• 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!

Has the superpower status made the US too arrogant?

Has superpower status made the US too arrogant?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 17 50.0%
  • Total voters
    34
TheDemSocialist said:
No. I do not at all.


They arent utopian. Also why would I want to move?
Click to expand...

I think he's trying to imply you're a fraud because you don't live in Cuba, or something
 
jet57 said:
We've always been interpreted as "ugly Americans" by other countries. What it is, is this "money means power" paradigm that we have. Other people don't care about how much money you control, they're only concerned with how you act.
Click to expand...
They would like to be the controller of the money as well, if they could. And if they were, they'd act the same way.
 
KevinKohler said:
Before answering a question, I must first ask a question, and I would LIKE at least an attempt at an honest answer...from anyone willing to try for it.

Imagine a world where there WAS no USA. Just an empty expanse of ocean between south america and canada.

Where, in such a world, would everyone be? Better off? Worse off? Think about it in historical context, and give it a serious go around in the old noodle.

And then answer THIS question...is it arrogance to simply acknowledge one's perception of the truth?
Click to expand...
Better or worse is unanswerable. But somebody else would have stepped in to fill the void.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
There is a saying that pride proceeds the fall. It is one thing for a country to aggressively pursue it's self interests. However, it is another thing when it seeks to impose a set of decadent moral values on people who do not want to take part. That is symptom of an underlying arrogance. Has the power made the US too arrogant?
Click to expand...
I voted 'yes', but have some qualifications in mind. IMO, what "ruined" us (for lack of a better phrase), was when we became... for all intents and purposes... the sole superpower.
 
instagramsci said:
I think he's trying to imply you're a fraud because you don't live in Cuba, or something
Click to expand...

Oh well. Could care less. I have a different opinion than him therefore I should move? Quite the pathetic argument.
 
MildSteel said:
What you are saying is in essence is that a strong young man cannot control his mind with his intelligence and I am sorry, but again, I disagree with you in the strongest terms. There are three classes of intelligent people. The first class person of intelligence merely hears what is truely right, immediately knows it is right, and does what is right. The second class person hears what is right, but has to see others make mistakes to understand that it is right, and after having seen others make mistakes, he himself does what is right. The third class person with intelligence hears what is truely right, sees others make mistakes, and he himself has to make the mistakes, to learn and do what is right. Now all three of them are intelligent, but of the three, the first class man is the best. Now there is another class. This class of men hears what is truely right, sees others make mistakes, he makes the same mistakes, but yet he continues to do what IS NOT right. That is a fool. The problem with arrogance is that if it is not abandoned, over time it will make one a fool. So what you described is a man of intelligence, and that is indeed to be commended, but it is not the truely exceptional, first class case. To be truely exceptional, individuals and nations, must abandon arrogance.
Click to expand...



Your argument presupposes that there is a singular 'right' course, that should be reasonably obvious to intelligent individuals.

The complexity of international relations, conflicts, rivalries, threats, wars and terrorism is such that many highly educated people with high IQs disagree on how to best deal with these matters.

Those grey areas tend to throw a monkey wrench into any assertion too absolute.
 
gunner said:
So you conflate individual 'brain states' with the actions of a nation, very strange. In addition, you model it on the 'young buck' mentality, just one model, not always desirable, to say the least.

Paul
Click to expand...



Analogy is always questionable, true, though I confess I have a fondness for it as an often poetically effective tool to communicate otherwise complex ideas.


We could spend a lot of time talking about what power is, and who has it, and why. We could expend a lot of bandwidth discussing how tempting it is for those who have overwhelming power to use it, both in what they perceive to be the 'right' thing to do, or what they perceive to be in their own best interest. We could spend a lot of time talking about the ways in which power is real, and the ways in which it is illusion, and how most people have no historical perspective and tend to think things will always be like they are in the current decade, and fail to realize that world powers have always risen and fallen, but that some have endured centuries first.

I felt like the analogy conveyed a lot of that in a condensed but memorable manner; I suppose it was inevitable that some wouldn't like it. :shrug:
 
radcen said:
They would like to be the controller of the money as well, if they could. And if they were, they'd act the same way.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Saudis?
 
Goshin said:
Your argument presupposes that there is a singular 'right' course, that should be reasonably obvious to intelligent individuals.
Click to expand...

No it does not. What is does suppose is that there is a such thing as right and wrong, and unless you want to put forward the absurd notion that somehow the recent killing of innocent children by extremists was somehow right in an abstract relative sense, I would put forward that it is self evident that that is indeed true.

Goshin said:
The complexity of international relations, conflicts, rivalries, threats, wars and terrorism is such that many highly educated people with high IQs disagree on how to best deal with these matters.

Those grey areas tend to throw a monkey wrench into any assertion too absolute.
Click to expand...

The complexity that you described is the very reason why arrogance should be avoided by the wise, because what should be evident is that it is very difficult to understand things clearly as they are. Since that is the case, it means that we are frail humans who have to function under significant restraints with regards to what we are able to do and understand. There is no good reason to be arrogant.

There may be different ways to get to the same destination. There are many ways that one can drive from New York to Los Angeles. Depending on what one is trying to accomplish, there may be a preference for one path over the other. But in the end, it leads to the same result, getting to Los Angeles. Similarly, it is a general principle that it is right not to take what belongs to others, i. e. do not steal. However that "right" can manifest itself many ways. For example person A may accidentally leave $100 cash on the counter. Person B sees the money and decides, it is not mine so I will leave it there, and he walks away. He has done right in that he did not steal. Person C sees the money and decides it is not mine so I will not take it, but it must belong to someone who has left it there by mistake, let me try to find the true owner of the cash. He then goes and finds person A and gives him his money. Now both B and C have done "right" in that both did not steal. However person C has done a greater "right" because he found the true owner. The same is true in international relations, it is right for nations to avoid taking what belongs to other nations. There may be different ways that is manifest by a nation's actions, but the result should be doing what is right and not taking what belongs to others.
 
jonny5 said:
And that we definitely arent.
Click to expand...

No we are not there yet, but the recent erosion of individual rights and implementation of things like torture as a matter of routine policy make it appear that we are going down the road that leads there.
 
MildSteel said:
There is a saying that pride proceeds the fall. It is one thing for a country to aggressively pursue it's self interests. However, it is another thing when it seeks to impose a set of decadent moral values on people who do not want to take part. That is symptom of an underlying arrogance. Has the power made the US too arrogant?
Click to expand...

Perhaps recently. I think during the cold war we, the U.S. did what needed to be done and that included wars in Korea and Vietnam. That a show of weakness would have or a less aggressive policy would have led to more countries falling into the communist/USSR influence. We were the only power in the world during this time that could stand up to the USSR.

I also believe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the USSR and the disbandment of the Warsaw Pact, for some strange reason we decided to be the Policemen of the World. That we couldn't sit back and let other countries in the world, in their regions handle things and problems with countries there themselves. We started doing things because we could, not that it was in our best interests or National Security.

I do think we have stepped over the line in a couple, perhaps more instances. That instead of letting a country chose the form government they wanted, we have forced our form of government upon them.
 
MildSteel said:
No we are not there yet, but the recent erosion of individual rights and implementation of things like torture as a matter of routine policy make it appear that we are going down the road that leads there.
Click to expand...

Hardly, its proof of the opposite. In very few other countries would it be a scandal to capture enemies and then 'torture' them. In the US, we make a stink about it, and then release dangerous enemies back into the wild to continue killing us, just because we are afraid of being thought of as torturers.
 
jonny5 said:
Hardly, its proof of the opposite.
Click to expand...

I disagree, for among the prominent features of a tyranny is the lack of respect for individual rights and using torture as a matter of ROUTINE policy.

jonny5 said:
In very few other countries would it be a scandal to capture enemies and then 'torture' them.

In the US, we make a stink about it
Click to expand...

Well we did it and that is among the reasons why I said that although we are not yet at the point of being a tyranny, we are on the road leading to a tyranny.

jonny5 said:
we are afraid of being thought of as torturers.
Click to expand...

It is not being afraid of being thought of as torturers that is the primary concern. It's actually being a torturer that is the problem.
 
Yes, in every sense of the word. We need to stop trying to be a "superpower" and, as Helix mentioned earlier, just be a country. We have bridges falling apart here in our own country yet we are overseas hounding countries that want absolutely nothing to do with us and burn our flag to show as much.

Arrogance is the destruction of greatness...and it is what has toppled every empire that has become before us.
 
MildSteel said:
No it does not. What is does suppose is that there is a such thing as right and wrong, and unless you want to put forward the absurd notion that somehow the recent killing of innocent children by extremists was somehow right in an abstract relative sense, I would put forward that it is self evident that that is indeed true.



The complexity that you described is the very reason why arrogance should be avoided by the wise, because what should be evident is that it is very difficult to understand things clearly as they are. Since that is the case, it means that we are frail humans who have to function under significant restraints with regards to what we are able to do and understand. There is no good reason to be arrogant.

There may be different ways to get to the same destination. There are many ways that one can drive from New York to Los Angeles. Depending on what one is trying to accomplish, there may be a preference for one path over the other. But in the end, it leads to the same result, getting to Los Angeles. Similarly, it is a general principle that it is right not to take what belongs to others, i. e. do not steal. However that "right" can manifest itself many ways. For example person A may accidentally leave $100 cash on the counter. Person B sees the money and decides, it is not mine so I will leave it there, and he walks away. He has done right in that he did not steal. Person C sees the money and decides it is not mine so I will not take it, but it must belong to someone who has left it there by mistake, let me try to find the true owner of the cash. He then goes and finds person A and gives him his money. Now both B and C have done "right" in that both did not steal. However person C has done a greater "right" because he found the true owner. The same is true in international relations, it is right for nations to avoid taking what belongs to other nations. There may be different ways that is manifest by a nation's actions, but the result should be doing what is right and not taking what belongs to others.
Click to expand...



Okay. What have we taken that belonged to another nation?


That we didn't give back that is, after trying to fix it up for them and give them a shot at having a decent government?


Not oil. Nor land. Afghanistan is now run by Afghanis, and Iraq by Iraqis, thought a fine mess they are making of it to be sure...


Worked better with Germany, Italy and Japan for some reason...
 
Goshin said:
Okay. What have we taken that belonged to another nation?


That we didn't give back that is, after trying to fix it up for them and give them a shot at having a decent government?


Not oil. Nor land. Afghanistan is now run by Afghanis, and Iraq by Iraqis, thought a fine mess they are making of it to be sure...


Worked better with Germany, Italy and Japan for some reason...
Click to expand...

How about Texas and Southern California.
 
washunut said:
How about Texas and Southern California.
Click to expand...



Yup, we took them from Mexico. In fact we took the whole country from the Natives.


But let's try to stay in the 20th and 21st centuries, as being more relevant.
 
Goshin said:
Yup, we took them from Mexico. In fact we took the whole country from the Natives.


But let's try to stay in the 20th and 21st centuries, as being more relevant.
Click to expand...

How about Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
 
So what have we taken from Afghanistan, that is taken away and kept, other than rule by Taliban?

What have we taken from Iraq and not returned, other than rule-by-dictatorship?


Yes, we took lives.... it's called war... I'm asking what were we STEALING from them, as some refer to?
 
MildSteel said:
There is a saying that pride proceeds the fall. It is one thing for a country to aggressively pursue it's self interests. However, it is another thing when it seeks to impose a set of decadent moral values on people who do not want to take part. That is symptom of an underlying arrogance. Has the power made the US too arrogant?
Click to expand...

Specifically, what 'decadent morals' are you referring to?
 
Goshin said:
Okay. What have we taken that belonged to another nation?

That we didn't give back that is, after trying to fix it up for them and give them a shot at having a decent government?

Not oil. Nor land. Afghanistan is now run by Afghanis, and Iraq by Iraqis, thought a fine mess they are making of it to be sure...

Worked better with Germany, Italy and Japan for some reason...
Click to expand...

The point was not specifically what the US has or has not taken. The point was that right and wrong exist, and that it is possible to discern the difference between the two, although it may be difficult in some cases. Therefore it is possible to avoid the "wrong" of arrogance. That is the point.

Although I really don't want to get into it, but since you mentioned it, there are many instances of the US taking things that belonged to another nation. For example the US took the elected leader of Iran by overthrowing him and installing the Shah. Now you may say the US bought the oil in Iran, but that cannot erase the fact that the US government took the elected leader of the government and threw him in the trash. That was the wrong of theft. And that wrong has manifested itself today as significant source of the hostility that exists between Iran and the US, which has had negative consequences not only for US and Iran, but the Middle East and the rest of the world as well.
 
Ben K. said:
Specifically, what 'decadent morals' are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Let me put it like this, I was watching and old movie that was made before I was born that I had never seen before. Perhaps you have seen it. The name of the movie was "Good Morning Miss Dove." The truth is I cried when I saw the end of the movie because I thought it was so beautiful. Today such a movie would be considered corny. Today, movies for the most part contain naked or half naked people having sex, all types of foul language, and people exemplifying the worse qualities in human beings. These movies are part of our larger culture of filthy music, filthy magazines, and other types of filthy art that reflect our decadent moral values. We seek to impose this decadent culture on others who don't, in some cases want to take part. In arrogance we demonize them for it and say they are backwards because of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom