Blind Anti-Americanism. What's it good for, y'all?

[Wooz]

Oz, you're forgetting that while the people that support the war believe in helping other countries to overthrow dictature, the guys in the government are the same ones that enforced it fifteen years ago.

Concerning the anti-bush and anti-war protests, I'm certain the US had tons more than Poland, in the end it's your president, and its population exceeds by large Poland's, not to mention you never had an opressive dicatatorship in which protesting meant suicide ( until now )

BTW, if you'd really want to free the world from harsh dictatorship via military action, supposing it would work, you'd start with Brunei. Then China, Iran, North Korea. Did I forget about Pakistan?
Guess they're just good dictators. Oh, and who cares if North Korea admitted openly to have a nuclear program running?

In my opinion, you can't fight dictatorship only via military action, you must have a huge majority of the given country's people to back up the next government.What happened/happens in Iraq reminds me not of the nazi invasion of eastern Europe, but the "liberation" by the Soviets in 1944.

Claiming that what the majrity of the people say is irrelevant and what really matters is the official issue, you reject the basis of a democratic system. The official part is what it is *in theory* because the people chose it to be so. And if they can't change opinions and overthrow the current policies concerning i.e. a war, and therefor change the "official" status, I'd call it a dictatorship.

 

[Michael]

free the world from harsh dictatorship via military action

LoL!
That there is called an oxymoron.

 

[Michael]

However, claiming that:

1.)Chinese eat their own people

They do!!! Why, just the other day I was watching this video of a chinese girl eating this other chinese girl, then the girl who was getting eaten put on this huge strapon and.... uh.... excuse me....


Hey Ozrat, the only reason that I can think of that you put up with reading all that crap was that you had hopes of boning that girl. Tell me I'm wrong.

ps, why do you call yourself Ozrat if you aren't from Oz?

 

[Sander]

Gerhard Schroeder wonn the chancellory of Germany, in part because of his anti-American platform. In appealing to the hatred of the people, Gerhard is doing a very similar thing to what Hitler said concerning the Jews. Not only that, but Schroeder is of the Teutonic people, and Hitler is of the Teutonic people! OH NO! SCHROEDER IS HITLER!

Hitler was also a brilliant public speaker. Does that make a charismatic statesman like Clinton the next Hitler? I hope not.

Now you're turning things around. You shouldn't look at the way someone gets to power(if it's democratic, that is, not if it's by force), but at what a person does. Which is why Bush is like Hitler in some aspects(Nationalism(Patriotism), invading other countries, trying to pass inequality laws(Homosexual marriage for instance)), but not HIM.

 

[Bradylama]

Running a campaign based on Anti-Americanism is what Schroeder did. -_o

My point is that you can't compare one person to Hitler, because there are lots of people that have Hitler-esque qualities. Its pointless and stupid.

Claiming that what the majrity of the people say is irrelevant and what really matters is the official issue, you reject the basis of a democratic system. The official part is what it is *in theory* because the people chose it to be so.

You also fail to realize that Democracy is a worse system than Communism because the people are inherently stupid. The Constitutional Republic is the closest thing to individual freedom any country can get, so why does everyone keep shouting Democracy? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom, it guarantees majority rule.

 

[Michael]

Actually, the funny thing about the whole Iraq thing is that I think they should have done what they just did 10 years ago when Bush senior was in power. Originally they gave Saddam two weeks to comply with the weapons inspection requirements. Somehow that extended out to 10 years. Gee, I wonder why they didn't find anything?

And always remember, the reason the American Government knows that Iraq had chemical weapons was because they gave them to him.

cuz sweet!

 

[welsh]

Just a quick response to some of these comments-

About the US giving chemical weapons to the Iraqis- I'd like to see more evidence of that. I think that the Iraqis were buying from multiple sources.

About comparisons to Hitler/ Facism. I think as Gwydion points out that we have to be careful in making our comparisons. To say someone is like Hitler is a pretty broad statement, but its also an emotional statement. To over use it is to weaken the idea's power and specificity. Other terms might be more useful and more accurate.

As for as US defensiveness- yes, Americans are pretty defensive by nature when they are criticisized from abroad. In this sense Americans are pretty family orientated. They don't mind criticisizing each other as they might within a family, but have little patience with people outside of the family talking shit about their family members. It's not so much nationalism, or even patriotism. But there is also a sense among many Americans that "we're the good guys" and "we've done better for much of the world than anyone else has." To some extent, both statements are, in my opinion true.

The problem for Americans is that sometimes those abroad have good and valid points. They also fail sometimes to see that "being a good guy or bad guy" has more to do with what you do, than what you've done. That respect is not something to be taken for granted but has to be earned.

However, for a lot of countries to talk badly about the US is also troubling. Few countries are as critical about themselves as they are about the US, and there is often an expectation that Americans should follow a higher moral principle than other countries (including their own). THere is a sense that non-Americans can rag on the US because the US is the big guy. Fair enough, but how many of the other countries are without sin?

I think that part of the Iraq events points to that. A lot of other countries will bitch and moan when the US intervenes, and then when the US doesn't intervene it gets shit- Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Liberia. When the US does intervene and other countriesm, everyone looks to the US as a big bully although many of you will benefit in the end.

There is also a curious issue of "if you were in our shoes would you have done better," Most Americans would think "probably not, and probably you would have done worse- or at least that's what hte historical record says." Look to France as an example (but no one bitches about that- funny).

And then there is the sense that it's easy to protest. For example lots of folks protested for peace before and during the war. Great. Frankly I think its a wonderful thing that people could express that opinion. But the thing is when it comes to actually doing something for the Iraqi people, suddently all the protestors disappear or they say, "It's not my fucking problem, or I can't really do anything."

Bullshit.

All talk, no action.

And you wonder why you get so little respect from the US.

 

[Sander]

My point is that you can't compare one person to Hitler, because there are lots of people that have Hitler-esque qualities. Its pointless and stupid.

And my point is that you can, as long as you mention that he isn't Hitler, and only has a few points in common with the man. By your reasoning you couldn't compare anyone to anyone, since everyone is different.

You also fail to realize that Democracy is a worse system than Communism because the people are inherently stupid. The Constitutional Republic is the closest thing to individual freedom any country can get, so why does everyone keep shouting Democracy? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom, it guarantees majority rule.

COnstitutional Republic isn't freedom either. In fact, freedom isn't guaranteed at all by a form of democracy. Look at the PATRIOT act, for instance. It was passed in a republic(No, not a democracy, there are no true democracies in the world(Although Switzerland is rather close)). And Hitler came to power in a Republic as well. Freedom for governments is just something to keep the public happy. While they do give freedoms, it has nothing to do with the government, while more freedom is currently linked with more democratic countries, that doesn't mean that it automatically belongs with democratic countries.

Oh, and communism is worse than democracy, because people will do as little as possible under communism, because they don't gain anything from working harder. Thus, the downfall of communism is also it's strength: the people.

But you can't compare communism to democracy, because democracy is a government form, and communism an economic model(Altough it has to be quite intricately involved in the government). It is communism vs. capitalism, and democracy vs. dictatorship.

 

[Bradylama]

Communism is a totalitarian political structure combined with a Socialist economic model.

And I said a Contitutional Republic was the CLOSEST thing.

 

[Azael]

As for as US defensiveness- yes, Americans are pretty defensive by nature when they are criticisized from abroad. In this sense Americans are pretty family orientated. They don't mind criticisizing each other as they might within a family, but have little patience with people outside of the family talking shit about their family members. It's not so much nationalism, or even patriotism. But there is also a sense among many Americans that "we're the good guys" and "we've done better for much of the world than anyone else has." To some extent, both statements are, in my opinion true.

The problem here is that the U.S., while having done a lot of good things, also have done a lot of bad things. Some of your policies in South America comes to mind, as do actions performed during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts. "Better" is also a very relative term to use, as well as "doing more than anyone else". Should you do a per capita count when it comes to foreign aid, USA doesn't rate in the top any longer.

I think that part of the Iraq events points to that. A lot of other countries will bitch and moan when the US intervenes, and then when the US doesn't intervene it gets shit- Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Liberia. When the US does intervene and other countriesm, everyone looks to the US as a big bully although many of you will benefit in the end.

There is also a curious issue of "if you were in our shoes would you have done better," Most Americans would think "probably not, and probably you would have done worse- or at least that's what hte historical record says." Look to France as an example (but no one bitches about that- funny).

Actually, a lot of people bitch about the French. Just look at the Algerians. Hell, just look at the EU, where the French are (rightfully) held responsible for many things wrong with the system, especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies. I personally loathe Chirac. You Americans bitch about them plenty as well

The "what would you do if you were in our shoes?" question also is quite irrelevant if you ask me, since we aren't. USA is the only super-power in the world at the moment, and like it or not, that title comes with a pretty large responsibility. If you want others to follow your example, than you should be more careful about what direction you are taking. If you instead want to be the world's cop, then perhaps you should rethink some of your current alliances especially considering the "War on Terror" (re: Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, also the native land of Osama himself) and also start to worry about what kind of law it is you are trying to uphold.

When it comes to the Iraq issue, I honestly don't have an issue with you removing Saddam, the man was a scumbag, but I do have a problem with the way it was done (and so should you). Had Rumsfeldt and his neo-conservative cronies been upfront from the start "Look, Saddam is scum, he's a menace to his people and frankly the world is going to better without him", I'd have little problem with it all, but the whole WoMD debacle is embarassing plain and simple. Why not be consistent about it in that case and declare the entire Middle East a WoMD free zone? Oh yes, I forgot, Israel, the Teflon-country.

 

[Ozrat]

Wooz, you're assuming that I support the war and I already said a few times here that I don't. Yes, Iraq wasn't the only country to be under a suppressive dictatorship, but that wans't my point at all.

And how many times do I have to say that I wasn't trying to get into her pants!?

You can find out how I choose my name here.

Okay, sorry to interupt the good debate going on here. I just had to answer a couple of questions at the top of the page. You guys can resume your discussion.

 

[welsh]

Ozrat- I don't think anyone is buying that you were engaged in that discussion for "pure motives." Somewhere in that head of yours you were thinking about corrupting that empty headed (not quite) innocent.

As for as US defensiveness- yes. But there is also a sense among many Americans that "we're the good guys" and "we've done better for much of the world than anyone else has." To some extent, both statements are, in my opinion true.

The problem here is that the U.S., while having done a lot of good things, also have done a lot of bad things. Some of your policies in South America comes to mind, as do actions performed during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts. "Better" is also a very relative term to use, as well as "doing more than anyone else". Should you do a per capita count when it comes to foreign aid, USA doesn't rate in the top any longer.

You'll get little argument from me on this. The US has done a lot of really crappy things in a lot of places. More or less than other great powers- that's a debateable point. The thing is that alot of Americans respond to this instinctively and reflexively. I know I do so more than I wish.

Americans don't like being the whipping boy. But sometimes they need to look at themselves in the mirror.

This is an important thing for Americans. We should be proud of our country, what it does and what it stands for. But we should be equally capable of criticize our country for the things we think are morally reprehensible. More often than not, we know it, even if we don't really want to talk about it- but even in this country the discussion of our "dirty laundry" is rather loud. Many people within the US criticize the US for its policies in Korea, Vietnam, South America and most corners of the world.

That said there is often a double standard. Take Korea, people will criticize the US for riots in POW camps. But they won't say that the Korean insiders started those riots knowing that the US would respond violently. They don't talk about the AMerican POWs that were murdered by the Koreans and Chinese. The US is held to a higher standard. Same could be said for Vietnam where people will emphasize US atrocities but not look at the other side. As for South America, yes, lots of dirty politics there too. But many of those countries had been dirty a long time before the US showed up.

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But politics is a dirty business, dirtier than I think most Americans are aware of. But also more dirty that most critics acknowledge or fairly represent.

You are also right that the US donations in foreign aid have gone down. The US still contributes a lot. My criticisms of this are more qualitiative. But be careful, such aid packages are often hard to measure.

There is also a curious issue of "if you were in our shoes would you have done better," Most Americans would think "probably not, and probably you would have done worse- or at least that's what hte historical record says." Look to France as an example (but no one bitches about that- funny).

Actually, a lot of people bitch about the French. Just look at the Algerians. Hell, just look at the EU, where the French are (rightfully) held responsible for many things wrong with the system, especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies. I personally loathe Chirac. You Americans bitch about them plenty as well [/quote]

Yes, the bitching against France is currently more about their defiance of US in the Security Council. They did it for their own political reasons and not because they are more moral. Happily France's own ambitions is a problem that the Europeans will have to deal and hopefully the US will keep out of it. Personally, I love the French.

But regarding the agricultural subsidies, I would expect that few Americans are even aware of that issue at all.

The "what would you do if you were in our shoes?" question also is quite irrelevant if you ask me, since we aren't. USA is the only super-power in the world at the moment, and like it or not, that title comes with a pretty large responsibility.

Regretfully, not as much responsibility as you like. Thucydides said, this is a bad paraphrase, in the Pelopponesian War that the Strong do what they will and the weak do what they can. The US interest is really to look out for the US. That is the responsibility of the State in the US. Not to look out for the morals of the world or even to favor a better world.

Ideally it should be and I think there is something to be said as being in the American interests. There is much the US derives for making a better and safer and more just and moral world. But that is not, per se, its responsibility. There are natural obligations if one wishes to be a global hegemon, but moral responsibility to foreign citizens is not one of them.

If you want others to follow your example, than you should be more careful about what direction you are taking. If you instead want to be the world's cop, then perhaps you should rethink some of your current alliances especially considering the "War on Terror" (re: Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, also the native land of Osama himself) and also start to worry about what kind of law it is you are trying to uphold.

Again, politics is a dirty business. The US choses its allies based on what it perceives as the national security interests of the US. Some allies are difficult ones (like the French sometimes, or the Saudis) and some enemies are easier to deal with (Afghanistan and Iraq compared to S.Korea).

But I would also agree that there are principles that the US should strive to uphold and champion. There is a matter of reputation and prestige that go beyond national security interests or economic interests.

As for being the world cop, no I don't support that. The US has played that role either in default or because the US finds interests in a more secure and peaceful world- which is better for commerce. Going beyond that interest risks danger.

When it comes to the Iraq issue, I honestly don't have an issue with you removing Saddam, the man was a scumbag, but I do have a problem with the way it was done (and so should you). Had Rumsfeldt and his neo-conservative cronies been upfront from the start "Look, Saddam is scum, he's a menace to his people and frankly the world is going to better without him", I'd have little problem with it all, but the whole WoMD debacle is embarassing plain and simple. Why not be consistent about it in that case and declare the entire Middle East a WoMD free zone? Oh yes, I forgot, Israel, the Teflon-country.

Don't get me started with Israel. As for declaring the Middle East a WOMD free zone, yes, except the US parks its B-52's, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers in that region, so I doubt you'd get much support. Also nuclear weapons were part of the Carter Doctrine for keeping the Soviets out of the middle east after they invaded Afghanistan, so I doubt the US would drop that policy soon.

But I also agree with you on Saddam. I am glad that dirt bag is gone. But I am not convinced the US did it well nor is the aftermath the way it should be played out.

The problem in the US has much to do with 9/11. The US were made fearful, were attacked, and thus responded with power. It's happened before, and it will probably happen again. The problem was that it was difficult to figure out who to lash out at. More importantly, Americans felt fearful and in times like this, looked to the president for leadership. This has been a recurring theme. This president grabbed that power that came with the fear, played up the fear, and has continued to use that to make his policies. That's troubling.

Happily that kind of criticism has a great tradition in the US. So the debates are still on.

 

[Gwydion]

(Homosexual marriage for instance))

The homosexual marriage thing was actually a Texas state law. From what I understand, it was an old law that generally wasn't enforced. Dubya didn't have anything to do with that.

 

[Sander]

The homosexual marriage thing was actually a Texas state law. From what I understand, it was an old law that generally wasn't enforced. Dubya didn't have anything to do with that.

I remember seeing him with statements about homosexual marriage, that it should be outlawed etc., as a president. But, I could be wrong. Meh.


Welsh:
You know what I find disturbing? That you have been using "politics is a dirty business" as an EXCUSE in the past debates. While I understand that it IS a dirty business, using it to say that something is acceptable(which is essentially what you have been doing), is NOT how it should work. Yes, politics IS a dirty business, but it should not be. And because it should not be, you cannot use an argument like that to say that it is acceptable.
Now, politics work like that, BUT currently, the US can actually change that. They are the lone superpower in the world, and when they start acting morally instead of economically you might see better things than these stupid politics right now. You might actually see a decline of terrorist attacks if the USA starts acting like a morally responsible entity, which helps countries, including the Arabic countries.

Bah....

 

[Bradylama]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When somebody reaches the top, they're only going to be looking out for #1. I don't mean to sound so cynical here Sander, but as much as we'd all like for politics to not be dirty business, it always will be and there's no way to change it.

All one can do is ask himself whether or not he or she is better off now than they were in the past.

 

[welsh]

[Welsh:
You know what I find disturbing? That you have been using "politics is a dirty business" as an EXCUSE in the past debates. While I understand that it IS a dirty business, using it to say that something is acceptable(which is essentially what you have been doing), is NOT how it should work. Yes, politics IS a dirty business, but it should not be. And because it should not be, you cannot use an argument like that to say that it is acceptable.

Now, politics work like that, BUT currently, the US can actually change that. They are the lone superpower in the world, and when they start acting morally instead of economically you might see better things than these stupid politics right now. You might actually see a decline of terrorist attacks if the USA starts acting like a morally responsible entity, which helps countries, including the Arabic countries. Bah....

Sander- my point about the "dirty nature of politics" is not a normative one. I am not advocating that this should be true, only that it is true.

I also would like to say that I am not excusing the US, but I am trying to explain it. Is it acceptable? Well that depends on who you are and you're are right if you feel its morally reprehensible. In the US those who find that the way that politics is conducted should vote their conscience.

But I would suggest that one be careful. The US played a very low role in the world until the turn of the 20th Century when leaders like McKinley and T. Roosevelt wanted the US to be more activist in the world but not to be overwhelming either (thus Roosevelt coins "Walk softly but carry a big stick" as the maxim of US foreign policy). It is Wilson and his 14 Points that makes the big move towards a more moral foreign policy. The consequence of this is that he gets laughed at during the Versailles Conference ending World War 1 by European world leaders who were playing the "dirty politics" of real politics.

Remember if the US is guilty of dirty politics we learned it from the Europeans.

Anyway, it's Wilson's 14 Points that play a key role in the creation of political institutions, democratic peace, disarmament, self-recognition, international cooperation and the nature of diplomacy we see today.

See-
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/14points.html

Likewise it was the frustration with the real political world that kept the US largely out of international politics and isolationist until the Second World War drags the US back into it. Afterwhich, taking advantage of the weakness of former great powers, the US pushed not only for more international cooperation (throught the UN) and a more cooperative international economy (through the World Bank institutions) but also favored decolonization, even if it worked against the interest of our allies.

But it was the Cold War, the threat of the Soviets from dominating Europe, that brought the US back into the world to confront yet another European threat, but this time with a global range of responses and commitments.

You ask the average American and they will tell you that the best thing for the US would be to stay out of world politics, and if they should manage to screw each other (as the historical record indicates) well that's their own freaking problem. But the consequences of that has been two world wars and had the US kept itself out of politics, probably a Soviet dominated Europe.

Marx makes an argument about the moral capitalist. Here is a capitalist who, out of his good nature, tries to be good to his workers. The problem with this is that the better he is to his workers, the more his capitalist competitors do better and the more likely he is to go out of business.

This is one of the strengths of Marx, to recognize that the structure of conditions in which individuals act may constrained their choice, even their moral choices. We can translate that to politics- one who is in power is almost constrained by the nature of politics to play according to the rules of the structure. It is also a rule of politics and economics, that individual who act irrationality, in otherwords in contrast to their own self-interest, are bound to suffer in the long run. So its all high and mighty of you and others to advocate that the US desert its own self interest for the benefit of others, but that's because you have only to gain and the US only to lose.

So the US played a dirty political game, assassinating leaders in countries, overthrowing governments that seemed to contradict US interests, supporting ruthless tyrants that supported our cause and then deposed them when it fit our interests. We have established an international political economy that has served our interests while also serving the interests of Europe, Japan, China and every other country that has been able to industrialized. Sometimes we intervene for humantiarian reasons, sometimes we don't. We have fought and deployed soldiers, placed them in harms way, to prevent further war in Europe. We have spent billions on a nuclear umbrella to deter possible invasion of your home Sander.

Has it served our interests, sure. Did it serve yours, sure.

That said, the US is constrained in what it does but its democratic institutions. Americans do have a conscience. They don't like to be the bad guys, they don't like to do bad, and frankly, they are less interested in helping out major economic interested if it runs against their moral choices. This is why virtually every president since Wilson has adopted, to some extent, a Wilsonian approach to international diplomacy ( even if they actually act more like a Theodore Roosevelt). Notable exceptions- Reagan (whose leadership helped lead to the end of the Cold War by threatening to reignite the Cold War and pushing the Soviets hard for concessions) and Nixon (who manages to make peace with the Chinese and thus allow the US to pull back from Vietnam- but only after threatening to expand the war if they should walk out of negotiations).

As for the terrorist attacks, yes, maybe the US would do better by being generous to the world and not looking out for only its interests. But lets be honest, the US doesn't just look out for its own interests. As I mentioned earlier, a policy towards stable democracy in the middle east and a central asia that exports west rather than east benefits the Europeans as well as the US. Except for this president, the US has been a leader in improving human rights, in environmental protection, and in the spread of democratic institutions. Would the terrorists still hit us, maybe. Maybe not. Europe has been hit repeatedly by terrorists, much more than the US, and yet it seems to protray itself as a benign power.

Except for the 9/11 attack, the average american had more risk of dieing from a bee sting than a terrorist strike.

If you think that the US policy in Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction or about terrorism, you are mistaken. It's about oil and oil security.

Has the US been a moral power, generally yes. More so than just about any other power that has crossed the span of history. More so than any European power.

Perfect record, no. Lots of things to be ashamed of, yes. Better than most, you bet.

Am I happy about all this administration's done. No. I still want Osama Bin Laden to burn in hell, be retreaved and burned again.
And I want Sadam Hussein to be permanently put into the ground. That this has not happened yet is greatly disappointing to me.

I hope that the current policies of the US are an unusual response in part due to the unilateral nature of our president and the fear created in the aftermath of 9/11.

But at the same time I really wish that those of you bitch and moan about how bad the US is doing and how it creates such a terrible job would get off your ass and do something to make it a better world. WHich is probably another reason why Americans have such little respect for people who criticize us. It's an old american saying, talk is cheap.

 

[Michael]

About the US giving chemical weapons to the Iraqis- I'd like to see more evidence of that. I think that the Iraqis were buying from multiple sources.

Not only multiple sources (German companies, British supplied factories, US chemical and pharmaceutical companies etc), but also not specifically for chemical and biological weapons. Not only that, but is is possable that it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds and not the Iraqis.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html[/url]]This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. . . .

The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

And the reason that everybody hates America is because America gave us what six or seven Police Acadamy movies? Bastards...

The funny thing about Americans is that Australians have a general joke on them that we play on them. Whenever we run into them abroad we have to convince them that we have Kangaroos and other wildlife streaming down the main streets of cities. That we ride Kangaroos to school as kids and that wrestling crocodiles is a national past time. It really is surprising how many actually believe us. The Simpsons episode in Australia is a pefect example of how so many Americans seem to see us. No other country seems to have this view of us, only the US.[/url]

 

[Sander]

When somebody reaches the top, they're only going to be looking out for #1. I don't mean to sound so cynical here Sander, but as much as we'd all like for politics to not be dirty business, it always will be and there's no way to change it.

I know. But I don't like it, and I have large problems with it. That's basically what I am saying. That people do, but SHOULD NOT do that.

Well, welsh, I have little to add or amend to what you have said, except for the following(please don't make me go quote-crazy on that huge post of yours )

Okay, first of all, I noticed that there is a tendency to excuse the USA of their behaviour within your post, because other countries are doing worse. This, ofcourse, is not a decent argument. Other countries may have done worse, but that doesn't mean that you should not do better.

The second thing is that you mentioned the fact that the USA has saved countries before. And it has, which is good, BUT when you point to the past and say "Hey, look, we're not bad, we did that." then you are being arrogant. A lot of countries can claim to have done good things, but this doesn't make them good right now. Of course, you already said that before.

Now, another thing you say is that a lot of presidents have done good things. ANd they have, but the current president is the one in power, and he is the one who is messing things up(in my opinion). So with the way things are handled by the USA now, things should change, more money, and more support, for "lesser" countries should come, ESPECIALLY the countries in the middle-east. WITHOUT trying to politically influence such a country.

The last part of your post is a bit more interesting. YOu claim that those that bitch and moan should do something about it, but the problem is, that for any person, the means to do anything about politics is limited. Yes, one could join a party, but that can take up a lot of time, without actually bringing out any results. Furthermore, there are always action-groups around, one could go protesting(Which I would have done, were it not for the fact that I couldn't really get anywhere to those protests), however, one cannot change anything directly if one is not in power. If someone CAN change something, THEN it is the time to say that they should not bitch and moan, but do something. But if someone cannot, then you should not say they should.
So, talk is cheap, but actions can be nigh impossible. Oh, and talk does solve things, by having discussions like this on the internet, you do change people's minds. Usually not the minds of the debaters themselves, but bystanders. POrobably the first debate I was in, was about Iraq. And apparently, I had changed a patriottic American's mind from pro-war to anti-war. Heh.

 

[Brother None]

Sander- my point about the "dirty nature of politics" is not a normative one. I am not advocating that this should be true, only that it is true.

Must...not...can't...resists...Aaargh!

"How Machiavellian"

There, I did it. Phew.

Marx makes an argument about the moral capitalist. Here is a capitalist who, out of his good nature, tries to be good to his workers. The problem with this is that the better he is to his workers, the more his capitalist competitors do better and the more likely he is to go out of business.

This is one of the strengths of Marx, to recognize that the structure of conditions in which individuals act may constrained their choice, even their moral choices. We can translate that to politics- one who is in power is almost constrained by the nature of politics to play according to the rules of the structure. It is also a rule of politics and economics, that individual who act irrationality, in otherwords in contrast to their own self-interest, are bound to suffer in the long run. So its all high and mighty of you and others to advocate that the US desert its own self interest for the benefit of others, but that's because you have only to gain and the US only to lose.

If we're going to play the situationst game, I wonder why you aren't looking at "the other side of the coin" (so to speak).

Is the US a world marvel, built on its own ideals and moral codes? No. Everything you are is inherited from Europe, the foundation of the policies of the US, national or international, stem from liberal ideas conceived in Europe between the Renaissance, when individualism first sprouted, to the Enlightenment.

The US is a result of its age at least as much as it is a determining factor in it. i.e. "if it hadn't been the US, it'd be some other country". You shouldn't put too much pride in what the US is in the world at the moment, despite a natural tendency towards this.

But allow me to retrace my steps a bit and be honest: such a statement when taken straight on is as unfortunate as the historical "Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it."

But that's not to deny both statements contain a core of truth. Europe did lay the egg. The US did hatch it. This is something you should be proud of, but you shouldn't paint of the US as a solitary hero standing against the onslaught of outside evil.

As for the terrorist attacks, yes, maybe the US would do better by being generous to the world and not looking out for only its interests. But lets be honest, the US doesn't just look out for its own interests. As I mentioned earlier, a policy towards stable democracy in the middle east and a central asia that exports west rather than east benefits the Europeans as well as the US. Except for this president, the US has been a leader in improving human rights, in environmental protection, and in the spread of democratic institutions. Would the terrorists still hit us, maybe. Maybe not. Europe has been hit repeatedly by terrorists, much more than the US, and yet it seems to protray itself as a benign power.

This still leaves me bedazzled, welsh, the fact that you can look at the world as so black-and-white. What do you see when you think of Europe? A bunch of Ivan Groznies walking around?

"Oh, Europe's been hit more by terrorists than the US, this must prove, beyond a doubt, that the US is more benign and more acceptant of muslim cultures".

Let me just make a list of statements here:

1. As for "muslim fundamentalism"; Europe has been in direct contact with muslims basically since the founding of the religion. This is almost 1400 years of common history. During the Ottoman empire and before, muslim hold reached far into southern Europe; Spain, Greece, Hungary, Russia, Meditteranean islands. A lot of this foothold has only been relinquished a hundred years back. In the meantime, Europe and "the islamic world" shared a long history of religious warfare, though also of political interraction.

Can the US "boast" such a history? I think not, how much *direct* contact with the muslim world has the US had since 1493? None. Muslim invasions? Never. In other words, they simply had no reason to care until the US got internationally involved. Didn't it occur to you that that might be part of the shift of terrorist violence? You simply left them alone, so they did the same. Before the Gulf War, how did the US get involved in the muslim world, more so than Europe?

2. "Terrorists"...Now there's an interesting term in the first place. Are the bombings in Spain the work of terrorists or freedom fighters? How about the IRA? How about Tzechna?

3. You can't really deny that, leaving aside which system works "better", the systems of integration shared by most EU-countries force people to adapt their beliefs to a much lesser degree than the American system, which forces immigrants to adapt and, in essence, "become American", before being allowed to live in the country.

Ever notice how, while the US can boast wide ethnic diversity compared to Europe, it can't claim religious diversity? Let's compare:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html

US: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)

The Netherlands: Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Muslim 4.4%, other 3.6%, unaffiliated 40% (1998)

United Kingdom: Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million, Muslim 1.5 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 500,000, Hindu 500,000, Jewish 350,000

Germany: Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3%

France: Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

Has the US been a moral power, generally yes. More so than just about any other power that has crossed the span of history. More so than any European power.

Well, if we'll play the situationist game even more, don't you think that might just be the standing of the world currently, rather than "the USA is so good!"?

If you ask me, the fact that Poland-Lithuania was very accepting of Jews in the 15th century and refuse to prosecute them like every other country did is a lot more impressive than the US being a moral power, into which it's being pushed by other countries who do so simply to limit the power of the US.

Am I happy about all this administration's done. No. I still want Osama Bin Laden to burn in hell, be retreaved and burned again.
And I want Sadam Hussein to be permanently put into the ground. That this has not happened yet is greatly disappointing to me.

Personally, I think Sadam has a lot more to pay for than Usama, so I'd prefer if they do the second before the first.

But at the same time I really wish that those of you bitch and moan about how bad the US is doing and how it creates such a terrible job would get off your ass and do something to make it a better world. WHich is probably another reason why Americans have such little respect for people who criticize us. It's an old american saying, talk is cheap.

You're talking individuals here? Are you kidding me? You think US citizens have done more for the good of the world than other citizens? Hell no! You have an incredibly low number of participants, even in your presidential elections. Your people are one of the most dissinterested people around.

Did Bush Sr. lose the election because of faulty international policy? No, he lost because the economy was doing bad and people were worried about their purse. That's the driving force in every democracy currently in place; as long as the economy is ok, the people are happy. The rest also factors in, but when it boils down to it people re-elect or dismiss a government based mostly on whether or not the economy is doing bad.

Take our former government, Paars. Paars I got to be re-elected and became Paars II. Criticism about the government was at that point already widespread. Everyone had heard what they were doing wrong. Did they care? No, the economy was doing good. Then come to the time to re-elect Paars II. But would you look at that; the economy isn't doing so shiny anymore, so suddenly people listen to all the criticism on Paars II (especially from Pim) and whoop...they loose.

 

[Azael]

3. You can't really deny that, leaving aside which system works "better", the systems of integration shared by most EU-countries force people to adapt their beliefs to a much lesser degree than the American system, which forces immigrants to adapt and, in essence, "become American", before being allowed to live in the country.

To be fair though, many countries in Europe suffers from great problems with integration, problems that seem to be getting worse rather than better. I actually think the American system is better.