nightwing, you say America has no interest in ruling the world? heh heh... patriotic, aren't you? The truth is, America is too smart to want to actually conquer the world and have to be responsible for everything... no. America uses it's Economic and military power to get it's way, and get richer. Check out foreign trade policies sometime... America is an economic bully on an international scale. Military power, America makes the most fuss when smaller nations, even non-hostile ones, start researching new weaponry, or even old weaponry, like nuclear and poison gas and bio weapons. But you can bet your tax dollars are being spent on lots of the above, America just don't allow smaller nations to do it. So...
Am I patriotic? I like to think so, in the best possible sense. I'm very glad I live in a country where people of many races, religions and outlooks live together, for the most part, in peace. That is NOT something you could have said about Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iraq if you're unlucky enough to be a Kurd, or even in France if you're a Muslim living in the slums with no representation in the government.
I think the word "patriotism" has unfortunately become interchangeable with "jingoism" for too many people. I do
not believe in "my country right or wrong" and I'm certainly not proud of all the policies of administrations past and present with regards to international and internal affairs. But the fact that I can write that and not worry about the secret police knocking down my door is wonderful, and exceedingly rare. I may not agree with the anti-war protesters in the streets right now, but by gum I respect their right to protest, and with all the heated rhetoric flying around right now we should all stop and give thanks that we can even have such debates without fear of retribution from the government.
To other matters: whether America is a "bully" depends on how you define "America." I like to think of America as the citizenry, not the government. The worst I would accuse most Americans of -- and believe me, it's bad enough! -- is being uninformed and too often indifferent to what their government is doing. I like to think a majority of people in this country, regardless of their differences on assorted "hot button" issues, are united in their commitment to democratic principles, and in their desire to "live and let live" as a matter of foreign policy. Unfortunately they are also, as you say, pretty materialistic...and as a result, willing to turn a blind eye to whatever the government does abroad, as long as it keeps that money coming in.
In mongul's case, we were dealing with someone who killed every day of his life. And who enjoyed it. And showed no remorse after being defeated, in fact more driven to slaughter than ever. Still... I guess there is SOME truth in the "future possible crimes" thing, but...
Interestingly, John Byrne (of all people) dealt with this kind of issue in a Fantastic Four storyline. Galactus attacks the Earth for the umpeenth time and ends up near death. Reed Richards nurses him back to health and is later put on trial by assorted races from all over the Universe...in their eyes, he has become an accessory to genocide. Watching him explain himself was fascinating. This to me was the kind of story Byrne should have been writing for Superman.
As for the wiping out of planets and living with himself, that's my point exactly. To Superman, it's not about the result of his actions, it's his own peace of mind. If he had killed Mongul with his bare hands, he would have the memories plague him for the rest of his life. As it is, he more or less has forgotten the fact that mongul killing millions had anything to do with him. Or ignores the connection on purpose. "See, it has nothing to do with Superme, I'm still pure!"
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I can't accept that Superman is responsible for another being's crimes just because he refuses to commit one himself. Let's not forget here that Superman enjoys no official standing as a law officer. He is certainly not "licensed to kill." The SWAT team may have legal clearance to use deadly force, but as citizens, you and I and Superman do not, however right we may think our cause. (Okay, we may be exonerated for using deadly force if we or those around us are in immediate danger. But we can't kill someone because he's threatening someone down the street or across town, and certainly not because he "looks like a troublemaker" to us). Superman has made the personal decision not to kill even to save his own life, and he has
no right to kill on any other grounds. And as we have seen in every incarnation of the character, Superman does not consider himself above the law just because he's more powerful than the mortals who made them. I imagine he would have a hard time appointing himself judge, jury and executioner on no authority but his own. As well he should.
On the other hand, I have to disagree with lastkryptonianhere. I don't like the idea of killing used as a punishment. I see it more as a regretable action, but one that will prevent worse things in the future. I don't think Superman chose death by kryptonite because they deserved it, it was more because they pointed out to him that they WOULD somehow find a way to escape whatever jail or thing he put them in, and would destroy everything. Simply put, he didn't kill out of revenge or emotion or whatever, he killed cause he had NO CHOICE. This is what I'm trying to point out here. No matter how powerful you are, sometimes there's not that many options open to you.
It should be remembered that as Byrne constructed the story, Superman would have killed these guys just by leaving them behind. Through their own actions they had destroyed all life on the alternate Earth, and even ripped away the atmosphere. If Supes had simply left, they would likely have starved to death long before they could have figured out a way to restore their powers (something that was patently impossible anyway, under the rules of Gold Kryptonite). Pulling out the lethal Green K was about as "necessary" as shooting a drowning man.
As for terrorism... hmm, personally, I don't think killing terrorists is much of a deterrent in some cases. I mean, they're suicide bombers, they plan to go out in gory painful deaths. I really don't think that lethal injections are worse, but what do I know, I'm not a terrorist. Now, torturing them, that might inflict more than what they're willing to deal with, but I have to say that I REALLY don't approve of torture for any reason.
Well, if they're planning to die anyway then let's make sure they do it alone, and not with 3000 other people who had no intention of doing so. No, I don't think killing them is a "deterrent" in the sense that other terrorists will suddenly think, "Hey, wait a minute, I could get
killed doing this!" But when you've got a mad dog loose do you waste time threatening it with a beating, or do you just shoot it? The best we can hope for is to show terrorists that we will not take their crap lying down. For too many years we let them get away with things like the '93 WTC bombing, attacks on US and foreign embassies, and on our servicemen abroad, with only token reponses from us. We need to let them know that they've woken a sleeping lion, and that every bomb they set off will be answered by 100 from us.
Does that contradict how I said Superman should behave? Yep. But then I aint' Superman. :wink:
Poll
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM