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

[Bradylama]

Before the Gulf War, how did the US get involved in the muslim world, more so than Europe?

The Cold War. Why do you think America so adamantly supported Israel? It wasn't for purely religious motives I'll tell you that. Israel was the only stable Middle Eastern foothold the US could grab onto in case of Soviet aggression. Perhaps the US wouldn't have cared had the Soviets not gained significant influence in Iran, but you can't deny that the US involvement in Middle Eastern politics was much more significant than that of Europe following de-colonization.

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?

Terrorists are groups of people that specifically target a civilian population and "terrorize" the common man into encouraging change out of fear. Are the bombings in Spain government or military targets?

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.

See, the problem with that is that you actually believe we have a system of integration. In order for foreigners to become American citizens, they must live in the country for a certain number of years and be familiar with American history and its system of government. There aren't any questions about Elvis or Edgar Allen Poe, nobody is forced to adapt to American culture, instead, American culture adapts to them. American culture is a melting pot of foreign influences. Whether or not foreign citizens act "American" or not is inconsequential, as their ideas and beliefs influence the overall American scene. To become an American all you have to do is gain American citizenship. There are no divisions according to race or religion, everybody is American.

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%

And your point is? That a survey taken a decade prior to the European info you've posted is somehow inferior?

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.

Despite inactivity in the political scene, every American contributes to the economy of the country, on which a significant part of the global economy is based. If America wasn't so succesful economically, then neither would several other countries. Had it not been for trade with America, then China would probably not have progressed to a more capitalist and parliamentary system as it is now.

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.

So you're saying that Europeans are just as bad as Americans when it comes to moral decsions?

 

[Brother None]

The Cold War. Why do you think America so adamantly supported Israel? It wasn't for purely religious motives I'll tell you that. Israel was the only stable Middle Eastern foothold the US could grab onto in case of Soviet aggression. Perhaps the US wouldn't have cared had the Soviets not gained significant influence in Iran, but you can't deny that the US involvement in Middle Eastern politics was much more significant than that of Europe following de-colonization.

I was talking generally in terms of direct involvement. The USA supporting Israel is not direct. Also, this has always been a nail in the side of "the muslim world", but in that particular situation who do you think they'd attack first, Israel or the US?

Terrorists are groups of people that specifically target a civilian population and "terrorize" the common man into encouraging change out of fear. Are the bombings in Spain government or military targets?

Civilian. Toerists, lots of 'em.

See, the problem with that is that you actually believe we have a system of integration. In order for foreigners to become American citizens, they must live in the country for a certain number of years and be familiar with American history and its system of government. There aren't any questions about Elvis or Edgar Allen Poe, nobody is forced to adapt to American culture, instead, American culture adapts to them. American culture is a melting pot of foreign influences. Whether or not foreign citizens act "American" or not is inconsequential, as their ideas and beliefs influence the overall American scene. To become an American all you have to do is gain American citizenship. There are no divisions according to race or religion, everybody is American.

This is simply not true.

If a person wants to move into, say, Holland, he'll be a citizen without any integration or naturalisation, as long as his motives are strong enough. "Political refugee? Accepted" And he can stay, without being naturalized.

Is this true for the US? No. Simple as that. Like Brio told me a while back, if a Dutch IT-specialized person moves to the US, how long can he stay before he has to be naturalized? Seven years. If a US citizen does the same, but goes to Holland...well, fuck it, let him stay.

EDIT: one note; your argument just doesn't work at all. What you're saying is that immigrants don't have to adapt because the American culture adapts to them. However, immigrants are a minority, hence the American culture adapts to them as a minority, i.e. hardly at all. See the flaw?

And your point is? That a survey taken a decade prior to the European info you've posted is somehow inferior?

Your own bleeding fault, CIA simply uses the most recent numbers submitted.

But your claim would be that the muslim population increased from the less than 4% of 1989 to the 5-10% of France? Unlikely. Highly unlikely.

Despite inactivity in the political scene, every American contributes to the economy of the country, on which a significant part of the global economy is based. If America wasn't so succesful economically, then neither would several other countries. Had it not been for trade with America, then China would probably not have progressed to a more capitalist and parliamentary system as it is now.

This is not relevant to our topic. We're talking about "doing something to better the political world", and you walk in to state Americans are great people because they buy stuff and work.

So you're saying that Europeans are just as bad as Americans when it comes to moral decsions?

That's the driving force in every democracy currently in place

Nationalities are irrelevant in this topic, this is a universal thing.

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.

You can't really deny that, leaving aside which system works "better"

It's not what I'm arguing. Chances are the American system works better, but it also leaves less room for personal freedom and religion of immigrants. Either you adapt or you get out.

Which makes sense, basically, 'cause they're moving to your country, not vice versa, but it server as a point in this topic.

 

[Bradylama]

This is simply not true.

If a person wants to move into, say, Holland, he'll be a citizen without any integration or naturalisation, as long as his motives are strong enough. "Political refugee? Accepted" And he can stay, without being naturalized.

Is this true for the US? No. Simple as that. Like Brio told me a while back, if a Dutch IT-specialized person moves to the US, how long can he stay before he has to be naturalized? Seven years. If a US citizen does the same, but goes to Holland...well, fuck it, let him stay.

EDIT: one note; your argument just doesn't work at all. What you're saying is that immigrants don't have to adapt because the American culture adapts to them. However, immigrants are a minority, hence the American culture adapts to them as a minority, i.e. hardly at all. See the flaw?

My argument is that all people are accepted as Americans despite their culture or religion. You can say what you want about religious diversity, but that still doesn't mean that people of different religions aren't regarded with the same amount of respect as citizens that belong to a larger religion. Something I can't really say for Europe.

But your claim would be that the muslim population increased from the less than 4% of 1989 to the 5-10% of France? Unlikely. Highly unlikely.

And how is 85% Catholic being religiously diverse?

This is not relevant to our topic. We're talking about "doing something to better the political world", and you walk in to state Americans are great people because they buy stuff and work.

My point was that even with a large amount of inactivity, Americans are still contributing to the betterment of the world. And with a population of 250 million people you can't expect everyone to be politically active.

Nationalities are irrelevant in this topic, this is a universal thing.

No, its quite relevent. This topic is about anti-Americanism. What you said supports the idea against anti-Americanism as it portrays anti-Americans as being no better morally than Americans.

It's not what I'm arguing. Chances are the American system works better, but it also leaves less room for personal freedom and religion of immigrants. Either you adapt or you get out.

Biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Unless you're saying being familiar with the country you're moving to is a detriment to somebody's religion.

 

[Azael]

It's not what I'm arguing. Chances are the American system works better, but it also leaves less room for personal freedom and religion of immigrants. Either you adapt or you get out.

Which makes sense, basically, 'cause they're moving to your country, not vice versa, but it server as a point in this topic.

It's not like the Yanks force Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, whatever, to convert to protestant christianity in order to get a green card, so I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to argue here

 

[Sander]

My argument is that all people are accepted as Americans despite their culture or religion. You can say what you want about religious diversity, but that still doesn't mean that people of different religions aren't regarded with the same amount of respect as citizens that belong to a larger religion. Something I can't really say for Europe.

Oh, yeah, sure. Sure, you tell yourself that everyone is accepted better in the USA than in Europe. Ehmm, just one small question, on what could you possibly base this?

And how is 85% Catholic being religiously diverse?

I think that what Kharn is saying that in the overall picture, Europe is more religiously diverse(and he is right in that). Meaning that you should look at the total picture, not the countries.

But I think a better question here, is the number of people who are PRACTICING those religions.

My point was that even with a large amount of inactivity, Americans are still contributing to the betterment of the world. And with a population of 250 million people you can't expect everyone to be politically active.

Why should a percentage(ie. a relative number, not bound by the amount checked) change because there are more people?

No, its quite relevent. This topic is about anti-Americanism. What you said supports the idea against anti-Americanism as it portrays anti-Americans as being no better morally than Americans.

Yep, Kharn, you're not making all that much sense at times.

 

[Bradylama]

Oh, yeah, sure. Sure, you tell yourself that everyone is accepted better in the USA than in Europe. Ehmm, just one small question, on what could you possibly base this?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be that I actually LIVE in America, and live WITH Americans, and interact with people of different religions and social backgrounds everyday? I'm aware that's not a proven representation of the norm, but despite a few cases inolving muslims recently, there have been no serious discriminatory acts against people of different races or cultures since the 1970s. America is a fully integrated society. Maybe you have to actually live here to understand it.

I think that what Kharn is saying that in the overall picture, Europe is more religiously diverse(and he is right in that). Meaning that you should look at the total picture, not the countries.

Well, despite the different cultures between the seperate countries (not to mention that England usually doesn't like associating itself with the mainland), I still don't see what religious diversity has to do with this argument. I'm telling you that people over here don't generally care about religion, and just because a majority of the country is Protestant (which covers a WIDE array of religions) doesn't mean that people aren't accepted or being forced to become Protestant.

But I think a better question here, is the number of people who are PRACTICING those religions.

Indeed. Despite religious diversity in Europe and a large number of Christians in America, I seriously doubt most people would consider themselves to be "religious" people. Since race has started becoming more of a non-issue, people assume more identity from what church their parents went to than what color they are or what country they came from.

Why should a percentage(ie. a relative number, not bound by the amount checked) change because there are more people?

The more people there are, the harder it is to influence them. In Europe, people are more active politically because actions taken have more repercussions in the limited space and area. In America however, policies that would affect the West coast mean nothing to Middle Americans, or people on the East coast. So political involvement concerning those issues is less of a concern to more people. What you need to do is look at the big picture. Take India for instance. India has a literacy rate of 50%, which doesn't seem like much, but considering is pretty damn good for a 2nd World country with a population nearing 1 billion.

 

[Sander]

Oh, I don't know. Could it be that I actually LIVE in America, and live WITH Americans, and interact with people of different religions and social backgrounds everyday? I'm aware that's not a proven representation of the norm, but despite a few cases inolving muslims recently, there have been no serious discriminatory acts against people of different races or cultures since the 1970s. America is a fully integrated society. Maybe you have to actually live here to understand it.

No, I mean: Why wouldn't that be the case here?

Well, despite the different cultures between the seperate countries (not to mention that England usually doesn't like associating itself with the mainland), I still don't see what religious diversity has to do with this argument. I'm telling you that people over here don't generally care about religion, and just because a majority of the country is Protestant (which covers a WIDE array of religions) doesn't mean that people aren't accepted or being forced to become Protestant.

I know that, and I don't think Kharn is making any good points here. Religious diversity, does, however matter if the majority of the people practive the relgion, and you're talking about integration. People who do not belong to the major religion can feel left out. But again, it isn't a good argument.

The more people there are, the harder it is to influence them. In Europe, people are more active politically because actions taken have more repercussions in the limited space and area. In America however, policies that would affect the West coast mean nothing to Middle Americans, or people on the East coast. So political involvement concerning those issues is less of a concern to more people. What you need to do is look at the big picture. Take India for instance. India has a literacy rate of 50%, which doesn't seem like much, but considering is pretty damn good for a 2nd World country with a population nearing 1 billion.

But there are a lot more politicians in the USA, and the general rate is the same. It isn't harder to get them involved, because there is also the elections within their own state, and a state is usually less populated than country in Europe.

 

[welsh]

[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.

And I won't argue with that either Sander. The problem is that what you are arguing is idealism.

I also think that the US could do much better morally and politically. Personally, and I have mentioned this here many times, I am disappointed in this president's record. I agree that a more moral philosophy should be part of the US agenda.

Simple reason, because we are Americans, and we are better than that. History will judge us by our actions, and we, as a democracy are responsible for what we do, or fail to do. That's why there are so many arguments.

That said, there is also a balance that must be drawn between being ideal and being realistic. The US has tried to walk that line between idealism and realism, and I woudl argue probably better than most other countries have in their history.

But to expect a country not to be realistic is idealism to the point of wishful thinking.

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.

No Sander, my point is to ask you to be a bit more realistic in your expectation of international politics.

You seem to have greater expectations that are reasonable to have. I think its great to be idealistic, but you havfe to show a bit of realism too. Much of my point of the big post was to point out to you the evolution of US foreign policy from being fairly distant, to engaged, to be isolationist, to being more realistically engaged with the desire to make a more perfect world.

But as Americans I agree, that we should be thinking about making a more perfect world in the image that Americans could be proud of.

BUT when you point to the past and say "Hey, look, we're not bad, we did that." then you are being arrogant.

Bullshit. I have not now, nor in the past, sought to excuse US policy. If anything I have been very honest about admiting that the US has done some pretty disreputable things. My position has been to afford a bit of balance here. You folks can bash the US as you will, but lets be a bit balanced in our appraisal.

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.

That's just foolish. More money, more support should come? That is political influence.

Are you stating that you expect that the US to be the benevolent philanthropist for the world?

Considering how little Americans do support foreign aid (which is a disgrace) you have an expectation that they could do more? Sander, your idealism is way past your realism on this.

...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.

Bullshit. What I am talking is human hypocracy. You speak of how important it is to help out the poor Iraqis and make the world a better place. THat the debates are good enough. But this is all about changing opinions, or engaging in the rhetorical battle, not really DOING anything.

How much would it cost you to support a human rights NGO? How hard would it be for you to send a letter in protest because a human rights lawyer has been wrongly jailed. How difficult woudl it be for you to work for a year in some poor country that needs help? TO be more politically involved? Most people feel powerless but never really test the limits of their political power at all.

People spend so much of their time bitching and so little of their time doing, and then they claim, "Oh it's too difficult, I have no power." Bullshit.

Get off your ass and do something if you're so damn concerned.
(Sander, this is not personally directed at you. Just folks who talk a lot and do little).

 

[Sander]

You seem to have greater expectations that are reasonable to have. I think its great to be idealistic, but you havfe to show a bit of realism too. Much of my point of the big post was to point out to you the evolution of US foreign policy from being fairly distant, to engaged, to be isolationist, to being more realistically engaged with the desire to make a more perfect world.

Well, I have to give you that. I think I do know what is realistic, yet I still want things to change. Maybe a little too much, but I DO want things to change.

Bullshit. I have not now, nor in the past, sought to excuse US policy. If anything I have been very honest about admiting that the US has done some pretty disreputable things. My position has been to afford a bit of balance here. You folks can bash the US as you will, but lets be a bit balanced in our appraisal.

Well, you are doing a good job at that. Although, if you fragment your posts, it seems to be swinging from one side to the other, on the whole you are being balanced.

That's just foolish. More money, more support should come? That is political influence.

Are you stating that you expect that the US to be the benevolent philanthropist for the world?

Considering how little Americans do support foreign aid (which is a disgrace) you have an expectation that they could do more? Sander, your idealism is way past your realism on this.

Well, I didn't actually say how much political influence. In any case, political influence is inevitable, but by purposely using things like support as leverage in international organisations such as the UN, is bad. Undoubtedly, this does happen.

yes, I'm being idealisic. Bah.

And, welsh, it is very hard to work a year for a country when you "need" to earn a living. But if you support causes(by donating money for instance), or by getting politically involved, then you are doing things.

 

[Brother None]

No, its quite relevent. This topic is about anti-Americanism. What you said supports the idea against anti-Americanism as it portrays anti-Americans as being no better morally than Americans.

This thread is about anti-Americanism. The point I made was "democracies world-wide suffer from the same flaw", hence nationalities are irrelevant to that particular point. Are you catching on yet?

On this particular point anti-Americanism is irrelevant, because I refuse to split the world into nationalities when concerned with this issue, because...hey...it's universal.

<hr>

Also, I can simply not believe you're both missing the point of the religious background story...

Do Americans ban people of non-protestant faith? No. Is it easier to be a protestant and hence a part of the majority? Sure. Does an "integration course" promote the dropping of ones religions more so than not following such a course would? Sure. Does this make the immigrants less happy? Of course not. Is it relevant to the causes of national terrorism? Sure.

My point is very simple; America has a far more integrated populace. You people are "one", far more so than Europeans, you are united by a common democracy, a common belief (in America, not necessarily in the same Gods). Because of this, you're bound to have less terrorism. It's as simple as that, a united people are a peaceful people. Why aren't you getting this?

Religious diversity is a symptom of this form of integration, nothing else, that's it.

I am, in fact, dumbfounded at the fact that you guys are totally missing this point, and I'm kind of at a loss how to explain it, as it seems rather painfully obvious to me.

My argument is that all people are accepted as Americans despite their culture or religion. You can say what you want about religious diversity, but that still doesn't mean that people of different religions aren't regarded with the same amount of respect as citizens that belong to a larger religion. Something I can't really say for Europe.

This sums up my whole damned point! America has a well-integrated society, but what you seem to be missing is that this is detremintal for extremes. A centered, united populaces means you have no breeding-ground for extremism, like Europe has, which means you are not as religiously diverse as Europe.

You have either one or the other, you can't have both, no matter how perfect your country is. America chose, wisely, to integrate its people more, Europe foolishly chose not to. This is one of the main causes of European national terrorism, which was exactly what I was trying to argue to welsh, and I'm still weirded out at how you twisted this around.

And before you try to counter with something off-point, chew on this thought first: could a homosexual athiest live next to a fanatic and conservative muslim, peacefully, for all time?

PS: Bradylama, the amount of people in the US may explain why they're less politically engaged, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are less politically engaged. Explain it, fine, but don't deny it.

PPS: welsh, Sander is right, you see you're missing one point. You're admitting the flaws of American foreign policy, sure, but you're not putting America's position into perspective. The US is something to be proud of, sure enough, but it's also something that warrants taking a step back and saying "hmmm, perhaps considering the world situation and the US' history, they're not exactly doing exceedingly well, though not bad either"

PPPS: allow me to express the fact that I'm pretty goddamned annoyed that I go through the trouble of making a lengthy and relevant post, only to see whole string of posts completely diverging from the point and picking on exactly those parts of the post that I would consider a topic of private debate between me and welsh (and also the least interesting bits of debate), being irrelevant to the rest of the thread. Seriously, I'm annoyed.

 

[welsh]

[
Must...not...can't...resists...Aaargh!
"How Machiavellian"
There, I did it. Phew.

Yep, the three leading thinkers of international relations theory are probably Machiavelli (an Italian) Hobbes (and Englishman) and thucydides (a greek). But we shouldn't leave out Kant as well.

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).

What do you mean?

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.

A bit extreme here Kharn. Not everything is built on European ideas, even if we inherited a lot for you. A lot we learned as we moved along, we took what was given and we made more of it.

Much of US policy and philosophy is built an idea of exceptionalism. That we are not like the Europeans, that we can do better, make a better world, and make a better political order. THat is the ambition of America. To be better, which is why I don't like this president so much.

Which is why democracy comes earlier to the US than most of Europe, why the US was the country that espoused international cooperation when the rest of Europe was laughing at the idea. Why the US was willing to support Europe when it needed it on at least three episodes in the last century.

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.

I have much more reason to be proud in my country and what my country has done than just about any other citizen in any other country.

That I have also expressed my displeasure at what my country has done and has failed to do on this board many times.

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.

Nor have I and I am surprised that you would place me in such a situation. I have great respect for the peace protestors of the world, and that the Europeans have done a lot for many people around the world. Indeed, the future of the world would call for more cooperation than dissension, more multilaterialism than unilaterialism.

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?

Kharn, this is bullshit and you know it. I am not sure what you are arguing here but you seem to be picking an argument when there is nothing to argue against. Is Europe perfect, fuck no. Is the US, no. Has the US done a lot of nasty things, yes. WTF?

"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".

Bullshit, again you are being intellectually dishonest. The reason why the US has not been hit with terrorism as hard as the Europeans has many reasons, but part of that is because most Muslims living in the US have a better life here than they do in their own countries or in Europe.

My point to Sander was in response to his position that the US woundn't be such a target if it was more generous. My position was that the US hasn't been such a target even with its policies and that the poor European have been hit worse than the US.

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.

Which is probably why so many Muslims in Europe feel like second class citizens, why Turkey has had such trouble getting into the EU, why the Serbians were so surprised to get so much resistance from the Europeans for trying to wipe out Bosnia.

And I have sent you the articles on this in an earlier post, remember (15 out of 19 Terrorists who hit the World Trade Center where radicalized while in Europe?)

Most muslims in the US can go to mosque, live normal lives, get a good education, have good jobs, and no one gives a fuck about their faith. They are not second class citizens, they are not reminded of a history of religious warfare.

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?

And yet the US has been involved in the middle east throughout the Cold War. Support for Israel, intervention in Lebanon, support for the Shah, support for the Saudis, Camp David Accords, Suez Crisis. Kind of a lot of US intervention.

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?

Again this was a response to Sander. Generally however Europe has been hit harder with terrorism than the US.

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

If you are asking do I support the US immigration policies- the answer is no. We have been too exclusive, especially since the Patriot Act.

But I also think you need to reconsider this. Recent waves of immigrants from the middle east, Asia and elsewhere are coming into a country that has been largely Protestant for a long time, and its a big damn country. SO yes, the numbers don't add up much. But when you think most blacks are Christians, and most Asians are becoming Christians, I don't see the relevance of this.

]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!"?

Kharn lets look at the biggest powers in Europe and see if they have acted more morally. French policies in Africa? Russia in its part of the world? Even Germany with it's sales?

You can't compare now simply because the US is such a dominant power. Had a European Country had so much power, would it be more moral? Apply the counter factural. Considering France's record would it be a better world leader than the US?
How about China?
Or the Russians?

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.

But you won't count how the Poles helped the Nazi's round up escaped Jews and send them back to the death camps?

And the history of US persecution of the Jews is.......
Persecution of Muslims........

And the US isn't being pushed to be a more moral country by other countries. It's being pushed by constiuents in the US who have demands about what the US should be about and how the US should act.

That the other countries of the world would like to see the US constrained is only a matter of power politics. The weaker or more constrained the US is, the more unconstrained they are.

Considering the records of the other countries, you think this is a good thing?

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.

As an American I have more reason to see Osama go down. But they are a pair of a kind that the world should be happier to see go down in flames.

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.

Considering the choices in political candidates, I am surprised that as many americans show up at the polls at all.

Actually I do think AMericans give a lot ot the world. Americans give to the world in a variety of ways. Much of it in private philanthropy. I know many students who are planning to go abroad to do some good service before continuing on their careers. In my college I know of nearly a dozen projects that are involved in making a better world.

While the government had been hard on allowing immigrants, those who have come in are generally welcomed in this country. US church groups are very involved in international projects, and Americans give to a variety of meaningful charities. We are not talking about the George Soros or the Bill Gates types either, but the average working family.

I would be curious to compare those numbers.

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.

Which is true in just about every democracy. So what's your point?

 

[welsh]

[My point is very simple; America has a far more integrated populace. You people are "one", far more so than Europeans, you are united by a common democracy, a common belief (in America, not necessarily in the same Gods). Because of this, you're bound to have less terrorism. It's as simple as that, a united people are a peaceful people. Why aren't you getting this?

Good point Kharn. ANd yes, this has mcuh to do with it.

Religious diversity is a symptom of this form of integration, nothing else, that's it.

I agree, but the thing you have to be careful about is that many people around the world are also changing their faiths. Both Christians and Muslims have been converting lots of folks.

This sums up my whole damned point! America has a well-integrated society, but what you seem to be missing is that this is detremintal for extremes. A centered, united populaces means you have no breeding-ground for extremism, like Europe has, which means you are not as religiously diverse as Europe.

You have either one or the other, you can't have both, no matter how perfect your country is. America chose, wisely, to integrate its people more, Europe foolishly chose not to. This is one of the main causes of European national terrorism, which was exactly what I was trying to argue to welsh, and I'm still weirded out at how you twisted this around.

And before you try to counter with something off-point, chew on this thought first: could a homosexual athiest live next to a fanatic and conservative muslim, peacefully, for all time?

Honestly, yes. probably. In the US you can have a homosexual athiest live next to a conservative Muslim and as long as they don't fuck with each other, they will get along fine. Probably they won't even know each other or even say hello. This goes back to another American pastime borrowed from the poetry of Robert Frost- strong walls make for better neighbors.

But generally we also have a habit of people moving into neighborhoods where they feel more safe and at home. So you do find predominantly Muslim neighborhoods and Homosexual neighborhoods in many bigger cities. In smaller cities, people try to get along better.

I really think, and maybe I am wrong, that there is a lot of tolerance and curiousity in the US with people who are not like you. Part of it comes down from historical experience. We are constantly confronted with "others" not like us, so we generally are more accommodating. THis might be a legacy of not having much history.

PPS: welsh, Sander is right, you see you're missing one point. You're admitting the flaws of American foreign policy, sure, but you're not putting America's position into perspective. The US is something to be proud of, sure enough, but it's also something that warrants taking a step back and saying "hmmm, perhaps considering the world situation and the US' history, they're not exactly doing exceedingly well, though not bad either"

Kharn, I can't tell you enough how much the monkey in the white house pisses me off. I can also articulate that as Americans we should do better, and that's the issue that Americans should be considering. Are we doing as well as we should. Are we living up to our own expectations of ourselves. Because those expectations should be high.

But I am also asking that people be a bit more balanced. The US may be a super power and it might be the dominant actor in the world stage, but the stage existed long before the US and this something that the US had to adapt to.

There is a lot back in the bad days of the Cold War that can be justified. But justification doesn't mean excuse. Just like we need to be more thoughtful about what we are doing in the world today.

Since 9/11 a lot of Americans have turned to this president and given him a blank check in foreign policy. THat's dangerous. As I have mentioned earlier, the strength of a Democracy is in the attentiveness of its citizens. Americans should be made aware of the world in which they act, and they should not hesitate to criticize their own government. The government should be more transparent and it should not have to rest on "freedom from fear" as a justification.

I agree, the US could do much better and should.

 

[Brother None]

Yep, the three leading thinkers of international relations theory are probably Machiavelli (an Italian) Hobbes (and Englishman) and thucydides (a greek). But we shouldn't leave out Kant as well.

Yip, and if I'm not mistaken, Machiavelli was the theorist who wrote the pieces on "power play" being fair game, hence my referring to him.

A bit extreme here Kharn. Not everything is built on European ideas, even if we inherited a lot for you. A lot we learned as we moved along, we took what was given and we made more of it.

Much of US policy and philosophy is built an idea of exceptionalism. That we are not like the Europeans, that we can do better, make a better world, and make a better political order. THat is the ambition of America. To be better, which is why I don't like this president so much.

Which is why democracy comes earlier to the US than most of Europe, why the US was the country that espoused international cooperation when the rest of Europe was laughing at the idea. Why the US was willing to support Europe when it needed it on at least three episodes in the last century.

Hmmm, point taken. I'll adress it more further in the post.

Kharn, this is bullshit and you know it. I am not sure what you are arguing here but you seem to be picking an argument when there is nothing to argue against. Is Europe perfect, fuck no. Is the US, no. Has the US done a lot of nasty things, yes. WTF?

It's your whole "Americans are more accepting of other cultures than Europeans"-bit. I can't lay a definite finger on it unless I spend some time in America, but the point still bothers me. I'd be a bit hard-pressed to truly discuss it without any personal experience, though.

My point to Sander was in response to his position that the US woundn't be such a target if it was more generous. My position was that the US hasn't been such a target even with its policies and that the poor European have been hit worse than the US.

Makes more sense that way, but again, I was responding more to a point you made a while back, see above.

Which is probably why so many Muslims in Europe feel like second class citizens, why Turkey has had such trouble getting into the EU, why the Serbians were so surprised to get so much resistance from the Europeans for trying to wipe out Bosnia.

And I have sent you the articles on this in an earlier post, remember (15 out of 19 Terrorists who hit the World Trade Center where radicalized while in Europe?)

Most muslims in the US can go to mosque, live normal lives, get a good education, have good jobs, and no one gives a fuck about their faith. They are not second class citizens, they are not reminded of a history of religious warfare.

Now you're pulling it into the extreme too much. Muslimdom is in trouble in parts of Europe, because of its history, but not everywhere.

I agree Europe has some work to do on this point, but I don't think the American model is a good example for us here. As you said yourself, the American integration model is simply...well...dislikeable, and in a way I'd rather have a country like Germany, which lets everyone in but treats everyone differently, than a country like the US, which lets certain people in and treats them equally.

Both the EU and the US basically have a lot of work to do on the subject of immigration, but it is a difficult subject.

But I also think you need to reconsider this. Recent waves of immigrants from the middle east, Asia and elsewhere are coming into a country that has been largely Protestant for a long time, and its a big damn country. SO yes, the numbers don't add up much. But when you think most blacks are Christians, and most Asians are becoming Christians, I don't see the relevance of this.

Those conversions are a bit hard to factor in. Like I noted, religion is tied to culture, just like ethnicity is often tied to culture (though on a far lesser scale than religion, and the two can be seperated better). I get what you're saying, though, I'll chew on it a bit.

Kharn lets look at the biggest powers in Europe and see if they have acted more morally. French policies in Africa? Russia in its part of the world? Even Germany with it's sales?

You can't compare now simply because the US is such a dominant power. Had a European Country had so much power, would it be more moral? Apply the counter factural. Considering France's record would it be a better world leader than the US?
How about China?
Or the Russians?

That's exactly my point! Would France, China or Russia do better? Probably not. Would they do worse? No.

Because the international pressure at the moment is heavy on moralism. It's true this is in part because of America, but the movement was started in the Reformation to Enlightenment, which are pretty much European-only movements.

But causes laid aside, a country like France has a lot more moral leeway than America. France can get away with much more, because it's smaller. It's not fair, but it's a fact, were France as big as America, it would not get away with much more than America would. And hence it would be more moral.

You keep bringing up the point of bad history, but if the US were a world power rather than a colony during the early post-Dark Age days, do you honestly think it'd act any better? But in fact, that comparison is impossible to make, because the US wouldn't be the US if it weren't created the way it was.

But let's face it, the European states are a child of their surroundings. They acted bad simply because it wasn't considered bad back then. Slaves? Who cares, they're not Christians. And like you said yourself, this is not an excuse, but it does "justify" it.

I do realise I'm drawing a strict line here, but I hope you get the general point I'm trying to make.

But you won't count how the Poles helped the Nazi's round up escaped Jews and send them back to the death camps?

No. I'm not talking countries here, or Europe-vs-America, I'm simply stating that a union-state like Poland-Lithuania's situation at that moment in time made it more difficult to be moral (how 'bout the Moscovite pressure since the late 15th century?) than America's situation right now does. Poland's later behaviour aside.

And the US isn't being pushed to be a more moral country by other countries. It's being pushed by constiuents in the US who have demands about what the US should be about and how the US should act.

Yes it is being pushed. By a movement it partially started itself, but again, by a movement started heavily in Europe. That Europe is not the greatest executor of its own concept will probably be one of those historical laughing-points in the future, but that is not the point.

To think the US is being pushed into morality solely by itself is not good. If that were true, why would the UN have to whistle them back at times? Every country needs an outside moral check, you can't expect it to be good in-and-of itself, because in the end, the citizens will figure "screw the rest, let's take care of ourselves". You must admit that if let loose, the US people aren't the kind of people not to think of this sooner or later, which would mean an international policy moral collapse.

That the other countries of the world would like to see the US constrained is only a matter of power politics. The weaker or more constrained the US is, the more unconstrained they are.

Yip, but motives aside, this pressure does, once again, make it easier for the US to be moral, not tougher.

Considering the records of the other countries, you think this is a good thing?

Yes. See above.

I would be curious to compare those numbers.

Same.

Which is true in just about every democracy. So what's your point?

I said myself it is true about every democracy. It was more a footnote to the argument than a point in itself, so...

Honestly, yes. probably. In the US you can have a homosexual athiest live next to a conservative Muslim and as long as they don't fuck with each other, they will get along fine. Probably they won't even know each other or even say hello. This goes back to another American pastime borrowed from the poetry of Robert Frost- strong walls make for better neighbors.

This is in no way a good thing. Segregation may be a way to solve the integration problem, but it does not help it, and can only lead to civil strife on the long run.

But I am also asking that people be a bit more balanced. The US may be a super power and it might be the dominant actor in the world stage, but the stage existed long before the US and this something that the US had to adapt to.

Oh, I agree on this. I think we're pretty much in agreement about how well the US handled itself since...well...WW I, really, but I don't think we're in agreement about the causes of this.

 

[Stampede]

This is in no way a good thing. Segregation may be a way to solve the integration problem, but it does not help it, and can only lead to civil strife on the long run.

I'd hardly call it segregation. That would mean it's legally sanctioned, wouldn't it? I think you're over-emphasizing the role of the neighbor. My interactions with my neighbors are mostly limited to "hey, can I have my frisbee back?" sorta stuff.

 

[welsh]

This is in no way a good thing. Segregation may be a way to solve the integration problem, but it does not help it, and can only lead to civil strife on the long run.

I'd hardly call it segregation. That would mean it's legally sanctioned, wouldn't it? I think you're over-emphasizing the role of the neighbor. My interactions with my neighbors are mostly limited to "hey, can I have my frisbee back?" sorta stuff.

Indeed that was my point. One reason people of different ethnicities can get along in the US is often because neighbors tend to ignore each other or have limited intervention in each other's business. This is mostly a moral choice made in an individual, private basis.

Segregation, on the other hand can be of two types. De Jure- yes we did have that and we could possibly have that again. Here segregation by law. One saw that head rearing up during the period when there was more of an AIDS panic. You see a bit of that now with immigration as well. But generally, de jure segregation is out lawed.

De facto segregation is another matter. Here people by habit or choice live in self contained communities which share commonalities on issues such as race, national origin, language, religion. This I fear is becoming more common in the US.

 

[welsh]

Kharn- since much of the post is more a "meeting of the minds" than a debate, I am cutting much and focusing only on a few points.

Now you're pulling it into the extreme too much. Muslimdom is in trouble in parts of Europe, because of its history, but not everywhere.

I agree Europe has some work to do on this point, but I don't think the American model is a good example for us here. As you said yourself, the American integration model is simply...well...dislikeable, and in a way I'd rather have a country like Germany, which lets everyone in but treats everyone differently, than a country like the US, which lets certain people in and treats them equally.

Both the EU and the US basically have a lot of work to do on the subject of immigration, but it is a difficult subject.

To be honest, US policies on immigration these days are rather abhorent. Much of this is again based on the 9/11 issue and the "freedom from fear" idea of Mr. Bush. THe problem with Freedom from fear is that there is no end to it and worse, it impinges on other freedoms.

Fear is part of life, part of the price that is paid for the liberties we often take for granted, part of the consequence of living in a society of individuals that may freely make choice. This includes the danger that some will pursue "evil" acts or ideas to the detriment of society.

But Kharn you do see the point. If the government has the right to treat different people differently (which does happen in the US to some extent- think statutory rape laws, some of the affirmative action policies) than the law fails to create a value of equality in society.

Furthermore if the law or the state can be unequal in application, than so will society. This could create a norm of inequality that might be more difficult to remedy. Again, using the US as an example. The Civil War and the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution were written for the sake of furthering equality, but were not exercised. This allowed society to settle into practices of discriminatory treatment. It took a new series of laws in the 1960s, a century later, to remedy that practice. To some extent it would have been difficult to make drastic changes overnight in the 1860s, when the country was recovering from civil war. But to wait a century was also too long a period to deny whole classed of people equal treatment under law.

That's exactly my point! Would France, China or Russia do better? Probably not. Would they do worse? No.

Because the international pressure at the moment is heavy on moralism. It's true this is in part because of America, but the movement was started in the Reformation to Enlightenment, which are pretty much European-only movements.

But causes laid aside, a country like France has a lot more moral leeway than America. France can get away with much more, because it's smaller. It's not fair, but it's a fact, were France as big as America, it would not get away with much more than America would. And hence it would be more moral.

I see your point and to some extent I agree that there is international moral pressure on the US. But the truth is that the US was under significant moral pressure rising in the 1970s (perhaps not inconsistently following the Vietnam War) in which it received significant bad press and moral outrage overseas. The Europeans, for example, protested the invasion of Grenada and more, the placing of intermediate nuclear weapons on Europe. But that did't have much of an effect on US policy in the long run. On local politics perhaps, but not much on the US.

The reason why has much to do with the defensiveness one sees from Americans here. Part of it has to do with conditioning. One of the reasons why Americans resist the UN is because the UN was seen as a forum to raise grievances against the US while not against some of the other regimes that perhaps deserved more abuse. Why, well because the US had more money to give away, perhaps. Or perhaps people saw the US would be more susceptible to foreign pressure. But for many Americans, the US is an island and the rest of the world can be ignored. A substantial group still favor isolation. The worse things get in Iraq the more likely you will see the rise in isolationism.

Can France get away with more. Yes, I think you are right to some extent. France raises less attention than the US. But think of the French policies testing nuclear weapons in the SOuth Pacific, interventions in Africa, and if you go back further, the blowing up of the Greenpeace vessel, and one can see that even the French are not immune.

Would the French, Russians or Chinese be much better. No. And I think probably worse. Each society is born with its own cultural, history and tendencies. Foreign policies are built on historical antecedents. France sees itself as a potential center of Europe with its own backyard or hunting ground in Africa. That the French were not able to get beyond this arrogance explains, in part, its inability to withdraw for Algeria and Vietnam. That the Russians have a history of insecurity around its "near abroad" and a desire for prestige from the rest of the world would again probably manifest itself. That the Chinese see themselves as the middle Kingdom between heaven and earth, surrounded by tributories and with a need to avenge historical transgressions by outside powers could again shape the policies of that country.

If we look close enough at recent policies of each country we see that, despite their size, such practices are still being carried out. Chinese policies in the South China Seas and bullying neighbors, nationalist rhetoric with the reunification of Taiwan, etc. French policies in Africa and the support of strongmen, Russian policies in its near abroad.

In contrast, the US has been a reluctant power throughout most of its history. When it has taken a stage it has supported either liberal causes- spread of democracy and commercial trade, or has been in opposition to what it saw was the spread of illiberal ideas- communism and communist dictatorship. That's one of the reason the US supported the creation of international institutions through the UN system, NATO and other policies. That it was often willing to support authoritarian strongmen in lieu of standing asside for communist of communist leaning regimes is, I think, one of the great mistakes of US policy during the Cold War. That the US willingly supported the downfall of, or coups against, democratic regimes is one of the great failings of US foreign policy. That US policy is often at the mercy of special interests is also a problem that the US still needs to work out.

Yes it is being pushed. By a movement it partially started itself, but again, by a movement started heavily in Europe. That Europe is not the greatest executor of its own concept will probably be one of those historical laughing-points in the future, but that is not the point.

To think the US is being pushed into morality solely by itself is not good. If that were true, why would the UN have to whistle them back at times? Every country needs an outside moral check, you can't expect it to be good in-and-of itself, because in the end, the citizens will figure "screw the rest, let's take care of ourselves". You must admit that if let loose, the US people aren't the kind of people not to think of this sooner or later, which would mean an international policy moral collapse.

I will concede that its good for a moral push from the outside and that the US shoudl pay attention to this. But whether the US does or not, is something else. I think much of the country is of the "screw the rest, lets take care of ourselves" principle. I would still contend however, that much of the constraint relies on the American public itself saying "hey, wait, I don't support that policy. That's immoral." than other countries putting more moral pressure on us. In a sense this is a simple matter of most politics being moral. I doubt many countries are swayed by outside moral outrage, even the weakest (think Burma) seem to be immune.

Considering the records of the other countries, you think this is a good thing?

Yes. See above.

On this, my friend, I will disagree.

This is in no way a good thing. Segregation may be a way to solve the integration problem, but it does not help it, and can only lead to civil strife on the long run.

See above post.

But I am also asking that people be a bit more balanced. The US may be a super power and it might be the dominant actor in the world stage, but the stage existed long before the US and this something that the US had to adapt to.

Oh, I agree on this. I think we're pretty much in agreement about how well the US handled itself since...well...WW I, really, but I don't think we're in agreement about the causes of this.

Yes, well. That is one of the great questions.

 

[Brother None]

Heh, wow...*scratches head* I think that pretty much wraps it all up.

We're going to have to opt to disagree on America's situation, though I think our opinions are closer to one another than they appear. I think we both agree the morality in the US' actions comes partially from the USA's unique cultural background and social makeup, and partially from foreign pressure and international moral movements. We just disagree on which way the scales of balance tip, but I don't think we'd reach an agreement on that if we were to argue 'till our dying day, so...

As for Bush's integrationan policies...yeah, well, the US isn't the only country with a bad government at the moment. Although not interesting, internationally, the current Dutch government is seriously fucking everything up. That aside, though.

I'll add one note on the morality of people, though;

You say the main cause of America's morality lies in the outcry of the people for aformentioned morality, however, keep one thing in mind; who would cry out for America's morality sooner? The Frenchman, who would get no direct negative effects from a more moral stance of the US, or could even benifit, or the American, who stands to have to pay more taxes for this newfound morality?

It's easier for us outsiders to be high-and-mighty in our morals and then just say "America is biggest, so they should be moral". It's not right, but it does work.

I might add more later, but methinks we're done.

 

[Bradylama]

For the sake of educational purposes, how exactly is the Dutch government fucking everything up over there?

 

[Loxley]

Hey don´t be sad kharn look at norway after the fall of taliban we and Iran are the only two countries in the world witha priest as chief of state. Now that sucks.

 

[Bradylama]

Wasn't the Taliban slightly secular? Though it was fundamentally Islamic, I don't recall it being led by figureheads of Islam.