Those were the days.
On this page, I present the views I hold about the past decades of USA. I present where I differ from most, if not all. I think everybody, should accept these, though. These are not flattering anyybody, but it is for a well-founded future, that we should keep the truth, face our errors, and never dump our legitimacy - no matter what others would attack. It is not a form of modesty. It is about upholding the truth - even when it favors yourself. (sic)
I jot a few ideas that I have reflected, and taken notes about, for many years. Instead of finding those notes around, I do an internet-dump, out of rote memory - to air/net, on July 4, 2004. I publish, at this site, in successive refinements, any way. You may visit the page, about anti-abuse strategies, too.
When evaluating America's past, we should keep thinking the alternatives, too. In fact, in most cases, even when the American acts are ideal, there are a lot of people, around the world, who object, with verbal-trickery that equates market-success (consumer-favor for American life), with colonialism. I interpret that, in most cases, as the chauvinist and/or tyrannical teeth, who would like to cut into the necks of the local people, but a gunboat, or a path to American business, disables it.
Force is a neutral term, even if intense. Its intensity does not let its remaining neutral, though. In cases, even not intervening, may simply mean that, you have let the bullies, do their own thing. In other words, it would mean an indirect support, when you do not stop it.
I favor gunboat "diplomacy," rather than the colonial oligarchies. The American example, in the past decades, was an example that met this double-requirement: Active, and non-colonialist - except when it was on behalf of others, such as for French.
Here, I list the commonly referred-to objections, about USA, in past decades, and discuss the past developments, as they shape the future, too.
A civilian nightmare? I side with USA, although even USA does not, mostly, and although I object to bombs, because they are very crude instruments - killing many, quite unselectively. The points I notice are:
Most of those American soldiers were also civilians - if Japanese had not attacked. How many of them had to die?
Heroic (Japanese) civilians? When would they stop? If 13-years age, old-age, etc. could be kamikaze, when would the war end? What is a civilian, in culture-of-obedience Japan? If you state that it is heroic, I (possibly) would not object that, but this leaves the US side, in a difficult position, and they would like to, at least, save their own lives, too.
Forced-choice question: Would you prefer to be a Korean, or Japanese? The invasion of Korea, by Japan, the "things" such as "comfort women" etc., evokes aversion. That was not in the USA, it was in Korea, but USA was the legitimate side, and that war had to stop. No matter what, and never to occur again.
The later pitifulness of Americans was sympathizable, but its excesses might have been the initial signs of the later catastrophes.
To express it in a strange sentence: I think it was good, and both of the sides, as often referred to as ""the sides," were good - with the rate of knowledge they reflected about. In other words, I support both the USA, and the Vietnamese. The points are:
Because it was a French colony. Not anything about USA, except that the people of the USA have never got the notion of distinguishing themselves from the British, and the French. (Ever since 1812, or so? Why believe they would cease all illegitimate wants, if they are only not attempting to invade the American land, any more?)
If the USA had taken lessons in the Dominican Republic, out of the French-backed dictatorial regime, which went on, with USA military support, I could pity for the USA having lost the war, too. But it would occur with Vietnam, too. That would not probably, build the American democracy, there. This way, a nation saved themselves - at least, out of French colonization, even if not an ideal regime, as we understand it.
Americans were good-intentioned - as we are able to infer from their not having the ideas about the Vietnam war, to later defend their legitimacies, and what lessons to take. That may have hurt American people, in a variety of ways, as we discuss on this page. Instead of taking a stance against colonialism, and local tyrannies, USA took the low-profile, imperialism-friendly course. This presumably, was in the sense of world-sophistication, tapping into the liaisons of the older colony-masters. We do rarely hear of, any more, a single-USA act. (At most, it gets out, when faced with the least of resistance, as in Lebanon, and Somali.) It prefers to go almost always with others, and it does wait until those others accept.
Most of the Europeans states, especially the British, and the French, were colonialists. I infer, Vietnam was used to recover their images, while instead, they painted USA as the evil, the big brother, etc. If USA was "more cooperative" rather than keeping-up with the mores of gunboat diplomacy to free the people elsewhere, it is mainly because such attacks against American legitimacy, worked their way, as trickery that stole the legitimacy of the USA acts. USA was right, but it was painted wrong. So, it turned to "its elders," the more world-knowledgeable, networked empires of England, and French.
For example, even the director of a Hollywood movie, a Dutch (in 1996/1997), referred to the giant-ants in his movie, as suggesting the American propaganda against the Japanese, in world war II, and that neglects that Japanese were sporadically, invading Korea, and China. In part of the interview, he said "No. I am not describing the Nazi Germany. That was 50 years ago." But, next, refers, instead, to the American propaganda about Japanese. I am not sure this is a rare example. USA-bashing is for free, it appears. It is not considered anathema, even if it is exactly false.
Who may imagine a parent who booby-wires his/her baby, only to stand against a capitalistic economy? Such stories, fit more directly, the horrors of being, as opposed to not being colonized. I tend to compare this to the bloody independence wars in those other colonies of French (e.g: Algiers). In other words, USA found itself in the middle of a massive atrocity, and itself retaliated, and that might have escalated the intensity of both sides.
In fact, the situation is such that, when USA has not differentiated itself, they must have appeared as if French-legionnaires, as "the same side," even the more-humane behaviors by the American soldiers, as compared with the real French legonnaires, might have positively-reinforced the fighting-vigor of the Vietnamese. This is because, they would think "See, when war started, they cannot do those other atrocities, any more." In other words, the USA, I hypothesize, would profit most, if it could tell the Vietnamese that, it is not the French, but an altogether different country, the USA, and that they were only there, against Soviet expansion. (In fact, the USA and the French had not even settled for signing the treaty at the end of World War II, yet. (Have they, since?) French is not subservient, and not necessarily" the boss of USA, either.
When Allah, the God, shifts people's opinions, it is not patchwork. The whole universe may work together, to fortify its realism, as firmly perceived. And I infer, in most cases, the intermediate variable is the word legitimate, or fair.
For example, the critical person, when building the atomic bomb, Enrico Fermi, was Italian, but his wife was Jewish. This was not a cause in his knowing the needed physical intricacies, but the atrocities against the Jewish would not probably leave a second-thought, and he moved to the USA.
It is in two phases. Fair, and perceived-fair. These need not co-occur. Never underestimate Allah, the God. If He thinks the person/people is fair, but attacked with slanders, the immanent justice may work its way, to support the rightful. (I refer to this as Right makes might.
In any case, though, we should keep firm about both aspects. After all, when we are fair, but when we neglect defending it, we have neglected an important point, about our public duty. Even if we may ourselves hold our mind-and-spirit high, and our conscience free from worries, our neighborhood, and even our very kids, may have to "come to terms" with a wrong, and bad, sort of self-image.
That bus, inshaellah, stops here. I think, enough is enough, with the chains of misinterpretations, in the American history, in the past decades. Let me publish this page, and refine it, as a pointer to truth. I hope this helps.
In any case, now that I offer a [new] world-view at this site, let me document, what was wrong, the last time, as I perceived it. I hope this, at the least, helps those who prefer what I suggest.
And it is, about immanent justice, in my turn, too, I think. Here, I do point it out, when I see others in trouble. Therefore, I hope Allah to let me notice my own faults, too, or to avoid them altogether - whether in my lifetime, or after me, for those who are with me.
A willingness to undermine legitimacy is the first sign. If you raise your kids, and shift your people with that, that is, when the criterion is off, the acts may simply follow. Next, the people around the world, may start to perceive you as "subhuman" - if you do not get the feedback from your own acts, or from the words of others, to resume legitimacy.
The USA experience shows another aspect of it. When the feedback is exaggerated, to the point of telling lies against yourself, to favor the other side, you paint your own past as illegitimate, with your own false words, although the case was otherwise. Next, your kids develop with this newer self-concept. Some may adhere to it as more-stringent-rules (e.g: "Let's not send forces, to anywhere." Or, better, "Let's keep intensely aware of what we do there."). But yet others, would revolt against the intense pressure, or simply shrink to a position such as "O.K. If we were bad, so what?" This appears to be the recent neo-con backlash. Not to mention the post-Vietnam crime-waves, in the streets of America.
People had started to believe that, in Vietnam, they had a glimpse at "their true spirits" and they interpreted it as a "natural tendency towards atrocities." False. (Cherry pies might be American, but atrocity is not so necessarily.)
McClelland of Harvard, around 1950s, had studied the influence of kid-stories, in shaping the people's attitudes, in the next years/decades. The false/ignorant story of Vietnam, and the atomic bomb were interpreted, as known to the American public, themselves, was such a set of false stories.
Add the case about McCarthy-bashing. This flourishes in a setting of almost total ignorance. When you ignore what Stalin and others were doing in USSR, let alone in the iron-curtain countries, the America would run at the extremes. Some people would find anti-Sovietism baseless, and some others, aware of the problem, would start to catch the targets in muddy waters.
After all, the plans of atomic-bomb, was really stolen to the USSR, and this only contributed to the stronghold of totalitarian rule, in the upcoming decades, in the so-called cold-war.
As a point: The person who had stolen those plans and gave it to the USSR, in an interview (or, news bit), in 1990s, told that he was satisfied with his act. No remorse.
I associate such "no remorse" with the false/exaggerated attacks of Americans, against themselves, after the atomic-bomb explosions, in Japan. It is possibly ironical that, even part of Japan was left under Soviet rule, though. That is, the USA bashing itself, about the bombs in Japan, may have hurt the Japanese, too.
Years after I started reflecting about atomic-bombs, and developed most of these opinions, I noticed an Internet page (on June 2, 2001), that discussed the self-attacks, identifying the exaggerations in an exhibit, in USA. (You may read that Report of the National Air and Space Museum Review Team (May 25, 1994), if it is kept there.)
An interesting point is that, I arrived that page, when I ran an internet query (hotbot) for "tiger team." This was about an interest of mine - both in computers, and in real-life cases. Now, I reflect, it fits exactly one of the main relief strategies, that the wise-people (mostly, if not exclusively, religious people) of many ages had conducted, for many ages. i.e: Reflecting about your thoughts, to spot the evil suggestions in your soul. Evil intrudes. This is known since the origin of humanity. The developments in technology, does not diminish its importance. In fact, it is possibly vice versa. The evil is spotted, the same way, though. That is, with that old and proven strategy of soul-searching, and correcting yourself against him, and his team.
Otherwise, the satans would either directly suggest you do the evil, avoid the good. Or, if it does not work, they would abuse your good-intentions, exaggerate them, increase the burden such that, a lot of weaker spirits would opt out, and quite a few may reflect that there is "something wrong" with the faith, or with the system, and they may assume apathy. The wrong, in fact, is the exaggerated. If you lose balance, you risk losing yourself. In the very issue of rightfulness, too, as we discussed on this page.
On the page about anti-abuse strategies, I point out the case of the suicide-bombings, as they sometimes get associated with religiousness, and about a neo-con opinion, essentially an attempt at justifying illegitimacy, as I read through an article that pointed out at such ideas as the cause of tortures. That neo-con article was all-false. The suicide-bombings is not an Islamic anything, either. It was the Japanese invention, in World War II, that combined the expectancy of a kamikaze, with their suicide-culture. Even the Japanese did not continue with it, as it was not a success story, any way. How would it relate to Islam, at all? Islam does prohibit both suicide, and unjustified-killings. Civilian-killings. Israel might have killed more, at any period of time, but doing it in the name of Islam, is not relevant. I take it as ethnic war.
When at the both sides, some people get so much extreme, telling things that turn out to be both false, and self-destructive, I pointed out the possibility of that expected event, the appearance of the antichrist (ed-deccal), as a possible inducer of "callings" into people's minds (soul-induction). In other words, religiously speaking, those ideas fall in the category of junk, but without a keen filter, without doing soul-searching, to spot evil inductions, the false-callings may go on. i.e: Think twice, and verify your plans with your faith, and with what your forefathers, had really done.
For most religious people, it is probably inconceivable, to approve of Holywood, especially in its excesses. But, when you consider the international scene, the intensity of Holywood might have been a firewall, against the worse.
Think about the English language, versus French. Why was it not the dominant language, up until 20th century, when the British influence faded? In Istanbul, for example, a lot of words, were from French. But, more recently, English has taken the scene. Is it British? Not so. In other words, I do not accept what some state as "Learn English where it was born." I think, if we now bother to learn English, if it is the lingua franca, it is mainly because of the USA hegemony. The word "hegemony" means success, here. It is not colonialism. In fact, the British were the dominant colonialists. The success of USA is in arts, and sciences, and by far, with the American lifestyle. That was the alternative to the French lifestyle.
Now, how would something not-so-holy, would act as a firewall? Ask an american a few French actors, or actresses they know, and you get the answer. In other words, the French cannot captivate the imaginations of the USA. They are irrelevant. Holywood is intensely successful. This is so, almost everywhere around the world. Except a few "ex"-colonies of France, the French culture is confined to the images of Eiffel tower, and Champs Elysee. Would you think of the French as soldiers, at all? Most people around the world do not. Even Vietnam is isolated from its decades-long developments, and it is attributed only to the USA, after it found itself in a nightmare, and responded, and got further responded, and so on. That is the Vietnam story, and Dominican story, before it.
What do you do when you know about atrocities? Do you warn others? Or, do you keep it secret, so that yet other evil people would not learn about them?
These were the ideas, when I had first, reflected about "anti-gossip research," and "little-person research" (against oligarchic/lobbied unrightfulness), as I intended to study as my statement of purpose in social psychology, towards a Ph.D. I had considered publishing, because scerecy would not be against the evil. They apply it, one way, or another. Let people protect themselves, with the research, I thought.
I did not continue with the pursuit, after a few other troubles, in 1994-1995, (and was rejected at an university, that I met the deadline, any way). But, I reflected about these, when I read an article about the torture-lectures in the school-of-americas. Was that relevant? Did USA tell about its experience in Vietnam, as they had learned?
In any case, let me jot, the two points I had noticed: The listed atrocities, committed by the graduates were not the listed lessons, in the article. You would need schooling about them. But, the point that those might have been applied, to the homeless in Panama, suggests renumeration. This is the balanced act, I think, in addition to punishing those who committed those tortures. (e.g: The adjective "homeless" suggests house, and education for them, financed by USA, in addition to medical aid, if needed. In fact, USA had gifted aid to even its enemies, after World War II. So, renumerating for the wrongs, sounds even more of an USA kind of act, in the first place.)
Shutting down such schools, is not the relief, though. It is exaggerated, and it may only help, the French, or the British, or some other colonialist, whether in the open, or in disguise, to organize the elite, there. (In fact, I wonder whether those Latin American officials who committed the atrocities, were associated with other such lobbies - despite attending a USA school. After all, USA does not even have a notion to distinguish itself from those colonialists. How would it spot such lobby-memberships?
It appears to be a popular-sport, sometimes, to point at a McDonalds restaurant, as "a symbol" of the American "imperialism/colonialism." That ignores the options. In reality, a person may easily avoid eating a hamburger, and may eat any other alternative, even within the fast food range. But, can you do it so easily, when the colonialists, e.g: through high schools, with French liaisons, found their own lobbies within the state mechanisms of the third-world countries?
In short, clonialism is not about "symbols" but it is about abuse, and it certainly does not matter whether the kidnapper, or torturer, is a citizen of your own country. You do not want it. If a gunboat, sent over from USA, would save you, you would prefer it. The newer sort of "sophistication" the USA, unfortunately, may be adopting, follows the colonialists's lead, in negotiating with the local-tyrannical-evils, as it seems to me.
The Saddam case, up until the Kuwait was invaded, was a case for the point.
Saddam was a totalitarian, oppressive dictator. Whether owning any secret weapons, or not, he could be attacked against. The problem, in the recent cases, is what USA itself is doing there. There are talks about letting people vote. But where human rights are attacked, where torture exists, an election does not mean anything. A vote is only a piece of paper, not edible, not enjoyable. It is only valuable, when it lets the people exercise their human rights, and preferences. If even a person's body is manipulated by others, as with torture, and/or sexual offenses, the intervention team itself must be checked-up. In other words, the gunboat diplomacy was right, the field-actors/actresses got out of the legitimate range.
The point of comparison, is Texas. What would you do, if the same occurred in Texas? This is relevant for the violence. (For sexual crimes, the standard might be even higher in Iraq, not less.)
These are points to be corrected. Not to be shrunk away. After all, it is the getting-away that may leave atrocities, as the violent tyrants, and the clans, in the third world, get no punishment, about whatever they do, within "their" territories - including the people there, as "things." I favor the gunboats - whether any super-secret weapons exist, or not.
A recent article, awfully, informed that the old torturers, of those tyrannical states, get employed, after USA enters, too. This keeps that brutal oligarchy, in place. Whoever suggests that idea to the USA (possibly, the co-entrants?), I would suggest otherwise.
Should America conspire with such existing evil? Should America form its own oligarchies, to lobby "in important places" (to work against the influence of such other lobbies, as French, and British)? I do not like either of these ideas. Such a lobby may rather (1)appeal to the people, when it notices abuses (when it spots bribery/lobby abuses), and otherwise, should stress the sincereity-to-the-people, rather than try to be like those others, the secret-lobbiers. In other words, if some anarchists break the windows of the local McDonald's restaurant, this is a point to discuss there, and to inform people.
Since Vietnam, USA is especially keeping away from getting involved in local tensions. The bombing in Lebanon, was an important incident, too, if I remember it right. The real reason, though, I think is the issue of attributinhg illegitmacy to the interventions. i.e: Not the killed, in a bombing, or two.
The balanced option I would suggest is that, instead of supporting Israel, remotely, USA should provide the buffer itself, with its own military. Otherwise, it appears escalating, with the USA finance, but without USA intervention. In fact, Israel does not want it. Why?
I had thought, and sometimes told, for years, that the legitimate heir of the Ottoman state was the USA, not turkey. The continent was discovered, when Ottoman state was at a peak conquered Istanbul, and after its fall, it was USA, that was the visible helpers of the needy/oppressed people.
As I discuss, especially after Vietnam, USA is entrapped with its own acquiescence, in presence of the trickery against itself that attacks the very American legitimacy, thereby debilitating its most interventions.
What next, then? Where is the nation, if USA does not resume its role, to get the title, after the USA of twentieth century? I guess the ideas at this site, whether with USA, or not, are able to found a new frame, to revive human rights. Ottomans was a monarchy, but Islam necessitates a lot of human rights already, next, USA was/is a republic, and the world-view I offer, in fact, fits this, development, too. This is a more refined, individualistic, networks-driven world-view. (for education, food, finance, safety-and-intelligence, etc.)
On this page, and elsewhere, I write the balanced ideas, though, so that a reshifting, to resume the ideal positions, is possible.