(no subject)

[missroserose]

I'm reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense for my American Lit. class, and he was refuting the argument of how England united with the colonies would make a formidable force to "bid defiance to the world"; this particular paragraph caught my eye.

Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is the interest of Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders {emphasis mine}.

I find myself wondering if Our Fearless Leader was forced to read this in college, too...and if not, whether he might have given it some serious thought, and perhaps come to the presidency with an entirely different and more productive attitude...

...nah.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Here's a firestarter. The people killing our soldiers right now don't give a crap about commerce. As a result, trade cannot protect us. Let's see if I can kick up any flames with that. :>

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

The people killing our soldiers now don't care about commerce, true. However, if we had let them alone (i.e. not stuck our soldiers there in the first place) and focused more on domestic issues/commerce, said soldiers wouldn't be there in the first place.

[skellington.livejournal.com]

Iraq's problem is that they AREN'T barren of (black) gold. So the new dominant power (the US, instead of Europe) has a strong interest in invading them.

[rapier.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I entirely believe this, but it's something to think about: What if the American attitude towards commerce is exactly what put us in this position? Western (and specifically American) enterprises make a great deal of money around the world. Wealth breeds decadence and complacency among the wealthy; it also breeds resentment and violence among the poor.

What causes terrorism? No pat answer there, but some of the factors would be poverty, perception of disenfranchisement and alienation, and delusions of persecution. Looking back, it should not come as much of a surprise that terrorism happens in major Western urban centers.

I don't believe the president chose the right course of action in response to the terrorist attacks in 2001, but that's the choice he made. I'm not even sure that war in Iraq has anything at all to do with terrorism at home, but it doesn't much matter what I think. He's the one with the oval-shaped office, and his perceptions of things create the reality we live in. Even if the president chose to focus more on commerce than on "setting the world at defiance," the environment that makes horrific terrorist attacks possible and even likely would still be here. And as long as that environment exists and we have the sort of leadership we have, we will continue to send soldiers abroad to fight and die.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

That last paragraph really struck a chord with me. One of my favorite subjects to ruminate on is the question of whether there is such a thing as objective reality, when the only way it can be perceived is through human interpretation (which can vary widely from person to person). This seems to be a flaw inherent in human nature - we prefer to follow leaders rather than think for ourselves, and often will suspend our perception of what's real in exchange for theirs.

You also brought up some interesting points about American decadence. However, as a previous poster pointed out, Iraq has something we need, and instead of trying to lessen our dependence on it (which, quite frankly, would be a much better long-term solution) we're big enough and powerful enough to just go in and take it. The fact that we did so is really sort of sad, and says a lot about how power corrupts. Chances are, we won't be the biggest and the strongest forever, and if the rest of the world has the same attitude towards us then as it does now, then God help us.

[rapier.livejournal.com]

Heh, I too love the question about objectivity. The funny thing is, we can ruminate all day long on the existence of objective reality, but we wouldn't get anywhere. If there is an objective reality, it's independent of us and wouldn't be affected by our ruminating. If there isn't, then what could we possibly do with that information, other than do our best to shape our own realities to our liking?

I agree with your assessment about lessening our dependence on Iraq's natural resources, and I totally hear you about how we're powerful enough to go in and just take it. It's really too bad, but again, what can we do? We're two voters out of a nation of hundreds of millions. Even the organized efforts that oppose war are too disjointed and lack any semblance of unity. I'm dismayed at how the rest of the world views us. One of my favorite t-shirts to wear is the "We Are Not All Jerks" one (which you can find here. I'm concerned at our country's place in the world twenty years from now.