View Single Post
Old 05-17-2008, 02:53 AM   #273 (permalink)
PursuitOfHappinessParty
BigPictureist
Points: 12,894, Level: 74 Points: 12,894, Level: 74 Points: 12,894, Level: 74
Activity: 54% Activity: 54% Activity: 54%
 
PursuitOfHappinessParty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth
Posts: 4,572
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 217
Thanked 185 Times in 143 Posts
PursuitOfHappinessParty is a spectacular PG memberPursuitOfHappinessParty is a spectacular PG member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana View Post
True, the history of mankind is a list of shifting borders. My real point here is that if our positions on national expansion are to mean anything, they need to be consistent. We should apply the same standard to every government dispassionately. The idea that the American government is somehow special or different is really at the heart of not only this debate, but also debates about the Iraq War and our current foreign policy. What is Bush's global democratic revolution but Manifest Destiny applied to the world stage?
Agreed.
It is, however, my opinion that you have to give nations that expanded in earlier times more of a break. To compare current day scenarios (with technology, information exchange, globalization,and settled borders) with modern governments to expansionism by earlier nations over indigenous tribal populations isn't realistic. The human race (as a whole) has come along ways since the late 1700s.

Rome's conquerings led to unprecedented peace and prosperity. Laws, aquaducts, roads, and education flourished where it wouldn't have before. Native Americans wouldn't have created the technology we see today, IMHO. Its not a justification as much as an acceptence of the reality of the situation.

Invading Iraq just doesn't compare.
__________________
" Tie two birds together and though they have four wings they cannot fly " Blind Master in 'Circle Of Iron'
PursuitOfHappinessParty is offline   Top