Is the U.S. a moral country?

[dorkitup 1]

Is there an hypocrisy in the US? A lot of times you hear talk that certain factions within the US profess that the county is the most "moral" in the history of the world.

The US seems to me to generally believes in rituals of justice (rule of law), yet treat some citizens unjustly (look at all overturned convictions). The country claims to be moral, yet exploits resources, kills life and habitat of defenseless animals (excluding humans in this instance), corrupts the earth (habitat), air (pollution), and water (fish, coral, etc.) (regardless of whether you believe in AGW or not) to make a dollar (again, I'm talking about corruption as things naturally occurring in that environment). Is the human ego so big that it disregards the Creator of all these resources and establishes that business is more important than those landscapes and resources created by the Creator? What is moral here? What is important to you?

Do you like the water in the stream to be uncontaminated, and thus the fish? Do you like the deer in the wood to be safe for consumption? Do you like the fish in the sea to not have hepatitis and carbon contamination? Or f*ck all that, businesses making money is more important?

Is the US a moral country? To what degree?
Is real truth important to you, regardless of political affiliation?

Thank you for your thoughts and dialogue.

[gowlerk 1,910]

I choose not to participate. Especially because you are anonymous. That is allowed here, but it makes me not want to engage with you on such an open ended question. Countries are not moral. Only people can be moral.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[dorkitup 1]

No worries, thanks for the comment.
ETA: And I am well aware of your comments on this site and your desire to uphold your reputation on this site.

Some of us have to use anonymous names because we are fearful of repercussions in our real lives. Some of us work in places and have sensitive positions (maybe I do, and maybe I don't) and certain jobs that we can't take the chance of wackos on this website becoming aggressive.

Do me a favor and do some research on this site of some of the people in the early 2000s that don't post here any more because of crazy people and those posters getting fired. I've been here for a while.

All the best!

[jakee 1,254]

Are you after a purely domestic perspective or do international considerations count? Like several other major western democracies, the US can only claim to be consistently moral in terms of how it acts outside its own borders if you consider “might is right” to be the measure of morality.

The land of the free has done as much as anyone to actively suppress the spread of democracy where it is inconvenient for American economic prospects. Where would Iran be without US and UK ‘assistance’ for example?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dorkitup 1]

After all perspectives.

Cannot disagree with your comments.

[Phil1111 910]

jakee

Are you after a purely domestic perspective or do international considerations count? Like several other major western democracies, the US can only claim to be consistently moral in terms of how it acts outside its own borders if you consider “might is right” to be the measure of morality.

The land of the free has done as much as anyone to actively suppress the spread of democracy where it is inconvenient for American economic prospects. Where would Iran be without US and UK ‘assistance’ for example?

WRONG Germany, Japan, post WW2. The Marshall Plan.

- Support of the UN, its budget(22% overall).
- Almost exclusively brought about the end of communism, the USSR, the end of the Cold War.

The US is a flawed democracy this is a good summary as to how the democratic institutions in the US have suffer in the last decade.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/

Democracy in Crisis
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018
Although not a totally impartial source. The above suggests that the US is not the only country with democracy issues.

[jakee 1,254]

Gee, thanks for the in depth history lesson. I now see the error of my ways.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

We may have made the wrong move here and there. A few of our choices have backfired.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Phil1111

***Are you after a purely domestic perspective or do international considerations count? Like several other major western democracies, the US can only claim to be consistently moral in terms of how it acts outside its own borders if you consider “might is right” to be the measure of morality.

The land of the free has done as much as anyone to actively suppress the spread of democracy where it is inconvenient for American economic prospects. Where would Iran be without US and UK ‘assistance’ for example?

WRONG

In what way is that 'wrong'?

Are you aware of the coup that installed the Shah of Iran in 53?

Are you aware of the coup in Chile in 73, that resulted in the death of Allende?

Are you aware of the concept of a "Banana Republic", where the US installed rather brutal dictatorships in order to make sure that US companies could make a profit?

While the US makes lots of claims about 'freedom' and 'democracy', those mostly apply within it's own borders.]
We (meaning the US as a whole) have done some pretty despicable shit over the years.

And that doesn't include our treatment of minorities, particularly the native population and freed slaves.

We have some pretty lofty ideals, and many folks have tried to live up to them, but the reality has fallen well short of those ideals.

And I'm sure that Ron and a few others will take these criticisms as "looking down" or "hating" the US, which is far from the truth.
I just refuse to ignore our shortcomings. Which are many.

However, despite these shortcomings, we are still one of the better places in the world, for a variety of reasons. Some are because of our systems/laws/customs. Others are simply a matter of where we ended up and the resources/natural features that are here.

I didn't see a choice of "We have our faults, but are better and more moral than a lot of places."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 910]

DJL

We may have made the wrong move here and there. A few of our choices have backfired.

jakee does make a point and the counter-narrative goes like this:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/378794-time-for-the-us-to-end-democracy-promotion-flim-flams

The narrative however where the US is the bully. Where dictators are supported Carte blanche. Is simply not the net of US long term support of democracies.

Yes, the attached story is not pretty. The Shah of Iran was no prince for responsible rule. Sometimes politics, regional wars, religious wars, communism, etc. Results in imperfect policy. Results in policy that is plain wrong. Undemocratic.

I'm not defending it. Jakee has a point and I concede it above. Net, the US is not as pure as Sweden, Norway;
https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2017/12/12/swedens-proposed-democracy-criterion-for-arms-exports-taking-the-lead-in-export-controls-or-new-words-for-old-policies/

But a net suppressor of democracy. NO

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Ok, you added quite a bit to your "Wrong" post.

And you have a point.

The US has done a lot right in the past.

The way we took the enemies that were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, rebuilt them from the ashes and rubble that were left (and that is not an exaggeration) and turned them into modern, free democracies is quite admirable.

That doesn't change the fact that we have also done a lot to support some really evil people. The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, the list goes on and on.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 910]

wolfriverjoe

Ok, you added quite a bit to your "Wrong" post.

And you have a point.

The US has done a lot right in the past.

The way we took the enemies that were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, rebuilt them from the ashes and rubble that were left (and that is not an exaggeration) and turned them into modern, free democracies is quite admirable.

That doesn't change the fact that we have also done a lot to support some really evil people. The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, the list goes on and on.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. "The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which dates to around the 4th century BC"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend

The US needs to learn from these mistakes. The Shah was supported because Iran, was and still is a powerful country. The Shah was under attack by a revolution driven by fundamentalist Shia clerics. Who are as dangerous today as they were then.

US policy needs to have a more moral center.Sure. But the world has some tough actors. Putin, Erdogan, Kim, Duterte and others. Sometimes a sub rosa operation to move bad actors in the right direction shouldn't be discounted.

and Panama, Libya, Balkans(Bosnia and Herzegovina), Grenada, Kuwait, Syria.

[Bob_Church 7]

"US policy needs to have a more moral center.Sure. But the world has some tough actors. Putin, Erdogan, Kim, Duterte and others. Sometimes a sub rosa operation to move bad actors in the right direction shouldn't be discounted. "

People have gotten very good at ignoring what isn't convenient to their world view. At lunch this week one guy said "you know Hitler killed six million people and the world went after him, but Stalin killed many more and nobody noticed."
Nobody noticed? Well, I suppose it would seem that way if you're one of those who have somehow decided that the Cold War never happened. Decades of the world divided in half and nukes aimed at each other made for some rough calls that even the people making them didn't like, but the alternatives were sometimes just too unacceptable.

[wmw999 2,121]

Me, I answered “boobies,” because there isn’t a consistent answer. In the global context, “moral” and “immoral” often just depend on whose point of view you value most. Is the protection of life quantified by number, or is there a multiplier based on level of downtroddenness, or color, or cuteness.

What’s most worth protecting?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Phil1111

... The Shah was supported because Iran, was and still is a powerful country. The Shah was under attack by a revolution driven by fundamentalist Shia clerics. Who are as dangerous today as they were then. ..

Not sure what you mean by that. The 79 revolution was driven by fundamentalist Shia.

But I was referring to the coup in 53 that deposed the democratically elected prime minister and installed the Shah.

Mossadegh was trying to implement real democratic reform. And he nationalized the oil industry, thinking that oil that came out of Iranian soil ought to generate income for the Iranians.

That oil money was the prime reason the US & UK overthrew him.

Pretty much destroying democracy in Iran from then until...

Now.

I can't say that the democratic reforms would have happened. Or if they happened, if they would have continued.

But the coup put the Shah into power, and his brutality was a driving force for the Shia fundies and Khomeni.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bob_Church 7]

wmw999

Me, I answered “boobies,” because there isn’t a consistent answer. In the global context, “moral” and “immoral” often just depend on whose point of view you value most. Is the protection of life quantified by number, or is there a multiplier based on level of downtroddenness, or color, or cuteness.

What’s most worth protecting?

Wendy P.

I think it's impossible to exaggerate how much the nuclear standoff affected things. Right or wrong, real or faked, it justified anything.
"Should we do this?"
"If we don't they'll nuke us."
"ok"

[Phil1111 910]

wolfriverjoe

***
... The Shah was supported because Iran, was and still is a powerful country. The Shah was under attack by a revolution driven by fundamentalist Shia clerics. Who are as dangerous today as they were then. ..

Not sure what you mean by that. The 79 revolution was driven by fundamentalist Shia.

But I was referring to the coup in 53 that deposed the democratically elected prime minister and installed the Shah.

Mossadegh was trying to implement real democratic reform. And he nationalized the oil industry, thinking that oil that came out of Iranian soil ought to generate income for the Iranians.

That oil money was the prime reason the US & UK overthrew him.

Pretty much destroying democracy in Iran from then until...

Now.

I can't say that the democratic reforms would have happened. Or if they happened, if they would have continued.

But the coup put the Shah into power, and his brutality was a driving force for the Shia fundies and Khomeni.

Correct. Oil interests were the motivation of a UK-US counter-democratic coup. I was thinking of Shia clerics which have shown to be the equal of the Shah in corruption and oppression.

"tabulation by Emadeddin Baghi, a researcher at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid) found a far lower number of casualties. Baghi found that between 1963 and 1979, there were 3164 dead among the anti-Shah movement...

One explanation for the low number of casualties is the shah's reluctance to use force. The shah "frequently" insisted to "foreign emissaries" that he was "unwilling to massacre his subjects in order to save his throne." `"The instructions I gave were always the same: "do the impossible to avoid bloodshed."`...

Amnesty International documented 2,946 executions in the 12 months following Bani-Sadr's impeachment. A list compiled the following year by the Mojahedin-e Khalq cited 7,746 persons who had lost their lives through executions, in street battles, or under torture in the short period from June 1981 to September 1983.[31]

According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, revolutionary courts executed more than 8000 opponents between June 1981 and June 1985. These were mainly members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, but also included

Fedayins and Kurds as well as Tudeh, National Front, and Shariatmadari supporters. ... Thus the toll taken among those who had participated in the revolution was far greater than that of royalists. This revolution — like others — had devoured its own children.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iranian_Revolution

[gowlerk 1,910]

Quote

Some of us have to use anonymous names because we are fearful of repercussions in our real lives. Some of us work in places and have sensitive positions (maybe I do, and maybe I don't) and certain jobs that we can't take the chance of wackos on this website becoming aggressive.

I guess that can be a factor alright. I find it hard to converse with people when I have no idea who they are or where they are coming from. It is very hard for me to find the subtext in the message. But I know that is a big part of how forums work.



I really find your basic question to be quite overwhelming. To the point that it is hard to make sense of. Is The US moral? The government? The culture? The people? There is just too much to break down in your questioning of environmental policies, justice matters, and now I see that most people are taking it in the direction of how the US treats the rest of the world. A very valid consideration, but one you did not address in your question.

Morality is very subjective. The US is neither moral nor immoral. Yet at the same time it is both. Like every other nation. So after considering it I'm agreeing and voting with Wendy. Boobies.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Phil1111

Correct. Oil interests were the motivation of a UK-US counter-democratic coup. I was thinking of Shia clerics which have shown to be the equal of the Shah in corruption and oppression.

I don't dispute in the least that the Shia clerics and their rule of Iran is as bad, if not worse, than the Shah.

But they were a direct result of the Shah's rule (and oppression).

What would Iran look like today if the US & UK had not orchestrated the overthrowing of Mossedegh?

As I noted, it's hard to say if his democratic reforms would have happened, been effective or been able to last.

I highly doubt that it would look as bad as it does today.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

Ahhhhhhh

Tree hugger

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,910]

rushmc

Ahhhhhhh

Tree hugger

'smatter Marc? Ya got sumptin a'gin trees?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[RonD1120 58]

wolfriverjoe

And I'm sure that Ron and a few others will take these criticisms as "looking down" or "hating" the US, which is far from the truth.
I just refuse to ignore our shortcomings. Which are many.

However, despite these shortcomings, we are still one of the better places in the world, for a variety of reasons. Some are because of our systems/laws/customs. Others are simply a matter of where we ended up and the resources/natural features that are here.

I didn't see a choice of "We have our faults, but are better and more moral than a lot of places."

Nah, I agree with you.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Bob_Church 7]

I suspect that if the UK-US stayed completely out of Iran's workings they'd have ended up another Soviet Shithole. I mean Soviet Satellite, of course.

[jakee 1,254]

Phil1111

WRONG Germany, Japan, post WW2. The Marshall Plan.

- Support of the UN, its budget(22% overall).
- Almost exclusively brought about the end of communism, the USSR, the end of the Cold War.

And how do you think that makes me wrong, exactly?

Refer back to what I actually said....

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Phil1111

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hence the support of rebuilding Germany and Japan. It wasn't done out of altruism.

Quote

The Shah was supported because Iran, was and still is a powerful country. The Shah was under attack by a revolution driven by fundamentalist Shia clerics. Who are as dangerous today as they were then.

WRONG. Go back a bit further than that, why was the Shah in control in the first place?

Selfish western belligerence created the environment that lead to Iranian fundamentalists gaining power. The Ayatollahs and everything that has come with them are a direct consequence of what we did, for a bit of oil and a bit of money.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?