America-An Evil Country?

[NecronLord]

'Exxaggeration'? Oh Necronlord, no. No.

You're from the UK, how can you get the words wrong? Shame. Shame, on all Necrons everywhere.

It was eight o'clock. In the morning. I'm a student. I'm not used to being concious at such an awful hour. I made a mistake.

Niall Ferguson? Idiotic american rightwingers get screentime too, and sometimes even shows. "British Empire, a force for good" - thanks for sharing this. Unique insights into the fucked-up mind of a fanatical right-wing mouthpiece. I honestly want all those idiots to be turned black and then sent off back a few centuries via time machine to a colony of their beloved Empire to feel "the power of the good". Fucking morons.

To be fair, Fergurson, despite being born in Glasgow, was raised in the "British Empire" when it had one talon still on the perch, Kenya, to be specific.

From an excellent attack-article on one of his books first published in the Independant. Fergurson did try a response, which was torn to shreds too.:

"If it hadn't been the British, it might have been somebody worse," he says. "In any case, empires have been with us as a means of power and control for centuries and centuries, so you might as well cast a moral judgement on rain as on the British Empire." He adds, "I am fundamentally in favour of empire," and says the Americans should be our successors as imperial rulers of the world.

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, Fergurson, despite being born in Glasgow, was raised in the "British Empire" when it had one talon still on the perch, Kenya, to be specific.

If we're speaking about relatively modern times, I would have him rather be born in colonial India.

Picking up where his last work Empire left off, he argues that one of the primary causes of genocidal violence in the 20th century was the collapse of empires.

Really? I thought it was the rise of Empires and their agression that were the primary causes of genocidal violence. As soon as a country turned into an empire and started to behave like one, there you had genocidal violence. I guess his logic is too complex for me to grasp.

Comparing Empires to rain is pathetic bullshit. Casting a moral judgement on the deeds of men is what we do regardless of whether those actions are typical or not.

Yeah, in case we conclude that the Empire was "a force for good" because it was industrializing the colonies et cetera, we must also conclude that the overall moral judgement on Stalin's rule should be "good" instead of "evil", because despite the repressions he industrialized the USSR and achieved very fast economic growth.

I'm not surprised the Empire is not getting it's due though. There's still a lot of people who want to have a modern version of it (and of course, to live in the Metropoly of this modern Empire)

[Big Orange]

Also i doubt that Coke is doing great evils out there, AFAIK.

Great evils like the massive destruction of the enviroment, abuse of employees, damaging public health through chemicals in their diet and wreaking many foreign nations on the back of American imperialism (I heard that the CIA used the Coca-Cola Company as a front for overseas operations).

And Stas Bush, my gentle and amiable enough dad occasionally apologises for the British Empire and views it as a lesser evil in comparison to the Third Reich, Soviet Union and United States.

[KrauserKrauser]

(I heard that the CIA used the Coca-Cola Company as a front for overseas operations).

You see, when you are trying to compete against the Communists and the worst you do is sell them some Coke, versus overthrow their governments and force them to mirror image your country from economic to political structure I just can't bring myself to compare teh two and come out with the US as the bad guys in the equation.

Stalin was trying to gain control of Europe, and if he did, a hell of alot of people would have died. If the CIA piggy backed along with Coke, any reasonable person should see that as the lesser of two evils. Much the lesser.

[Big Orange]

You see, when you are trying to compete against the Communists and the worst you do is sell them some Coke, versus overthrow their governments and force them to mirror image your country from economic to political structure I just can't bring myself to compare teh two and come out with the US as the bad guys in the equation.

Stalin was trying to gain control of Europe, and if he did, a hell of alot of people would have died. If the CIA piggy backed along with Coke, any reasonable person should see that as the lesser of two evils. Much the lesser.

That is essentially what it was all about with the British Empire and even the United States both being relatively benign in comparison to far more sadistic world empires like the Third Reich, Nationalist/Red China, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. Stas Bush could argue that European colonial empires were very destructive and evil (which is true), but what about "primitive" and tribalistic evil on a purely local level that was ongoing long, long before any European conquerors arrived?

You could easily condemn European mercenary slavers for taking half the Mengra island tribe into permanent slavery and then exposing the rest of the islanders to disease, but before than the Mengras had fought many exceptionally brutal tribal wars where they decimated the male warriors of the rival Nutang tribe, took their females as sex slaves and eaten their infants in cannibal rituals.

[K. A. Pital]

You see, when you are trying to compete against the Communists and the worst you do is sell them some Coke, versus overthrow their governments and force them to mirror image your country from economic to political structure I just can't bring myself to compare teh two and come out with the US as the bad guys in the equation.

Overthrow their governments? Ah yes. How did I forget the goodie-good Latin American and Middle Eastern dictators and the US support of Maoist China and Pol Pot against the _far less evil_ USSR and socialist Vietnam in the Sino-Soviet split, it's support of batshit insane religious fanatics against moderate secular governments. Yeah, I mean, fuck yeah. The US was just selling a bit of Coke and not actively working to destroy utterly it's Cold War opponent. I must have been daydreaming.

The idea that the US competed with the USSR by "selling some Coke" as opposed to assassinating, overthrowing governments left and right, selling weapons to warring states and instigating war is nonsense.

Stalin was trying to gain control of Europe, and if he did, a hell of alot of people would have died.

And where did you get this idea from? The USSR could not overthrow _any_ of the West European governments. Where are the attempts to do it even? Please don't bring up the fucking RAF, since this was much later, and more than that, the US actively sponsored anti-Soviet guerillas all over the world and _inside_ the Soviet Union itself. Too much for someone claiming to _not_ be working for an overthrow of the government.

Oh sure, I just forgot that little incident when European powers collectively invaded USSR once, then once again invaded it as Hitler's satellites and ruthlessly destroyed something like over 10% of it's population.

Stalin was messing with the South-East Asia, sure, along with Maoist China, but where the hell did you get the idea that the USSR trying to capture Western Europe? It had an 11,000,000 army by war's end and could've easily turned hostilities into it's favour, running over all of Europe, but it did not.

And while Coca-Cola may not be exactly the top evil corporation in the world, the fact that it has cooperated with the Nazis and participated in Cold War plotting certainly doesn't mean that it's "good" - if only for someone who thinks that anything is justified when resisting the great Soviet Union boogey man.

[Big Orange]

Oh sure, I just forgot that little incident when European powers collectively invaded USSR once, then once again invaded it as Hitler's satellites and ruthlessly destroyed something like over 10% of it's population.

Romania and Hungary were essentially satellites Germany almost from the onset, due to old imperial ties with Austria and the latent fear of being right next to the USSR - Slovakia was built as a purpose based puppet state for Nazi Germany - and some of the Baltics and Ukranians went with the Third Reich because they saw them as a lesser evil in comparison to the Soviets who were abusing their countries anyway shortly before the Nazi "liberation".

And while Coca-Cola may not be exactly the top evil corporation in the world, the fact that it has cooperated with the Nazis and participated in Cold War plotting certainly doesn't mean that it's "good" - if only for someone who thinks that anything is justified when resisting the great Soviet Union boogey man.

That's called geographic and political circumstances shaping a big company - I don't see how Coca-Cola subsidiaries “trapped” in mainland Europe and brewing Fanata is particularly dastardly.

[K. A. Pital]

That's called geographic and political circumstances shaping a big company

Coca-Cola actively pursued Nazi Germany markets, despite Nazi hostilities and Nazi atrocities around the world. Inventing the Fanta wasn't evil, but working with the NSDAP to appease it and gain access to Nazi markets beforehand definetely was.

[K. A. Pital]

And as I said, Coke was just one of the "big companies" which actively pursued ties with the Nazis (as opposed to "simply being there by circumstances") - the others include american oil giants, Ford and General Motors who invested in Nazi industry, IBM, et cetera. One could argue that this is simply the modus operandi of a big company - I have nothing against that, but this modus operandi, if done by a government, would've been considered evil and people would be spouting about how evil was this and this government for trading with the Nazis or invensting in their industry.

When it comes to American companies, these standards are no longer applied - after all, they were merely private contractors, right? Not that they didn't receive attention and awards from Hitler himself despite their private nature.

[Big Orange]

Nazi hostilities and Nazi atrocities around the world. Inventing the Fanta wasn't evil, but working with the NSDAP to appease it and gain access to Nazi markets beforehand definetely was.

Stas Bush, it was only European subsidiaries of Coca-Cola adapting to surrounding circumstances and Fanta as a soft drink was born out of necessity (because they could not brew the original Coke, due to the Allies cutting off the New World supplies). Coca-Cola Europe was mildly unscrupulous but brewing Fanta in the Third Reich was very tame in comparison to IBM supplying computing machines to the SS (which helped them considerably in their Holocaust campaign). And American big business directly helped the Soviet Union's industry and economy throughout the 1930s and 1940s as well, even though the Soviets were just as bad as the Nazis.

[Surlethe]

Stas Bush, it was only European subsidiaries of Coca-Cola adapting to surrounding circumstances and Fanta as a soft drink was born out of necessity (because they could not brew the original Coke, due to the Allies cutting off the New World supplies).

How does that make it not evil?

[KrauserKrauser]

Sorry, I've been reading POSTWAR, looking at the state of Europe past WW2, and my arguments have been a bit skewed thusly.

Good book, but I'm only just past Stalinist Russia and the coming overthrowing of Eastern European governments so I'm a bit narrow in my scope right now.

My comments were mainly just in relation to that time period.

[Frank Hipper]

And as I said, Coke was just one of the "big companies" which actively pursued ties with the Nazis (as opposed to "simply being there by circumstances") - the others include american oil giants, Ford and General Motors who invested in Nazi industry, IBM, et cetera. One could argue that this is simply the modus operandi of a big company - I have nothing against that, but this modus operandi, if done by a government, would've been considered evil and people would be spouting about how evil was this and this government for trading with the Nazis or invensting in their industry.

When it comes to American companies, these standards are no longer applied - after all, they were merely private contractors, right? Not that they didn't receive attention and awards from Hitler himself despite their private nature.

General Motors abandoned all responsibility for the actions of it's Opel division, which it had owned for some time beforehand, shortly after the Nazi takeover.

[wolveraptor]

When you claim we can't call America evil if other countries are just as bad. That's precisely the same as saying "But everybody else does it, Mommy !", except for the scale. In other words, if Nazi style fascism took over the world, and every country was controlled by Nazi-style governments, would Nazism suddenly no longer be evil ? That is, in effect, what you are claiming.

My point is that evil should be a distinguishing term. If everyone is evil, and you point out that person X is evil, it's kind of a no-shit statement. A stupid thing to say.

America is what it is. The virtues and vices of other countries make it no better, and no worse.

How the fuck did you glean that out of my statements?

[Big Orange]

Stas Bush, it was only European subsidiaries of Coca-Cola adapting to surrounding circumstances and Fanta as a soft drink was born out of necessity (because they could not brew the original Coke, due to the Allies cutting off the New World supplies).

How does that make it not evil?

I know that Coca-Cola carrying on with business inspite of the horrid government, war and genocide does strike me as pretty unscrupulous to a certain degree, but nowhere near as heartless IG Farben that was deeply involved with the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's military industrial complex. How is brewing Fanta anything to do with directly killing people?

[K. A. Pital]

nowhere near as heartless IG Farben that was deeply involved with the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's military industrial complex

IBM was also involved in the Holocaust.

Stas Bush, it was only European subsidiaries of Coca-Cola adapting to surrounding circumstances and Fanta as a soft drink was born out of necessity

I said: this is not about inventing Fanta. Why the fuck are you not reading what I write? It was about cozying up to NSDAP officials and maintaining strong political ties with them to get the Reich markets prior to the war.

And please don't bullshit me how American corporations "helped" the USSR in the 1930's - I didn't see any of the American corporations on the Soviet markets after the AMTORG was closed. We had singular industrial imports of some engine samples, etc. for our industry, but at no point did we have corporations doing our industrial production for us. Our rise in the 1930's was, and remains, a feat of self-investment (which came at a great cost, of course).

My comments were mainly just in relation to that time period.

I see. Well, if we take the 1945-1953 timeframe, we can only conclude that the opposition to Stalin was caused by him forcing East European governments to totally copy the centralized system of the USSR both politically and economically. But nowhere can we say that Stalin was trying to "overthrow" the governments of Western Europe. Some European governments even took a neutral stance in the NATO/USSR standoff and were dandy fine that way.

[Quadlok]

Stalin was messing with the South-East Asia, sure, along with Maoist China, but where the hell did you get the idea that the USSR trying to capture Western Europe? It had an 11,000,000 army by war's end and could've easily turned hostilities into it's favour, running over all of Europe, but it did not.

Certainly the USSR was actively trying to weaken Western Europe by supplying aid to rebellious colonies, unless that was really something they did out of the goodness of their hearts.

And 11,000,000 man army or not, I'm pretty sure the Soviets would not have had an easy time overrunning a European continent stuffed full of American soldiers and equipment, as well as native populations and militaries that weren't exactly eager for a new evil occupying force, especially given the vast US advantage in strategic bombers backed up with being the worlds only nuclear state at the time.

[K. A. Pital]

Certainly the USSR was actively trying to weaken Western Europe by supplying aid to rebellious colonies, unless that was really something they did out of the goodness of their hearts.

And the support of anti-colonial and national liberation movements was evil how? Colonialism was a blight upon the world. I'm proud that my country took an active part in it's demise. As for the West European countries themselves, the USSR wasn't exactly eager to invade them or overthrow their governments.
If supporting "rebellious colonies of X" is tantamount to "actively trying to overthrow the government of X", then I believe the US support of anti-Soviet insurgencies and coups in countries that could be named "Soviet colonies" means exactly that.

And 11,000,000 man army or not, I'm pretty sure the Soviets would not have had an easy time overrunning a European continent stuffed full of American soldiers and equipment

In May 1945? Not an easy time, but sure as hell a lot easier than at any later point in history! Remember, there was no nuclear explosions yet.

[Quadlok]

And the support of anti-colonial and national liberation movements was evil how? Colonialism was a blight upon the world. I'm proud that my country took an active part in it's demise. As for the West European countries themselves, the USSR wasn't exactly eager to invade them or overthrow their governments.
If supporting "rebellious colonies of X" is tantamount to "actively trying to overthrow the government of X", then I believe the US support of anti-Soviet insurgencies and coups in countries that could be named "Soviet colonies" means exactly that.

Certainly US involvement in places like Vietnam or Afghanistan were meant to weaken the Soviet position and speed its downfall. Just as the USSR denying European capitalist nations of their overseas dependencies as markets and suppliers of raw materials was meant to speed their downfalls. that the collapse of the Imperial system was a positive is not in contention, merely that Soviet involvement in that end was not done solely with the most pure and selfless of intentions.

In May 1945? Not an easy time, but sure as hell a lot easier than at any later point in history! Remember, there was no nuclear explosions yet.

I doubt the Western allies would have folded in the 3 months it would have taken to deploy functional nukes. And you are disregarding the fact that it is unlikely that Soviet soldiers, civilians, or the general staff would ever sign on to such a bloody endeavor, as similar plans propagating within the US military at the time were considered unfeasible for this reason. Uncle Joe may have been an iron fisted tyrant, but I doubt even he could get Russia to sign on for another round of warfare after what the previous one cost.

[K. A. Pital]

I doubt the Western allies would have folded in the 3 months it would have taken to deploy functional nukes.

Are you discussing intent or what would've happened? The USSR knew nothing of the A-bombs.

And you are disregarding the fact that it is unlikely that Soviet soldiers, civilians, or the general staff would ever sign on to such a bloody endeavor

Me disregarding this fact? I thought someone else here insinuated that the USSR was actively pursuing the destruction of Western Europe. Of course the people of the USSR would not have had anything beyond the victory over Germany (after all, most if not all Soviet propaganda emphasized the need to cling to non-agressive behavior - there was already enough problems with taking the Baltic territories in the 1940); Stalin realized it better than most, this is why he repeated in his speeches that the USSR only has to defeat Germany, as early as 1942. If he was intent on conquering Western Europe, he would've had other motivation laid out in propaganda, and by 1945 the Army would hear not "let's crush Germany and be done with it" but "the destruction of capitalist Europe is at hand".

[18-Till-I-Die]

I love how the opposition keeps saying what amounts to "But--but--but THEY were doing it TOO!"

The point is not who is MORE evil the point is that America has done a sufficient amount of unethical and amoral shit throughout it's history up untill this very day that it can be called Evil.

All the appologist crap in the world cannot disprove that the United States have done horrifically evil things throughout it's history that means, yes, it is an evil country.

[Lonestar]

Are you discussing intent or what would've happened? The USSR knew nothing of the A-bombs.

Uhm, what?

Incidently, I agree with Quadlok in that the Western allies would not have folded in Europe before the first A-bombs started falling. I think the conventional forces would give themselves a better account then you give them credit for.



.....but the Red Army would probably do better than I give them credit for, as well.

[Ghost Rider]

I love how the opposition keeps saying what amounts to "But--but--but THEY were doing it TOO!"

The point is not who is MORE evil the point is that America has done a sufficient amount of unethical and amoral shit throughout it's history up untill this very day that it can be called Evil.

All the appologist crap in the world cannot disprove that the United States have done horrifically evil things throughout it's history that means, yes, it is an evil country.

A generalization. It's funny when someone gets on their high horse, screeches...and never realizes they are doing exactly what their naysayers are screaming.

Now for Pot over here, it's funny that you don't identify, you don't counter, and you're clinging to Stas that you make this statement. So cumstain, prove the hyperbole you've spewed. Go on retard. Demonstrate to us a country of good, so we may see that things aren't of relative value but black and white.

[Big Orange]

IBM was also involved in the Holocaust.

But they also made infantry carbines for the US Military. Isn't capitalism great!

I said: this is not about inventing Fanta. Why the fuck are you not reading what I write? It was about cozying up to NSDAP officials and maintaining strong political ties with them to get the Reich markets prior to the war.

That is multinationals based in multiple companies operate - be on the right sight of a capitalist government (no matter how vile) and stay in business. The European Coca-Cola subsidiaries were adapting to local events and staying in business - do you think the soda pop directors had any real perspective in 1933? But then that is perhaps where the immorality of big business comes from. And American big business was still involved with the Soviet Union on some level and what about the infamous US lend lease during WWII?

And the Soviet Union was ironically doing more damage in Europe than some toadying soda pop company if they were having legitimate trade with the Third Reich.

And the support of anti-colonial and national liberation movements was evil how? Colonialism was a blight upon the world. I'm proud that my country took an active part in it's demise.

Most of the Third World's problems in the last 30 to 40 years stemmed from the collapse of European colonialism - I don't apologise for Europeans being there in the first place, but once the Europeans left in Africa and Asia, countless local tyrants soon took over wreaking havoc. Why take pride in the Soviets propping up many tinpot regimes, even though the CIA was often little better. And Ethopia was ruined by Marxism, even though it was never under European control (apart from Fascist Italy's abortive attempt).

[K. A. Pital]

But then that is perhaps where the immorality of big business comes from.

Indeed. So I think concession is accepted, their actions were immoral?

And American big business was still involved with the Soviet Union on some level and what about the infamous US lend lease during WWII?

The lend-lease somehow became infamous? Helping a nation (several nations united, actually) under threat of total annihilation became evil? I thought the US lend lease was a government program anyway, wasn't it? Of course the US demanded to pay back, but frankly, it was generous enough with those supplies to forget these debts for it's war allies.

And the Soviet Union was ironically doing more damage in Europe than some toadying soda pop company if they were having legitimate trade with the Third Reich.

Indeed we traded with the Reich under the Pact for a short time. This was not good. At least the contributions from either side during this short time were fairly minor and didn't affect the overall course of war, but this was nevertheless a bad thing.

Why take pride in the Soviets propping up many tinpot regimes

Was India, whose anticolonial government we also helped to industrialize and had strong ties with, a "tinpot regime"? I thought we helped the world's largest democracy there.

Most of the Third World's problems in the last 30 to 40 years stemmed from the collapse of European colonialism ...

And the alternative? The Empire over which the sun never sets? Please. You have another solution to colonialism? I'm all ears.