Wars of "Goodness"

[sandnsea]

Where’s the outrage over a President who intended to wage war from the first days of assuming power?

Liberals have spent the last two years anguishing over the lack of public outcry at the lies and schemes that took us into war. The recent bombshell from the Downing Street Memo, that war had been decided in the summer of 2002, has not generated a peep in the mainstream media. Why, they howl, why?? It’s sad, and ironic, because the answer is at the very roots of liberalism. It is the age-old fight between those who wish to make America truly good, and those who are satisfied with the appearance of good.

Goodness. It is the core belief of every American. We invented self-rule. We freed the slaves. We gave defeated Indians sovereign status and a hundred years of economic assistance. We paid Mexico for land we had won in a war. We liberated whole continents, turned them over to their people, and helped them rebuild. We went toe-to-toe with the Soviets, brought down the Berlin Wall and ended the Cold War. When people want to be free, call on America and we are there. Oh yes, we are brimming with Goodness.

MORE:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=870

[ixion]

1. I would dispute some of these examples of 'goodness', but then

the author states:
"Liberals should truly not be surprised, or even disheartened or discouraged. Our entire history is checkered with wars of aggression, barely disguised as self-defense. Indian Wars. Mexican-American War. Spanish-American War. Philippine War. Vietnam. The appropriate response to the Iraq War would literally require the entire country to undergo a death-bed conversion. It is a tall order, one that our most esteemed clerics and orators have been unable to achieve."

So I guess this person was just being sarcastic. But since I did this, I'll post my rebuttals:


We invented self-rule.
-- Not True. Self-rule was the first form of government.

We freed the slaves.
-- Yes, AFTER we enslaved them, and then only after the bloodiest war in US History.

We gave defeated Indians sovereign status and a hundred years of economic assistance.
-- Yes, after we nearly fulfilled an all-out genocide on them, stole their land and broke treaties.

We paid Mexico for land we had won in a war
-- Right. Underpaid them after we 'liberated' it for democracy.


We liberated whole continents, turned them over to their people, and helped them rebuild.
-- What continent was that?

We went toe-to-toe with the Soviets.
-- Yes, but not alone, and not until after many thousands had already been murdered.

(We) brought down the Berlin Wall
-- Uh, I think the germans did that, not us.

(We) ended the Cold War
-- and traded it for a War on Everything.

When people want to be free, call on America and we are there
-- Uh, right. You mean like Tibet?

[sandnsea]

2. Conventional wisdom

You can disagree with it if you like, but it is the conventional wisdom in this country. We are Good. Therefore, even though we go to war illegaly, it will be okay in the end because our Goodness will make it so. It's also why people don't get too terribly worked up about what is happening in D.C. Americans are Good, Republicans are Americans, therefore Republicans will do Good too.

People want to know why there's no outrage, that's why.

[ixion]

4. I call that delusion, not conventional wisdom

The logic you describe is the same logic used by fanatics who bomb abortion clinics, or mothers who murder their children to send them home to heaven.

Just because people believe a delusion doesn't make it wisdom, and it doesn't make it right.

[sandnsea]

6. Gee, that's the point

People who do crazy things out of a sense of "goodness". BTW, I've heard plenty of people right here on DU who think it's a good idea to start a civil war due to the "goodness" that would result from taking the PNAC out.

[IrateCitizen]

3. The myth of American exceptionalism

That's what you've described, in a nutshell. America is good, so therefore if it flouts international law and breaks treaties, it's in the pursuit of a greater good and is therefore excused. However, if another country violates the letter of an international agreement, then it needs to be punished by the international community, and if the UN isn't up to the task the US will do it alone.

Did I just about get it right?

[ixion]

5. yep, that pretty much sums it up, although

I think you give too much credit to the US for upholding international law. We didn't invade Iraq because they had broken the letter and/or spirit of a treaty. We invaded a) because the chimpmeister is a sadistic little creep (IMO) and b) because they have oil that BushCo (mistakenly) though would be easy pickens.

Upholding international law had nothing to do with it.

[sandnsea]

7. That's exactly right

It isn't just the US, you can look back and find most wars are based on some phony concept of "goodness".