PDA

View Full Version : Does the U.S. act in a 'moral' manner?


Freethinker
12-11-2005, 12:12 AM
Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The United States of Amorality

We can all forget about God blessing America. No God would bless such a narcissistic nation. It's time to dispense with our deluded and romanticized notions of America standing for truth, justice, or the rule of law. We subvert such principles whenever it suits us. No more pointing to the Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of our collective conscience. We have none.

Regardless of all of its self-righteousness, its arrogance, and its feigned piety, the United States is a nation devoid of morality. The U.S. government and a majority of Americans don't think their actions fall within the quaint and inconvenient parameters of right and wrong, good and bad. More to the point, the U.S. thinks it can do no wrong. Rather, the U.S. believes itself to be intrinsically good, infallible, and above reproach. Indeed, as far as the U.S. is concerned, it is the only nation and the only people incapable of wrongdoing, much less evil.

In fact, the U.S. is not only capable of great evil, it commits acts of great evil on a near daily basis. It commits such acts because it has no moral center. It commits such acts because it thinks and behaves like a spoiled child - as though it is entitled to do and have anything it wants. It thinks itself chosen by God and the sole recipient of His divine favoritism. As a result, the U.S. perceives the rest of the world as scorned by God, to one degree or another. As the one true favorite of the Almighty, the U.S. sees nothing wrong with disrupting, bullying, and invading other countries. It has no problem with unilaterally declaring international laws inapplicable to it, but fully enforceable against all others.

A nation that believes itself incapable of evil understands neither good nor evil. A nation that thinks itself capable only of good is blind to its acts of evil. A nation that anoints itself as the final arbiter of morality is too arrogant to be truly moral itself. Having no capacity to acknowledge its capacity for evil, such a nation believes that all of its acts are justified. Put differently, it behaves like a sociopath - amoral and without conscience.

(As an aside, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM-IV-TR"), one can be diagnosed as a sociopath if three of seven criteria are met. Those criteria include: (1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors; (2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying or conning others for personal gain; (3) aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated violent conflicts; (4) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; and (5) lack of remorse, as indicated by indifference to or rationalization of harming or mistreating others. In its "global war on terror" one can easily identify all of the above criteria in the United States, particularly the Bush administration and its nationalistic brethren.)

The amorality of the United States manifests itself in many ways. Its policy of immediate gratification known as realpolitik. Its refusal to see any need to keep track of the number of Iraqi civilians it kills in order to "liberate" them. Its indignation at the prospect of being accountable to any international body or tribunal. All are examples of the United States' utter lack of any sense of moral responsibility or accountability.

The ongoing revelations of the United States' policy of torture and degradation is an extremely instructive example of the United States' collective amorality. Despite the continually mounting evidence of America's torture of suspected terrorists and insurgents, of a clandestine network of CIA "interrogation" centers in torture-friendly countries, and of the so-called extraordinary rendition of terror suspects to such countries, most Americans see no need for change. With the exception of the extremely small dissident community, Americans are hard-pressed to find anything wrong with torturing alleged terrorists. Their response to the CIA's black sites and torture flights is, "So what?"

Most Americans, when confronted with evidence of the United States' torture policies and practices, strive to come up with rationalizations and justifications. We are at war against a great evil, rendering the traditional rules of war "quaint" and inappropriate. We should not be held to higher standards than those we are fighting. Torture is necessary to gain "actionable intelligence" to prevent another 9/11 from occurring. The alleged torture we inflict isn't really torture at all; it's more akin to frat house hazing.

The United States' cavalier attitude toward torture, black sites, and extraordinary rendition stands in stark contrast to the attitudes of the rest of the world, particularly Europe. While the United States' law enforcement agencies, judiciary, and citizenry sit idly by, their European counterparts, outraged by the revelations, are seriously investigating the United States' actions. What the United States deems perfectly appropriate, the European Union finds abhorrent and contrary to basic principles of human rights and decency. What elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders in the United States elicits moral outrage in Europe.

In Spain, police have identified as many as 42 CIA operatives suspected of having taken part extraordinary rendition flights of kidnapped terror suspects to interrogation centers in Afghanistan, Egypt, and other countries with relaxed torture laws. The Spanish are investigating because a dozen such flights stopped over in Mallorca on their way to their final destination. Prosecutors in Munich have asked Spanish police for a copy of their findings as part of Germany's investigation into the kidnapping of a German citizen who was tortured and beaten for six months before his abductors realized he had no connection to terrorism. Some of the CIA operatives identified by the Spanish police are reportedly among the more than 20 agents who have been indicted by Italian prosecutors on similar charges. Italian prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for the CIA agents and have asked the Italian Justice Ministry to demand the agents' extradition from the U.S. The governments of Sweden and Norway are conducting their own investigations into CIA torture flights using their airfields. Switzerland is investigating whether the United States violated Swiss sovereignty and international law by routing CIA flights through Geneva.

It's not merely individual European countries that are appalled at the United States' institutional disregard for human rights. The Council of Europe - the EU's human rights watchdog organization - demanded that by February 21, 2006, all 46 of its member states provide any information they have regarding illegal jailing of suspected terrorists, or flights that have been used to transport such suspects. Additionally, the Council has requested from Europe's air traffic control agency the unpublished flight logs of military and civilian flights. Any European countries found to have participated in the United States' torture practices could be suspended or expelled from the Council, as well as subjected to fines and loss of trade privileges.

The EU has also requested that its Satellite Tracking Center turn over imagery of alleged CIA black sites in Romania and Poland. Moreover, the EU's executive body has directed its head of the Department of Justice, Freedom and Security, to demand answers from the Bush administration regarding the secret prisons.

In all likelihood, the United States in general, and the Bush administration in particular, will simply dismiss the various European investigations as politically motivated. Alternatively, the U.S. will ignore the investigations outright. In either case, the United States will indignantly insist that it has not done anything wrong or even questionable in its global war on terror. It will suffer no crisis of conscience.

Lacking empathy and morality, the United States is relieved of the burden of a conscience and all of its unnecessary limitations.________posted by Ken
Sanders

http://www.politicsofdissent.blogspot.com/

Decka
12-11-2005, 01:27 AM
i think liberals have made it clear that there IS no such thing as morals... every person, even rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles... cannot be told what is right and wrong because we would be imposing our morals onto them...

so why the heck are you talking about morals?

Freethinker
12-11-2005, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Decka
i think liberals have made it clear that there IS no such thing as morals...extreme every person, even rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles... cannot be told what is right and wrong because we would be imposing our morals onto them...

In asserting that "liberals" have no regard for morality, I think you are making a specious and insupportable claim.

The fact that liberals favor people charged with crimes , people like killers and rapists, recieving due process and not having their legal rights violated does not mean that liberals are divorced for the concept of *right and wrong*. Quite the opposite, actually.

Originally posted by Decka
so why the heck are you talking about morals?

The author talks about how this nation behaves in ways that would ---by any objective stanrard-- be considered amoral.

He provides numerous examples illustrating his points.

Not the type of argument, evidently, that you can readily comprehend.

LionelHutz
12-11-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Decka
i think liberals have made it clear that there IS no such thing as morals... every person, even rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles... cannot be told what is right and wrong because we would be imposing our morals onto them...

Assuming for the sake of argument that that's true, and refering back to your Kyoto thread, at least they admit it instead of pretending to be moral while engaging in torture, etc.

Vilepagan
12-11-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Decka
i think liberals have made it clear that there IS no such thing as morals...

With that statement you make it clear that you have no such thing as common sense.


every person, even rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles... cannot be told what is right and wrong because we would be imposing our morals onto them...


Honestly Decka, this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post, and that's saying something.

Perhaps we "libbies" should be taking our moral lessons from such upstanding conservatives as Tom Delay, or Bill Frist?

Decka
12-11-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Vilepagan
With that statement you make it clear that you have no such thing as common sense.

oh geez... now that is NOT the "motto" i live by... but i do recall a very precise picking and choosing between what morals are good and what morals are bad... i say either all or nothing, not in EVERY instance, but in this instance.



Honestly Decka, this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you post, and that's saying something.

Perhaps we "libbies" should be taking our moral lessons from such upstanding conservatives as Tom Delay, or Bill Frist?

Please don't, we don't want any more Delays or Frists around...

hey, i may have taken it to the extreme, but am i right in saying that most leftists agree that noone can tell another what is right and what is wrong?

Vilepagan
12-11-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Decka
hey, i may have taken it to the extreme, but am i right in saying that most leftists agree that noone can tell another what is right and what is wrong?

I would say no.

Obviously I don't speak for "leftists" but for myself I'd say the government has no right to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong without a legitimate, and compelling, reason for doing so.

Decka
12-11-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Vilepagan
I would say no.

Obviously I don't speak for "leftists" but for myself I'd say the government has no right to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong without a legitimate, and compelling, reason for doing so.

i totally agree... well worded.

Im sorry if you get tied in with the other "leftists" on this board... because normally i can expect decent give and take along with an actual consideration in what is being said from you pagan... instead of just laughing it off.

Here is the thing... SOME of the "leftists" on this board, not including pagan, are somehow granted the right to tell people how things are, and then if you disagree you are some sort of imbecile? So why is only one section of the political spectrum allowed to decide this? I wish i could dish out "humility burgers" for them to eat, they could sure use some.

Deepest Red
12-11-2005, 04:47 PM
Regarding the initial article, I didn't read all of it but about half, and noticed it said that Americans are immoral, selfish, etc. Yet this doesn't apply to most people in the USA. If you ask for charity donations, people usually give very generously.

It's the people at the top, the bastards in power who are the selfish ones, cutting off basic services and reducing resources to assist people with meeting their needs.

Napsterbater
12-11-2005, 04:50 PM
Here is the thing... SOME of the "leftists" on this board, not including pagan, are somehow granted the right to tell people how things are, and then if you disagree you are some sort of imbecile?

It's not lefties, it's me. I base that right on nothing more than the fact that I am better than you.

Decka
12-11-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Napsterbater
It's not lefties, it's me. I base that right on nothing more than the fact that I am better than you.

no bias there... :o

what are your qualifications? you went to college and you are 20 years old?

alot of people have been there... so i guess every 20 year old who goes to college has the right to think they are better than anyone else?

well in that case.... I am better than YOU.

Vilepagan
12-11-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Napsterbater
It's not lefties, it's me. I base that right on nothing more than the fact that I am better than you.

LOL...good one Napster.:D

It would seem Decka took you seriously.

Napsterbater
12-11-2005, 05:09 PM
And thank you Vile, for saying it so I won't have to educate him again. :D:D

Freethinker
12-12-2005, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Deepest Red
Regarding the initial article, I didn't read all of it but about half, and noticed it said that Americans are immoral, selfish, etc. Yet this doesn't apply to most people in the USA. If you ask for charity donations, people usually give very generously.

I think you need to read the article again. All of it.

Nowhere in the half that you did read did the author state that "Americans are selfish".

In fact, the word **selfish** is not contained within the artcile.

What the author was getting at is that as a nation, collectively, the U.S. thinks it can do no wrong. Sanders notes, quite correctly, that the U.S. believes itself to be intrinsically good, infallible, and above reproach......with the troubling outcome of such an attitude being that a nation that thinks itself capable only of good is INCAPABLE of seeing when thier government commits acts of evil.

The essence of what he is sayng is not --"Americans will not donate generously if asked"...........Sanders is saying that America --as a nation-- has no moral center. That America commits the callous acts it commits [i.e., like waging an illegal war on Iraq based purely on lies] because it thinks and behaves like a spoiled child.....as though it is entitled to do and to have anything and everything it wants.

And he is exactly correct.

Frogger
12-12-2005, 07:06 AM
I read the entire article, as propogandistic and over the top as it was.

The author attempts to make the case that the United States, alone among nations, disregards the will of the world, believes it is right and acts in its own self interest.

I defy the author to find any nation that does not fit into that mold.

No nation thinks it is wrong, or endangers its existence to please others.

The opening paragraph of the piece says:



We can all forget about God blessing America. No God would bless such a narcissistic nation. It's time to dispense with our deluded and romanticized notions of America standing for truth, justice, or the rule of law. We subvert such principles whenever it suits us. No more pointing to the Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of our collective conscience. We have none.

The author first declares that God Himself is so displeased with America that he will withold His blessings from the nation. He uses the criterium of American narcissism to make this declaration. According to the author, God witholds his blessings from nations that love themselves. That would mean that God is displeased with every nation in the world since no nation can hate itself and continue to exist.

The author then goes on to tell us that America does not stand for truth, justice or the rule of law. This is more a Superman t.v. show opening than a statement of international policy. The primary responsibility of any government is to defend the nation. If this means that international law must sometimes be abrogated, so be it. No nation bows to external control or pressure if that external control or pressure is detrimental to its existence.

The United States is engaged in a war on terror, a war that if lost will forever change our way of life. Some people seem to think that while this is either not a war, or one that should be fought under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Wars are horrid and dehumanizing events that cause nations to act in ways they would not in peacetime. It is terrible that innocent people die in war but that is one of the byproducts of war. Wars cannot be waged without the lose of innocent lives. The only alternative to the accidental killing of innocents is abject surrender.

The author also decries what he admits probably isn't torture but degradation. What was done by Lindsy English and her cohorts was wrong, not because it was degrading but because it served no purpose. If degrading a prisoner saves the lives of hundreds, or even tens of people, degrade them. I pose the rhetorical question: If a person knew where a bomb that would kill one hundred people was placed and would not tell the authorities what steps should the authorities take to get this information?

1. ask him politely

2. interogate him vigorously

3. do whatever is necessary to save the lives of the 100 innocent people

Decka
12-12-2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Vilepagan
LOL...good one Napster.:D

It would seem Decka took you seriously.

??

so now if you say something stupid... you can back out of it by saying "i wasn't serious"???

i think he was probably dead serious... but now is trying to act like the "laid-back" one.. because that one is always deemed as the winner right?

I mean, that IS the formula right?... talk about a point until someone calls you out, and then say "chill out man, i wasn't serious"....

if you aren't serious... put a smiley by it... otherwise unless it is blatantly obvious people can't help but take others seriously.

and i don't think i need you to "educate" me Napster:o ... i mean what would that involve? Going to freshman classes in college? lol

Napsterbater
12-12-2005, 10:55 AM
if you aren't serious... put a smiley by it... otherwise unless it is blatantly obvious people can't help but take others seriously.

Sorry, Decka, but when Napsterbater decides to have some fun, he doesn't put dumb little things like smileys next to his posts. I know the reason why might elude your tiny little brain, but trust me, it's better that way.

You people are so easy, lol...