriers to using violence and raises the frequency and intensity of military intervention and conflict. It also promotes intolerance and authoritarianism since militarists are by their nature hierarchical and authoritarian. There are times when military action is unavoidable and necessary internationally, but those instances are rare. The US political leadership has opted to use military force to enforce an international order more beneficial to itself than to others with greater frequency and greater violence, since the end of WWII. This first resort to military force has snow-balled since the end of the Cold War and more so since the beginning of the absurdly named Global War on Terror.

The situation has gotten so bad that the US State Department is lacking funding and sufficient staff to do its job while a deference to military authority and military service is taking on a cult-like grip over many Americans. You spend huge sums of scarce tax revenue on a bloated and ineffective military (given the tasks you assign it) while your own people suffer privation from access to effective education, quality health care which is widely available to citizens of limited means, diminishing economic opportunities for new and established American workers and crumbling infrastructure. Income and wealth inequality is growing and has surpassed the grotesque excesses of the American Gilded Age. You are in debt up to your national eyebrows and that is far more of a security threat to the USA than ISIL, Kim Jong-UN, pan-Arabism, Communism or Chinese militarism in the South China Sea.

As a society you are steeped in a culture of distraction which promotes mindless entertainment and the pursuit of consumerism and wealth at the expense of self-knowledge and awareness. Your media system indoctrinates your own people with propaganda to keep them useful idiots while blinding them from percieving the predatory nature of your state and society to both nations abroad and to the domestic well-being of most Americans. You spread destabilization, dislocation and violence, not for the greater good but for your own narrow national interests and to serve the particular interests of elites consumed with fanatical greed and insatiable appetites for accumulating wealth. You do this at the expense of the interests and well-being of others and you shamelessly exploit them and their misery to enrich your greedy masters. This greed-driven militarism is not a public good as you and others here claim but is rather a pathological cancer of acquisition metastisizing from your shores and spreading around the globe by dollar-diplomacy and force of arms. Your national greed and militarism are running amok with nothing to keep them in check.

Continued next post.
.
 
Just this morning I was listening to American media discussing the latest North Korean nuclear test. The fear-mongering coupled with the arrogance of the powerful was toxic. The US has lived with the existential threat of nuclear destruction by hostile powers for seventy years but now the sky is falling in because a hermit kingdom has joined the club as a pip-squeak nuclear power? Deal with it and leave the North Koreans to their self-imposed misery until the Kim dynasty dies out or is toppled from within by its own desperate people. The real issue here is the arrogance of power. Time and time again it was repeated by reporters, announcers, pundits and expert guest commentators that North Korea was "defying" the US and therefore had to be punished. The question was never asked why the North Koreans must follow American and Western diktat in the first place. Who anointed the US Government to dictate the national policy of foreign states and impose an order which benefits the US at the expense of other states? That is the arrogance of power, which the people and pundits of the US establishment seem wilfully blind to and mindlessly parrot.

Finally, I'm not a Putin bot. Putin's authoritarianism and Russian militarism under his leadership is just as odious as that of the US elites. The only difference is the scale and frequency of violence which makes the USA the global alpha-predator which is doing the most harm at this time. In a hundred years it could be India, China or any number of nations. This thread is about the frequency and scale of US militarism now and not whether there are some times when miltary force is needed and legitimate. There are grave difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice and covert destabilisation. Likewise the consequences of waging such wars differ dramatically.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Well, the idea dates back to Wilson, but became unfunctionable for the period after 1950. After the discussions of the 1990s a proposal initiated by US parties was approved by the UN and in 2005 changes the UN norms by introducing a responsibility to protect. This was a major change, as it shifts the focus from protecting nations to protection of persons. This was deemed important, as it is necessary to increase the legitimacy of the UN, if it was to assume a more important role in guarantying international security. Actually, this was a very interesting process that escaped general attention. But there were a few articles in the better news venues.

The USA was raping and pillaging long before Wilson came into office. The Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, China, Korea, Cuba, Samoa, ... .

Here's the list:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2014.

https://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Turkish newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions.
 
Camlok:

I have to say that I think your analysis of the US is rather Manichean and excessively harsh. Yes the USA, like all states, has fallen short of its ideals at times and has committed grave atrocities. But it has also made hundreds of millions of lives better in a world full of tyranny and malice. The USA was founded on noble principles and ideals at its core and many Americans are fine and good people who honestly want to make the world a better place for as many as possible. The US is not a monster-empire as you seem to think. It is a noble republic which at times in the past and present has been hijacked by greedy and evil people who use the might of the republic in the service of their own wicked ends. Regrettably, this is one of those times when the hijackers have taken over and have entrenched themselves for the last quarter century or more. But by confronting good and fair-minded Americans with the degree to which their republic has been co-opted and misused by unnecessary militarism and its greedy backers, I hope that America will rise to the challenge and repair itself in order to become the force for good and opportunity that it has been in the past and could be again.

All states are leviathans and all states commit crimes and atrocities domestically and abroad. Humans can be wicked and the followers of the more negative drivers of the human condition will attempt to co-opt any system in which they find themselves. But America was one of the first states to recognize this and to try and build a governmental structure which kept the political wolves who would scheme to be their rulers from seizing control of the state and taking absolute control. That wisdom of the past has been hamstrung by apathy and ignorance among the American body-politic and the ambitions of the greedy. For some of American history the Americans have succeeded in in maintaining their liberty and ideals by holding such wolves at bay and for other periods they have fallen short and the wolf-pack has been ascendant. Now is a time when one of those shortfalls is upon America and it is my honest hope that Americans will recognize the present day peril which their republic faces from the insidious control of their state by the fanatics of greed and their militarist allies. If that recognition can be sparked in the wider population then I have confidence that the American people will push back and right what is wrong in order to return their republic to a better path which once again reflects the ideals of representative democracy, commonwealth, responsible capitalism, responsible governance and respect for individual rights and opportunity.

My criticism comes out of a deep respect and an admiration for the grand American experiment. If I read you right, your criticism comes from a conviction that America is an evil and monstrous nation which habitually vexes and injures humanity. I don't believe your analysis is balanced and sound, as I have travelled throughout many of the fifty states of the union and have met many good folk with high ideals and solid moral compasses. I get the impression that if you had your choice you would wipe the US from the face of the Earth and also the pages of history. That would be a terrible mistake; for despite its warts, its historical scars from dark periods in its history and its present day fascination with military adventurism in support of harmful exploitative corporatism/capitalism, America is still a good road-map and a great example of how to empower individual people to have fulfilling lives and to make a difference in this world.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether applying non-violent, economic pressure against the power-wielding militarist elites of the USA could be a useful catalyst for triggering anti-militarist reforms by Americans and for America. It is not intended as a platform for rabid and un-tempered Anti-Americanism. If you wish to level blanket attacks against America, I respectfully ask that you do it in another thread. This thread is about making America better by economically nudging it so that it returns it to its core principles and ideals. This thread is not about tearing America down.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Just this morning I was listening to American media discussing the latest North Korean nuclear test. The fear-mongering coupled with the arrogance of the powerful was toxic. The US has lived with the existential threat of nuclear destruction by hostile powers for seventy years but now the sky is falling in because a hermit kingdom has joined the club as a pip-squeak nuclear power? Deal with it and leave the North Koreans to their self-imposed misery until the Kim dynasty dies out or is toppled from within by its own desperate people. The real issue here is the arrogance of power. Time and time again it was repeated by reporters, announcers, pundits and expert guest commentators that North Korea was "defying" the US and therefore had to be punished. The question was never asked why the North Koreans must follow American and Western diktat in the first place. Who anointed the US Government to dictate the national policy of foreign states and impose an order which benefits the US at the expense of other states? That is the arrogance of power, which the people and pundits of the US establishment seem wilfully blind to and mindlessly parrot.

Finally, I'm not a Putin bot. Putin's authoritarianism and Russian militarism under his leadership is just as odious as that of the US elites. The only difference is the scale and frequency of violence which makes the USA the global alpha-predator which is doing the most harm at this time. In a hundred years it could be India, China or any number of nations. This thread is about the frequency and scale of US militarism now and not whether there are some times when miltary force is needed and legitimate. There are grave difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice and covert destabilisation. Likewise the consequences of waging such wars differ dramatically.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Only problem is that North Korea is highly unlikely to allow itself to be "left to its misery". The "pipsqueak" does possess the ability to badly harm American allies, and the regime's main goal for the past decades has been "reunification".

Gee, countries have to actually treat their people well and not threaten to use nuclear weapons on their neighbors to support a vicious land grab? Gee, how intolerable. The horror of the "American order", folks. Next they'll be demanding the secret police and torture camps go.
 
Should a global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement be focused on America in order to punish it for (and dissuade it from) its greater and greater reliance on using coercive, military might instead of soft-power and diplomacy to solve its disputes with foreign states, nations and groups in a post Cold War world? Is the USA the greatest rogue-nation in the world today and if so should it be sanctioned for flouting international norms of behaviour through its over-reliance on military threats, interventions and adventurism? Should a world and international system which is being increasingly destabilised by US military threats and operations (both overt and covert) react by peacefully destabilising the US economy in response to such behaviour by America? Is it time for the world to turn its collective back on America for a period of time and simply refuse to trade with or invest in America until it abandons its reliance on offensive militarism to promote its economic and political interests abroad? Is it the time for the global ostracism of America as a safeguard for more global peace and the triumph of non-violent dispute resolution in the international system?

Please make reasoned arguments rather than emotional responses or unnecessary threats in addressing this issue. I would prefer to keep this a sober debate rather than a "Camlok-esque" polemic with countering diatribes poisoning civilised debate. It may be a forlorn hope but please try to keep this discussion academic and respectful.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Do you have an example of anything you posted?
 
Re: Should the USA be the Focus of a Global BDS Movement re: Militarism?
※→ camlok, et al,

Wow --- this is so absent of the facts.

The USA was raping and pillaging long before Wilson came into office. The Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, China, Korea, Cuba, Samoa, ... .
(COMMENT)

• The Philippines came under the sovereignty of the US as a result of the Spanish-American War. It was the US that freed that territory from Japanese Domination in WWII. The US granted independence to the Philippines in 1946, shortly after the conclusion of WWII.

• Guam, a Spanish possession since the 16th Century, was ceded to the US by Spain as an outcome of the Spanish-American War. It is still a US Territory (unincorporated) and residents are citizens; just as if they were born in the Continental US (CONUS).

• Yes, the acquisition of Hawaii is tainted. Hawaii became US Territory in 1900, but did not become a State until 1959.

• Puerto Rico is an unincorporated self-governing commonwealth; also acquired as a result of the Spanish–American War; its citizens are Americans. Puerto Rico can declare independence at any time. However, that would have serious ramifications for the people.

• The US Occupation of Haiti ended in 1934. The US did not take any interventionist actin again until 1994 when it took action against the military junta to restore Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.

• I'll give you Chile, and Nicaragua --- only because the it is much too difficult to discuss in 5000 characters. But I will agree, the US would have been better off to have cut all ties with South America in general.

• American Samoa is another unincorporated, self-governing territory. It is half f the overall island system. American Samoa (as opposed to German Samoa) were the result of the Treaty of Berlin 1899.

• China and Korea --- give me a break.​

Turkish newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions.
(COMMENT)

The Turks, least of all, have any room to talk... Of the "Early Modern Period in History" the Empire of the The Imperial Ottoman/Turk Empire was one of the most productive of all the Empires for nearly a millennium; and encompassed about 20 million square miles including the territory west to the Caspian Sea, to the border of what is now called Iran, and the Persian Gulf. The Imperial Empire contained the all the generally inhabitable areas of the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) and the coastal areas of Arabia from the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aquba, south encompassing Tabuk, Mecca, Medina, along the Red Sea Coast to modern day Yemen and the Port of Aden on the Arabian Sea. The Empire maintained sovereignty over the entire southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Egypt to Morocco. The Empire did not collapse until 1918.

While today, the political snot noses that want to act as if they hold the moral high ground, would take any opportunity to criticize America, it must be remembered at how different the world would look if America had not stepped forward into the leadership roles of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Yes, it is true that America is one of the four remaining Colonial Powers in the world, it is by far the worst of the international leaders. Yes, there are a great many nations in the world that world rather endorse the leadership of the Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters rather than help America maintain a more balanced perspective in secular world --- they would probably not enjoy the yoke and choker collar which the toxic and venomous critics endorse.


Most Respectfully,
R
 
Back
Top Bottom