has the USA been a force of evil in the world since the conclusion of WWII?

[© tweed]

I'll give the origin of the statement a little later.

[John Dibble]

I voted no. It's really a mixed bag. Some of the things the US has done have been good, and others have been bad.

[opebo]

The actions of the american State have been a negative for all but a small global elite.  Who the devil do you think it is working for?

[DanielX]

In general, no.

Has it made some big goofs? Yes. But capital-E Evil? Not really, no.

[Verily]

In general, no.

Has it made some big goofs? Yes. But capital-E Evil? Not really, no.

Though I suspect we would disagree as to which goofs the US made, I agree with this comment as a generality.

[Eraserhead]

Yes and no.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'll give the origin of the statement a little later.

Noam Chomsky?

I know he said every US president since 1945 would be found guilty of war crimes if they applied the standards of Nuremburg on themselves.

I vote yes btw. I'll explain why if anyone is interested.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Generally, no

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. To do so is to, essentially, claim a moral equivalence between the U.S and the Soviet Union and to do that implies either ignorance or delusion.

Which isn't to say that it is right to say that the U.S has been a force for good since 1945 either, as to say that implies that the U.S has not done anything seriously wrong over that period (which is also clearly absurd). This also, btw, means that no country's foreign policy can ever be described as being a force for good.
But I do think that the world would be a worse place (perhaps much worse; there's no way of telling for sure) if the U.S had retreated into its old isolationalist shell after the War. I also think it would be a better place (though, again, how much so is hard to tell) had John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger never been Secretary of State.

Basically; think what the alternatives are (or were) before making such sweeping statements.

It's possible that none of that made much sense. I'm tired now and need to sleep.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. To do so is to, essentially, claim a moral equivalence between the U.S and the Soviet Union and to do that implies either ignorance or delusion.

Which isn't to say that it is right to say that the U.S has been a force for good since 1945 either, as to say that implies that the U.S has not done anything seriously wrong over that period (which is also clearly absurd). This also, btw, means that no country's foreign policy can ever be described as being a force for good.
But I do think that the world would be a worse place (perhaps much worse; there's no way of telling for sure) if the U.S had retreated into its old isolationalist shell after the War. I also think it would be a better place (though, again, how much so is hard to tell) had John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger never been Secretary of State.

Basically; think what the alternatives are (or were) before making such sweeping statements.

It's possible that none of that made much sense. I'm tired now and need to sleep.

It made some sense.

Well of course compared to the Evils of the Soviet Empire anyone would look good in comparsion; but it often seemed that the American goverment abused it's position as leader of the supposed free world in order to protect like seems like it's own commercial interests - this is especially true of the period when Dulles was sec. of state. He gave the CIA carte blanche in regards to Iran and Guatlemala and helped restore French Rule to Indochina; though admittely Truman played a role in these things - he founded the great dumping ground of America's dirty laundry the Central Intelligence Agency, whose list of abuses are extraordinary.

I really could go into alot more detail now but I'm not truly bothered only to say that US' policy in Vietnam and Henry Kissinger were both truly evil. (Though there is a problem about researching this in the net; it's difficult to find a non loony-left site which deals with the abuses of the CIA; which shows how much the right has been in denial.)

[afleitch]

It has been a force of 'evil' to itself in periods since the war; those who were anti-civil rights, those who hounded Kennedy over his faith and the current plethora of gay bashing in parts of the States for example, each of which (and hopefully for the latter) it has overcome. America's problem internationally is that is has often been a force for 'indifference', like many other nations, rather than 'hate'.

[StateBoiler]

It depends on who you are, where you live, and how U.S. decisions have affected your life.

[Colin]

I voted no. I think afleitch is probably right when he states that the US has been a force for, indifference, or possibly expediency in the post-WWII era however I don't see how you could say that it has been a force for pure evil. Like most other nations it has done good things and bad things with it's power and was clearly either the better party or part of the better party in both of the major conflicts of the last 70 years. While considering that the alternatives in both the Communist world and the Fascist world were both horrid I don't think we can look upon the United States as being any worse than the average.

I'll give the origin of the statement a little later.

I vote yes btw. I'll explain why if anyone is interested.

Well I think you already kind of have but please explain it to us you America hating Irish bastard.

[AkSaber]

Generally, no

[Person Man]

Not yet.... we are heading there and if we get there, we will know. We will be the bad guy and we will know it. I am taking the moral revelation test here. 

I guess it will kinda be a "Revenge of The Sith" moment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It made some sense.

Victory!!!!11

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah; but that's the whole point (or at least a significant part of it). Evil is a very strong word and (IMO anyway) shouldn't be used lightly. In the post-war world it makes sense to view the Soviet Union as something of a benchmark as far as having a malevolent influence is concerned (and nothing the U.S government has done since 1945, and this is including the worst stuff that Dulles and Kissinger got up to, even comes close to comparing to what the Soviet Union got up to in Central and Eastern Europe).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any country in the position that America is in would do that. Foreign policy is all about the abuse of such power. The term "National Interest" implies as much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The less said about Dulles the better.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It made some sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah; but that's the whole point (or at least a significant part of it). Evil is a very strong word and (IMO anyway) shouldn't be used lightly. In the post-war world it makes sense to view the Soviet Union as something of a benchmark as far as having a malevolent influence is concerned (and nothing the U.S government has done since 1945, and this is including the worst stuff that Dulles and Kissinger got up to, even comes close to comparing to what the Soviet Union got up to in Central and Eastern Europe).

I would dispute the role the United States played in the downfall of the Soviet Union; of course that's not to say it wasn't fairly important but I would tend to give more credence to the likes of Solidarnosc and other Internal movements within the Eastern bloc aswell as Gorbachev reform's. The role of the United States in the end was mainly containment of the threat; Korea and Vietnam being obvious examples of that. (Though by 1965 or so there was almost no chance of the rest of Indochina except Vietnam and Laos - two relatively insignificant states on the Chinese border - going 'Communist' at least untilt the secret bombing..)

Of course I should also point out that this is against the first law of moral confusion: "Being the lesser of two evils does not equate good" - I can't describe American policy in South East Asia and in South America as anything other than evil in the cold war period.

It made some sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any country in the position that America is in would do that. Foreign policy is all about the abuse of such power. The term "National Interest" implies as much.

Of course, that is obvious. Rather I should said that in reaching the goals of the National interest the United States often betrayed the very things it was supposed to stand for. Such as Human Rights, Democracy, etc. Aswell as the obvious point that serving the "national Interest" tends to blow back in people's faces - The secret bombing of Cambodia, Overthrowal of Allende and Mossadeq all in the end produced less than satisfactory in the long term; and were fairly evil in the short term.

Not too mention that since the end of the Cold War many US foreign programs supposedly to keep the Soviet menace at bay have been maintained; and in occasions even stregthened. (I'm thinking South America here.)

It made some sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The less said about Dulles the better.

Indeed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would dispute the role the United States played in the downfall of the Soviet Union;

I didn't mention the role of the U.S in the downfall of the Soviet Union; I was using the Soviet Union as an example of what I would consider a "force of evil" (which, btw, isn't a phrase I like at all) to look like.

Or to put it another way; would the world be a better place today if the U.S had retreated back into its isolationalist shell after the War? I'm quite sure that the answer is a strong "no" (there would be, to pick just one example, no Marshall plan). That's the key thing here.

Of course, that is obvious. Rather I should said that in reaching the goals of the National interest the United States often betrayed the very things it was supposed to stand for.

This is true, obviously, and also very disappointing, but not something unique to America.

O/c acting in an amoral (not to mention hypocritical) fashion doesn't make someone (or something) a "force of evil", does it?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes. Blame he US for decolonization, israel, pakistan surviving more than 4 years, apartheid ending all negative events.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I would dispute the role the United States played in the downfall of the Soviet Union;

I didn't mention the role of the U.S in the downfall of the Soviet Union; I was using the Soviet Union as an example of what I would consider a "force of evil" (which, btw, isn't a phrase I like at all) to look like.

Or to put it another way; would the world be a better place today if the U.S had retreated back into its isolationalist shell after the War? I'm quite sure that the answer is a strong "no" (there would be, to pick just one example, no Marshall plan). That's the key thing here.

No, clearly not. But there's a key difference between encouraging Internationalism with Human Rights, Free trade, etc and using internationalism as a cover of the worst sort of vain nationalistic self-interest; which is what the US goverment often did.

Of course, that is obvious. Rather I should said that in reaching the goals of the National interest the United States often betrayed the very things it was supposed to stand for.

This is true, obviously, and also very disappointing, but not something unique to America.

O/c acting in an amoral (not to mention hypocritical) fashion doesn't make someone (or something) a "force of evil", does it?

It does when it includes stuff like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or stuff like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Continuing on the East Timor theme - a report on the 1999 Referendum

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And just so I can break from the 'Nixon' theme, here's Carter, Reagan and Bush

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another decent link on US foreign policy prior to the 1920s, though admittely coming from an extremely libertarian point of view

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, clearly not.

Therefore it must also be wrong to claim that the U.S has been a "force of evil since the conclusion of WWII" (unless evil is something that we need more of, not less).

Which isn't to say that the actions of certain U.S administrations in certain parts of the World haven't been reprehensible; I'm not trying to defend post-war U.S foreign policy. I'm arguing that the sweeping assertion above is wrong (and dangerous) and nothing else.

Though I'd like to make another point, and one that makes me wonder about the motivation for the above assertion; the worst features of post-war U.S foreign policy were in place years, decades, centuries, before the end of the Second World War.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes. Blame he US for decolonization, israel, pakistan surviving more than 4 years, apartheid ending all negative events.

Neither funny nor clever. Please crawl back under your bridge.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes. Blame he US for decolonization, israel, pakistan surviving more than 4 years, apartheid ending all negative events.

Neither funny nor clever. Please crawl back under your bridge.

Even I have him on ignore now. Can't we just ban him?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well of course it depends on you mean as "evil" - I was using the term in the more general sense of being "not good", which I think perfectly decribes US foreign policy since 1945.

Perhaps it should be more broken down into this simple statement "The United States has built many positive structures in world affairs; such as the UN and NATO aswell as helping the major reconstruction projects of Europe after the Second World War and more general world aid projects. But also while trying to act purely benevolent the United States has committed acts which can only be considered 'evil' under any defintion of the world; regardless of whether the original idea of the policy was good or not. *"

* - Sometimes it was, Sometimes it wasn't. The best example of the latter are infamous and much repeated abuses of the Nixon and Eisenhower admins. Though they are far from the only ones; all adminstrations have committed horrible abuses due to "the National interest". An example of the former may be Vietnam, or at least would have been if not for the dramatic hypocrisy of pretending to fight for democracy while defending a dictatorship. Korea might be a better example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Methinks that depends on what you're referring to; I tend to see the massarce of the Indians as more a policy committed by the general population of the US (whites) rather than any specific policy of goverment - except under Andrew Jackson. (And that of course should not absolve the US goverment of blame in that regard.)

If you're referring to the Slave Trade, then I suspect that would be right except it would be important to note the distinction between the rise of Northern Industry and the Southern Agriarian-Political elite. Certainly though no-one involved in any way with the slave trade should not be held responsible for it.

But If you're referring to major events such as the Spanish-American War, Roosevelt and Wilsonian Imperialism and going further back, the Mexican wars, I would agree with you.

[Joe Republic]

Yes. Blame he US for decolonization, israel, pakistan surviving more than 4 years, apartheid ending all negative events.

Neither funny nor clever. Please crawl back under your bridge.

Even I have him on ignore now. Can't we just ban him?

It's currently being dealt with.

[Serenity Now]

I voted "no", but that doesn't mean it's neccessarily been a force for "good" either.. Also I don't really want to generalize a nation of so many different people..