To Oppress or not to Oppress

[Lucky Luciano]

Poll question: To Oppress or not to Oppress

The US is the sole remaining superpower today. Part of being a superpower is the inevitable ugly fact that others will be oppressed under the hegemony of a superpower. If the US were not a superpower, then some other country would be and they would be the oppressors (England, France, Spain, China, Japan, etc etc ect). The wealthy allies of the superpowers tend to be oppressors as well, so we are stuck with the reality that people are either oppressors or they are oppressed. Perhaps some day in the distant future, another reality can be formed where success is not based on oppressing others, but we are not there yet. So, given my idea that you either oppress (We all oppress by default living in our luxury - remember only 8% of the world even has a bed with a mattress for example - or the fact that invariably most of us have bought goods that were made off the sweat of others that were oppressed and far far poorer than we) or are oppressed which would you prefer given a choice.

[MisterP]

1. false dichotomy--we can have mattresses without supporing death squads

Kissinger & Co. claim that our "way of life" mandates "some" degree of oppression, but we can support our lifestyle with much less resource consumption and no oil/hegemony/scare wars. It just takes some doing, which the current political generation--complicit or cowardly--refuses to even acknowledge as a possibility.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. I am not sure if your statement is correct.

All superpowers maintained control ruthlessly if I am not mistaken. To give up the ruthlessness might invite another to become ruthless and overtake the superpower. I think there are a lot of nuances here and this is a pretty difficult question to answer - could be a PhD thesis maybe rather than my obviosu oversimplification.

[MisterP]

8. we can have a multipolar world: the U.S. can do good internat.police work,

but abolishing ruthless-superpower status does not mean that China or Iran will take over.

[Lucky Luciano]

10. Well Iran of course is no threat to become a ruthless superpower,

but China could with their large population, nuclear capabilities, large standing army, general xenophobia, and rapidly expanding economy. Ya never know what they could be capable of.

I would be incredibly impressed if it did not come down to Kissinger being right. It would probably be the singularly most advanced thing that modern man could do to disprove Kissinger and have the world live entirely in harmony free of oppression.

With b*sh in charge, this of course will not happen and there will be regression.

[Darranar]

3. Why?

The existence of a superpower does not mandate oppression and the lack of a particular superpower does not mandate the existence of some other one. Power does not have to be concentrated.

[Lucky Luciano]

4. The entire history of the civilized world has always had

powers concentrated in the large empires/superpowers. You are saying that power does not have to be concentrated, but this goes against my premise that we should answer this question based on the realism of today and any time in the near future. I did suggest that maybe in the distant future your idealistic vision might be achieved, but right now it is not reality. Power is and always will be concentrated during our lifetime.

If there exists a superpower, is it possible to be 100% benevolent and retain superpower status?

Once superpower status is achieved, should a superpower do everything that it can to hold on to that power or should they allow a competitor that is vying to takeover superpower status have the power?

If a superpower decided to be 100% beneveloent would there be any way of doing this while fending off potential competitors for superpower status that may not be benevloent?

I could continue asking questions.....

[Eloriel]

5. Other: I reject your premise. Utterly.

And in fact, I find it offensive and appalling. It's freeper mindset.

If the US were not a superpower, then some other country would be and they would be the oppressors (England, France, Spain, China, Japan, etc etc ect).

I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain what's wrong with your premise. I have a feeling it would fall on deaf ears.

[Lucky Luciano]

6. oh well,

I would have appreciated a response.....

Have there been any benevolent superpowers in the history of the world that the US could emulate? This is what I really want to know.

[Lucky Luciano]

7. Ok, I even had a b*sh supporter respond to this on another MB.

He said he despises oppression basically and that his choice would have been other as well as he would choose "3) Democracy and freedom is the best course of action for humanity."

My response - and I guess I baited him well -

Does this mean that you truly believe the US has always been a 100% benevolent superpower??? You saw Kissinger's statement in my original post, right? Kissinger's philosophy is the republican one and I have no doubt that bush considers it part of his doctrine and yet you support bush steadfastly. Could this mean that bush has sold you on being all about democracy and freedom while he simultaneously goes along with the Kissinger phliosophy that runs contradictory to your choice #3?

[MisterP]

9. well, aren't you then accepting Kissinger's theses then?

he says we can't help but be brutal oppressors if we don't want to be oppressed, you say we can't help but be brutal oppressors if we don't want to be oppressed