Saddam on trial

Kharn said:
This is your second post an you attacked a senior member without backing yourself up. If you want to call welsh's post garbage, at least back that up by explaining yourself.

I really didn't have anything extra to add, other members have already put my thoughts down in a post. So I apologize for posting unessecessary crap. Lionh34rt? Crappy Game?
 
Kharn said:
alec said:
I tend to think that, for the time being, Europeans have a little more common sense and possess more subtlety than Americans. Especially Scandinavians. But Big_T_UK is right: ultimately the Atlanteans rock the kasbah! :D

You misunderstood: I meant what Society in history or now was better than "the West"?

Oh darn, I misunderstood alright. :wink:
But this is a tricky question, isn't it Kharn? Now I'm going to say something and you're going to point out how wrong I am for saying a thing like that, n'est-ce pas?
Ah well, I'm tempted to say Ancient Greece nonetheless, but maybe that's still too Western, eh?
So here you have it: the Tasmanians! Yeah, the Tasmanians were better and more honest and more humane than the West will ever be. A goddamn shame they were butchered by the British.:P
 
alec said:
But this is a tricky question, isn't it Kharn? Now I'm going to say something and you're going to point out how wrong I am for saying a thing like that, n'est-ce pas?

Stop ripping my quirks.

alec said:
Ah well, I'm tempted to say Ancient Greece nonetheless, but maybe that's still too Western, eh?
So here you have it: the Tasmanians! Yeah, the Tasmanians were better and more honest and more humane than the West will ever be. A goddamn shame they were butchered by the British.:P

Well the question is, what do you consider "good"? Is it honesty? Honour? Lack of hypocrisy? Intellectualism? Culture? Arts?

Or, what most people consider the best, how well-off the citizens of the country are and how well they treat/respect other countries. In this sense, nothing has ever been as good as the West.
 
Kharn said:
Stop ripping my quirks.

It's not the first time I've used "n'est-ce pas". At least, I know how to right it correctly ("n'est pas?"). :wink:

alec said:
Well the question is, what do you consider "good"? Is it honesty? Honour? Lack of hypocrisy? Intellectualism? Culture? Arts?

Ancient Greece: culture.
But generally I look for "innocence", and innocence was something the Tasmanians possessed (most islanders in the southern pacific possess it as well, so called "primitive" islanders). They didn't even know what adultery was (which is probably also one of the main reasons they became extinct).

But I follow you, Kharn. Don't think I don't know how good life can be in the West. I'm just spoiled, but at least I know it. I know I wouldn't be able to live with the morals and values from the past or other cultures. But does that mean I shouldn't vent my criticism? I'm not able to give people an alternative that'll work, I'm not smart enough to pull that of, but then again: no one really is, are they? Pointing a finger at the wrongs in this world isn't such a badass thing to do: you always need to define the problem before you can actually start curing it. And imo there is a lot that needs to be cured. I hope someone really smart shows up really soon.
 
Thanks Murdoch and Kharn-

Lion, you're just a gadfly.

Kharn said:
welsh said:
So who are you to judge us?

Who else is going to? You, yourself? Grand job.

Certainly not the Europeans.

Have the French blown up any Greenpeace boats lately?

I'm not asking for Europe to judge the US, I'm asking for the International Court of Justice to judge the US. But you can't handle that, can you? The US simply can not fathom that anyone would *dare* insinuate that they are wrong, so they pull right out of an institution they made themselves.

Well the US has gone before the ICJ before. But the problem with the ICJ is that parties opt to bring their suits there, they are not compelled. Since there is no mandatory jurisdiction, there is a problem. If say Saddam’s Iraq where to deny jurisdiction, no one cares. If the US does, oh that’s bad.

That’s why the Russians never had to worry about it for Hungary and Czechoslovakia, why Pol Pot didn’t worry about it, why Mao never worried about it, or any of the other ruthless tyrants.

When the Brits brought suit in the Corfu Channels case against Albania, the Brits won, but the Albanians never paid. Thus the problem for the ICJ. Good for settling border disputes, but not much else.

Great job there, guys, I forgot for a second how everybody's equal, but some people are just more equal than others.

Has nothing to do with the idea of individual equality, Kharn. ICJ takes law suits only by sovereign states, not by individuals.

An international criminal court might be different, but as mentioned before, there is plenty of reason to believe that it would be used as a political platform.

That said, perhaps a better way to deal with Saddam might have been to charge him in an international criminal court, but that would deny the Iraqis their right to apply justice as a sovereign state.

welsh said:
I hope you are not recommending another 9/11 Alec, because after all before those Saudis came to the US they became radicalized in Europe.

Sorry, we forgot to oppress them and force them through entry tests to adapt our way of living. Have you ever asked yourself, welsh, and quite seriously, whether extermists in Europe are because they become extermists in Europe or because allow extermists to do as they please here?

We’ve actually had this discussion before. Yes, many Islamists have been radicalized in the West, in part because Muslims often see themselves as perpetually in the margins of European society-

From- Global Agenda, April 5, 2004

Many Muslims accuse Europeans of being rampantly Islamophobic, and of caring much more about anti-Semitism than about anti-Muslim feeling. The leader of France's extreme-right National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now hurls most of his abuse at Muslims, not Jews.

There is evidence of a hardening of European attitudes, too. Attacks on Muslims have risen in Europe since the September 11th terrorist attacks in America. Recently, a number of senior European politicians have spoken out against allowing Turkey, a Muslim state, into the EU. In Rotterdam, the local government is now explicitly trying to change the racial profile of the Dutch city, whose population is projected to be 57% of foreign origin by 2017. An all-party report to the parliament of the Netherlands--viewed in the past as one of Europe's more liberal regimes--recently concluded that 30 years of multicultural policy had failed, and that more efforts should be made to oblige immigrants to learn the Dutch language and embrace local values. In Britain, too, critics of multiculturalism have been speaking out--among them even Trevor Phillips, head of the country's Commission for Racial Equality, who said it was necessary to "assert a core of Britishness" for all citizens.

As Europe's governments step up their efforts to root out Islamic extremists--and attitudes, both Christian and Muslim, shift accordingly--most people think the future holds one of two possibilities: either the continent's 12m or so Muslims will integrate smoothly into their countries' economic and political life; or they will remain on the margins, disaffected and potentially dangerous.

Ok, don’t like that source-

The Financial Times, May 12, 2004 p22
An enlarged EU fans the fears of Europe's Muslims: Bitter and alienated, they face competing for jobs with a new wave of migrants, writeRoula Khalaf and Stefan Wagstyl. (BACK PAGE - FIRST SECTION) Roula Khalaf; Joshua Levitt; Stefan Wagstyl.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Financial Times Information Ltd.

Byline: ROULA KHALAF, JOSHUA LEVITT and STEFAN WAGSTYL
MADRID -- Ali, a 25-year-old Egyptian born engineer who lives in the UK, has little reason to welcome the enlargement of the European Union.

"I've been here for years but I'm thinking of going home," he says, standing outside the Regent's Park mosque in London.
"With my beard I'm having trouble finding a job and now more east Europeans are coming, companies won't need to employ me at all."
As the EU celebrates its enlargement, Muslims - who make up the largest minority community in Europe - feel left out.

Many are struggling to distance themselves from an extremist minority and show that they too are good European citizens.
Beate Winkler, director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the EU's race relations watchdog, says enlargement has increased the sense of alienation.
She sees a parallel with the way that German unification affected German Muslims: "German Muslims said to other Germans 'You have welcomed the people from eastern Germany very warmly, but you never welcomed us'," says Ms Winkler, who worked for the German government at the time.

A lot of recent hostility to Muslims dates back to the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks, which were followed by a surge in anti-Muslim racist violence. At the Regent's Park mosque the challenges for Muslims are clear. A police notice on a pillar explains the presence of officers in the street during Friday prayers.

It says Muslims are sometimes badly portrayed in the tabloid press and that this is unfortunately believed by many people. But it warns that demonstrations outside the mosque, while understandable given world tensions, do nothing for the reputation of the vast majority of worshippers.

Young Muslims at the mosque say that the fight against terrorism and the rising police scrutiny of Muslim communities are making their life difficult. The frustrations are all the greater today, with the enlargement of the EU to new, mostly central and eastern European countries.

Sana Ullah, a religious teacher originally from Pakistan, says he is grateful to have raised three children to become doctors in the UK.
"They're happy here and there are jobs. This country is rich enough to accommodate us and the Poles and the Hungarians," he says.
"The problem is that we feel the media and others don't understand Muslims; some use bad language when our women walk on the streets. And with enlargement, there will be more Europeans who say that we are not good, more people who are against Muslims."

The sentiments are similar in France, home to over 4m of the new EU's 12m Muslims. Rachid Ben Issa, an Algerian community leader who lived in France until recently, says the alienation of European Muslims stems from many years of frustrations. "We feel unloved and excluded," he says.

In Spain, after the Madrid bombings, which have been blamed on a group composed mostly of Spanish-resident Moroccans, Muslim leaders in big cities denounced Islamic militancy.

But in the fruit farms in the south, Moroccan and sub-Saharan migrant labourers find themselves competing with Poles and others imported under government-sponsored schemes from eastern Europe. Unemployed Moroccans say they are suffering from racial discrimination by farmers.

Katinka Barysch, a researcher at the London-based Centre for European Reform, says people from the new EU states competing with North African immigrants have an advantage because east Europeans are better educated.

There are big cultural differences among Europe's Muslims, but they are united in their sense of the discrimination they feel from the non-Muslim population.

Some European Muslim leaders say they would feel more at home in the EU if it were eager about starting accession talks with Turkey now that it has embraced 10 mainly Christian states and is planning to accept two more - Bulgaria and Romania - in 2007.
Mr Ben Issa says bluntly: "Europe is now affirming that it wants a Christian Europe - even Turkey's hopes for joining the EU are being played down."

However, Ms Winkler says the priority should be to make a success of the current round of enlargement, including the integration of ethnic, national and religious minorities.

"We have to establish and strengthen relations among the different minorities in the EU on the basis of common respect for human rights."

Or you can hide your head in the sand and ignore the problem.

Because quite frankly, if they became extermists in our countries, because they hated the way we treat muslims, then why in Frith's name did they attack you?

If you look at the number of attacks by Muslims in Europe, they far outweigh those against the US. Those in the US were more significant in that they picked more noteworthy targets. But for years Muslims have been setting off bombs in France, they captured a embassy in England, they hijacked an Italian cruise ship. They did a lot of things in your backyard.

What has Europe done in response- very little.
To be fair it seems that the Europeans are trying to do better-

The Economist (US), March 6, 2004 v370 i8365 p46US
A growing band of brothers; Muslims in Europe. (The politics of Islam in Europe)

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Economist Newspaper Ltd.
The continuing debate among European Muslims over western political values

WHAT role will Europe's 12m or so Muslims play in the continent's affairs? Most people discern two possibilities. Either European
Muslims will integrate seamlessly into their countries' political and economic life; or they will stay on the margins, nursing their rage.
In fact, both things are happening. As German citizens of Turkish origin acquire voting rights and wealth, and leading Muslims become regional governors in France or peers in Britain, there are healthy signs of a community gaining in status and respect. "The great majority of French Muslims are melting successfully into the social mainstream," comments Soheib Bencheikh, the liberal mufti of Marseilles. But at the other extreme, a handful of ultra-militant preachers are offering moral and even material support to terrorism.

The strongest trend in the politics of European Islam lies somewhere in the middle. A new generation of European-born Muslims is learning to work effectively within their countries' laws and political systems. But it also draws spiritual and ideological inspiration from Islam's Middle Eastern heartland, and cherishes the hope that Islamic rule will prevail over secular government in Muslim countries.

An interesting pointer is the strong effort to dominate European Islam being mounted by sympathisers of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a grass-roots movement to build an Islamic society from the bottom upwards that was spawned in Egypt in the early 20th century and spread, in the teeth of repression, across the Islamic world. The Brotherhood's principal ideologue is Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a 77-year-old religious teacher, based in Qatar, who enjoys great moral standing in the Islamic diaspora, via his writings, broadcasts and websites. He also wields influence through a more formal channel: the Dublin-based European Council for Fatwa and Research, of which he is president.

This council comprises 32 leading scholars, from Europe and the Middle East, whose self-appointed task is to ponder the dilemmas--moral, personal and political--faced by European Muslims. The issues they consider range from the religious (the posture and frequency of prayer) and the professional (can Muslims be full-time sportsmen?) to the realm of politics (can Muslims take part in local elections?). But they also touch on world affairs. For example the council has said that Jerusalem is Islamic land, and that its occupation by non-Muslims should be resisted by "all means"--and also that suicide bombings in Israel are not subject to the usual Muslim strictures against taking one's own life, or that of non-combatants.

In 2001 European governments rejoiced when Sheikh Qaradawi roundly condemned the terrorist attacks of September 11th. But the scholar makes clear that he feels differently about suicide bombings in the "war zones" of the Middle East. He encourages keen but qualified participation in the western system, with the interests of Islam always in mind.

In the same spirit, Sheikh Suhaib Hasan Ahmed, a council member who runs a school and mosque in London, says it is legitimate for Muslims to be active in secular parties--but only if the parties advance Muslim concerns, such as aid to Islamic education, a change in divorce laws, and easier access to halal food. A Muslim politician must oppose his party if it goes against Islam, Sheikh Hasan says.

The reach of Sheikh Qaradawi extends to many different branches of Islam. Many of his council colleagues, such as Sheikh Hasan, are far from being Brotherhood sympathisers. But what about the direct influence exercised by the Muslim Brothers, whose Egyptian founder, Hasan al-Banna, wanted to re-Islamise society, and ultimately the state, by galvanising individuals, families and communities?

In several distinct ways, the legacy of al-Banna is being felt across Europe. One is through Sheikh Qaradawi. Another is through movements that follow the Brotherhood's ideology in a narrower sense, and are bidding to be the loudest Islamic voice in Europe--to the discomfort of other Muslims, who are more moderate or, in a few cases, more extreme.

Ask a resident of Lyons or Marseilles which movement speaks for the Muslim Brothers, and you will be directed to the Union of Islamic Organisations in France (UOIF). This is a well-organised constellation of smaller groups that increasingly dominates the politics of the country's 4.5m Muslims. To the alarm of older Muslim leaders, the UOIF and other tough-talking factions swept the board in last year's elections to local branches of the new French Council for the Muslim Faith.

The presidency of this council remains in the cautious hands of Dalil Boubakeur, grand mufti of Paris; he is an admirer of French civilisation who laments the "contest of extremism" among his fellow Muslims. But the regional branches are so dominated by the UOIF that a takeover of the entire council is within its grasp. One official who watched the council's establishment comments that "the militants have left Boubakeur in place, but they are biding their time." Moderate French Muslims think that the government--and especially Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister--was naive, at best, in letting pro-Brotherhood groups build such a commanding position. But officials say that drawing Brotherhood supporters into the system has, on balance, been worthwhile. They point out that, because it was co-opted by officialdom, the UOIF was unable to support protests against a ban on Muslim headscarves in public schools and other state institutions.

In Britain, the most vocal exponents of Brotherhood thinking are in the Muslim Association of Britain, which gained prominence last year as a co-organiser of protest marches against the Iraq war. This association is among the constituent groups of the Muslim Council of Britain, a broader body that is valued by the government as an interlocutor. When, as has happened several times, the association is attacked in Parliament for condoning violence in the Middle East, the council leaps to its defence. Yet in Britain, as in France, co-existence between "brothers and others" has not always been easy.

How can an outsider distinguish between different schools of politically active Muslims? One touchstone issue is how Muslims' role in Europe--past, present and future--is conceived. Emollient figures, such as the muftis of Marseilles and Paris, speak of how much their values and those of post-enlightenment Europe have in common; they say Muslims have much to learn from their non-Muslim compatriots. Those who take their cue from the Brotherhood put more emphasis on the ideal of Islamic governance in Muslim countries. This implies that secular democracy, while tolerable in the West, is not a perfect system.

The views of Tariq Ramadan (see box) are an ingenious bid to synthesise the two camps. As he puts it, there are values, such as equal citizenship, accountability or the rule of law, that are reflected (albeit not yet perfectly) in western democracy--but can also be expressed in ways that are closer to Islam's history and culture. Where Sheikh Qaradawi counsels European Muslims to protect themselves as a minority, Mr Ramadan prefers the language of "equal citizenship", implying rights and obligations. Nor, he says, should the UOIF be horse-trading with Mr Sarkozy: this compromises their dignity.

Is there any reason why non-Muslims need follow such intra-Islamic arguments? So far only a handful of Muslims have entered European politics, and most have been individuals of Islamic heritage rather than people whose central concern is to promote the faith. But that is changing; at the next British general election, for example, Labour is fielding two Muslim activists in safe seats. The big question is how much Europe will be changed by politicians who play by democratic rules but also live, and see the world, in the light of a faith to which other loyalties are subordinate. The answer may be: quite a lot.
About time.
No, they're intellectuals. They can enter Europe because they can, and they can get educated here because they can, and with that education and the freedom of fanatical preaching they decide that the US is evil. Maybe they don't get raised like that in the US because you don't allow it?

Actually until George Bush got tough on Muslim students, we had a lot of Muslim students here. Are some of them fanatics, sure. Do we regulate how they are taught, not before George Bush we didn’t. But most didn’t become terrorists because there was little point to it.

welsh said:
Most of the muslims I know in the US can find jobs, can worship as they please, can send their kids to school and can have their own businesses and can be happy when their kids do well. I know. I teach some of these kids. Some of them are my friends.
Prove it. And prove that it's not so in Europe.

What, you want me to prove who I teach? As for the Europe articles, I have included them above. I sent you the others but I am not sure if you read them.

I'm tired of your empty rhetorics, how about you prove one of your statements?

Hey man, I sent you the studies. It’s your choice whether you want to ignore them.

And no, don't wave one of those American studies that rant about huge muslim unemployment rates in France or Germany either. Germany is an economic wreck and has been so in a period when the US prospered, while France has a 5-10% muslim population. Neither are comparable to the US.

You get Muslims, we get Latin Americans. Happily our Latin Americans generally don’t fly airplanes into buildings. Your Muslims do.

As for studies- oh, of course American studies are no good (even if done by Europeans?). The articles above come from European sources.

Also, if the muslims can worship as they please, why don't you have any extermists? Maybe because you export anyone who doesn't agree with you? Or am I to believe that exporting muslims en masse rather than people of other religions is all a big fluke?

As for the article- you did note that the people being deported were illegal immigrants, right?
The vast bulk of those facing deportation proceedings were found to have lapses in their immigration status. By co-operating fully with the demand to register, many had hoped to be treated leniently.
But the immigration service - which faced a backlash after several of the 11 September hijackers were found to have been in the country illegally - says enforcement is now a top priority.

Now, being married to an immigrant I don’t like the US INS rules, and have posted so here. But that said, how would the US not deport these people if they broke law? If we didn’t deport them would that be fair to anyone else who is here illegally? Or should we just give them all amnesty. (And for the record, I often think the amnesty thing is best- especially as 20% of the new jobs are going to illegals anyway).

But they are not being deported because of their faith but because they are here illegally. That said, the Bush administration has proven itself religious biased in what religious organizations it chooses to support. And yet another reason I am looking forward to the day that fucker gets booted out of office.

While we're at it, how 'bout you prove to me American immigration policies allow extermists to enter your country?

That makes little sense. The US doesn’t usually ask a person when they come in “are you an extremist” although it might ask if the person plans to attack the US through sabatoge or violence. And some people lie.

Considering how easy it is to sneak into the US, it would be near impossible to keep extremists out. That’s why so many of the illegals or those without visas getting caught are being thrown in detention- which I will agree is an awful policy, but that’s George Bush’s War on Terrorism for you.

Tho' we Europeans are following your proud example and cracking down on anyone we don't agree with in our borders too. Gooo freedom of speech! Go right out the window.

Now, now. Let’s not get too happy. You still have your Nazis and we still have our KKK. There are plenty of extremists to go around for everyone.


welsh said:
Why not just take some responsibility for yourself for a change?

Hey we do it all the time. We are constantly looking at ourselves in the mirror and reflecting on our moral compass, whether we are doing the right thing or not. It’s called reflection and responsibility. Try it. You learn something. It’s not painless. Hell it’s not painless in the US to see it’s faults and try to do better. But we do it because the road to being better is through knowing both your faults and virtues, knowing what you believe in and what you will stand for or against. It requires moral courage and character. It’s not easy, but life’s not easy, so put the coffee and cake away and show some balls for a change.
Aye, you're giving a good example of self-reflection now, aren't you welsh? Your entire message boils down to "Europe = evil, USA = good". Maybe it's about time you take a step back and actually do some self-reflection.

You are getting rude. Kharn that’s not fair and is a fallicous argument. You are reducing this to a simple question of a false alternatives. I have not said Europe is evil. I have said that you are less responsible for yourselves than you should be, and that you point your finger at the US instead of looking at yourselves.

Alec said there should be more 9/11 flights into the US. How would you feel if that happened to you?

Reflection is hard. I can see why the Dutch often look at the Dutch East India Company as a great moment and ignore the atrocities, or the Belgians in the Congo, or the French where the French tend to go, and still are. One credit to the Germans is that they do remember what they did and regret it, but the Japanese still think themselves as victims. So it’s not uniquely a French problem.

There are a lot of Americans who would gloss over the terrible things the US did. I don’t buy that. If you want to be proud of your country you have to look at both the virtues and the vices. You need not be cynical, because that doesn’t get you very far. But be honest. There are a lot of Americans, even here on this forum, that don’t like to think about the terrible things we have done, and one of the reasons why the prison scandal is causing such a stir in the media. But at the same time it’s scandals like that and the willing to think about them and reflect that make a country better.

Your argument below is that a country changes by external forces. I doubt it’s true for the US. Simply, the US doesn’t really care what other countries think. That’s one of the reasons most Americans don’t care if Europeans think the death penalty is cruel. It may be true for other countries, but based on power and distances, the US is not that much moved by foreign opinion except, of course, when it looks for political allies.

Rather a country moves by internal choices and reflection. If there is moral evolution, than it does so because of how it sees itself, and it’s own sense of what it should be. Hey, last fourth of July, my main reflection was that the US was a better and cooler country before George Bush. There are a lot of Americans who feel the same way. A lot of folks are pissed off about the war, about the economy, about the fact that they are not doing as well as their parents did. They don’t like what the President is doing and they want a change. That’s a more important causal force than external popular pressure against the US.

welsh said:
the UN, Charter and the whole thing was done in New York
Aye, but not done by the US on its own.

For the most part, yes. The US got the English to go along because the English had to. The French got in because they didn’t want to be left out. We got the Latin American countries to sign on because they were in our sphere of influence. So yes, it’s mostly a US creation.

welsh said:
and we had to make an effort to get the Russians to join since they liked politics in the Old School (European) Way.

How is the European Way tied to international policies? But kudos on making an oppressive country part of the most important council of the UN. Goooo US.

The European way was positivist international law, the same old school that rejected the 14 points and make a mockery of the League of Nations. It was the business of secret alliances and rule by conquest.

As for getting the Russians to join that was part of the tradition based on the Council of Europe- the big powerful countries all sit around a table and try to work out their agreements instead of shooting at each other as the normal course of business.

So you have a security council, but you also have an Article 2(4) that basically makes law illegal unless there is a threat to international peace and security.

"But it helped a lot with peace negotiations." No it didn't. The US' actions under Kennedy almost led to world destruction if it wasn't for the common sense of the Russians, but I forgot we have to be thankful you didn't

Of course it was a real smart move of the Russians to put missiles in Cuba in the first place or pledge that it would support any country in Latin American that had a communist revolution. And don’t be so harsh on Kennedy. When his advisors where saying let’s do a surgical bombing strike, Kennedy said no- why, because he had just read the Guns of August and didn’t want to feel like the Germans.

welsh said:
We pushed you folks to decolonize because after all you never really respected your colonized people are human beings. Doubt me, just check the number of evolves that you find in Congo.

Actually, it was the colonized people that made the final push. The civilisation movements pushed, and that was in no way solely the US.

Indeed, and that because most of the European powers were too broke to maintain those colonies in the end. But of course that doesn’t dispute the point as to the morality of the Europeans when they have enough political power.

Also, would you argue the state of living in those countries would now be better without being colonized? Tchyuh.

Perhaps. The Indian ocean had a strong merchant trade before the Europeans showed up and conquered it with cannon. There were a number of states in Africa that were powerful sovereigns before the Europeans showed up. Your primary advantages were guns and disease. A common argument now is that those colonies and the colonial administrations inherited by post-colonial states are reverting back to more ancient forms of politics. However, most of the colonized suffered in quality of life when they were colonized, and they have since hurt even more.

welsh said:
Ok, let’s see what else, we helped fight the world’s infections and generously gave of our people.
Europe didn't?
Of course.

welsh said:
We kept the commies from giving you communist dictatorship and spilled a lot of blood in the process.
On your own?

No, but without the US it’s doubtful that the Europeans would have been able to stop the spread of communism.

welsh said:
We helped build a stable international and liberal order, which was good for the developed countries but have left the undeveloped countries behind- still your Belgians like your quality of life right?
You already mentioned that. But you're arguing that making an inegelatarian world order is one of the good things the US did? Go you.

Indeed, but one that serves the quality of Europe and which you as Europeans have benefited. That said, a stable order that might have espoused communist dictatorship, facism or further colonial rule- would that have been better?

As for the inequalities of the world, yes, they continue. In some parts they have gotten worse, in others better. Much of that though can also be traced to the sovereign states that grew out of former colonies.

welsh said:
Upon that liberal international order one sees a global economic order arise.
Do the words "world debt crisis" mean anything to you?

Hey, they don’t call it the Paris Club for nothing, ya know. Who controls that capital? Some of it’s Citibank. Some of it comes from the Bank of London, Some from Credit Suisse, French Banks, Dutch Banks.

Europe has done well in creating capital. As for the debt crisis- is it the American fault for creating the order, is it the international bankers fault for lending the capital, or is it the government of those states for being so damn crooked that they pocketed much of the money and let their states go bankrupt.

Of course we could go back and straighten out those broken states, but that would be called imperialism. And why were those houses broken, perhaps because you guys were so busy leaving that you failed to provide those countries with working governments.

welsh said:
The US supported the rise of Europe and protected you, and when countries went broke because they can’t pay, we bailed them out.
Yeah, that was great. 'coz we didn't do the same when you fought the English. Oh wait...

Ah France, the country that showed up at the last minute. Because it had a score to settle with the English and in those days wars were acceptable diplomacy, same rules that led you to World War 1 and World War 2.

welsh said:
And although we supported dictators through out the Cold War, because they were better than communists dictatorships,
No, you supported them because they weren't communists. They were ofttimes far worse than one would argue a communist dictatorship might've been.

Yes, and I agree that it’s something the US has to make up for. So the US turned off the financial capital when the Cold War was over and pushed for the authoritarians to open up to democracy.

welsh said:
we also pushed for democratization after the Cold War was over and let dictators like Doe and Mobutu to crumble away.
What? Just the US? On its own

Actually the French were still interested in supporting Mobutu and were pissed off when the Rawandans supporting Kabila, knocked him out of office.

welsh said:
We created a vast fleet that protected the seas and made it possible that you didn’t have to waste your money on military forces but could grow fat and happy on Dutch beer and chocolates, and thus made possible the EU (for there could be no EU without NATO).
I hate the EU.

Yes, we know.

Also, how do you think the Americas grew fat before Big Wars? Because you constantly had to fight the kingdom of Great Britain? Nope, we occupied them

Not sure what that refers to. We grew fat because we grew rich and lazy, and because we don’t walk to much and give too many subsidies to corn. As for England, we fought them twice, but then they decided to enforce our Monroe Doctrine and we’ve been buddies ever since (well except for a hick up during the US Civil War).

welsh said:
We stuck our necks out, sending soldiers to die in all corners of the world over pieces of dirt we had little interest in.
Yeah, Europe didn't.

Not like the US you haven’t. True, Europe sends a lot of forces to the UN for peacekeeping. (and incidently, I agree, Norway kicks ass). But when France sends its soldiers to Africa it is to protect their neo-colonial interest. When Italy sent troops to Albania it was to prevent a refugee problem, when Belgium sent paratroopers to Africa it was to protect their businesses. Now to be fair, the US has done the same at times in Latin America on behalf of United Fruit and other companies. But it is nice to see some Europeans joining in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
welsh said:
And we also stuck our necks out so that when the Chinese premier came to the US and asked, “are you willing to sacrifice Los Angeles for Taipai” meaning, how far is the US willing to go to protect the Taiwanese, at the risks of Nuclear weapons, we told him to fuck off and try it and we’ll nuke you into the stone age, you lousey commie fucks. And a lot of us don’t even like Chinese food.

Yeah, you told him that. No you didn't. You refused to give way, but you didn't tell him that. Don't make something heroic out of a simple political move. The US likes the economically strong Taiwan there, that's it.

Actually, when the Chinese test a missile over Taiwan and the US sends two nuclear armed aircraft carriers with a warning that we don’t want China to do that, that means, essentially, the same thing. SO the Chinese get to think, “If we invade Taiwan, the US will come to Taiwan’s defense, which means war with the US.”

Of course this is not unusual. Americans are sitting on the DMZ in Korea with nuclear weapons on both sides. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan the US made a commitment that if the Russians went further south their would be a nuclear war. The US force in Europe also promised to deliver nuclear weapons to the Russians if they went over the Iron Curtain. France, of course, took it’s missiles and stayed home. And so Europe got to save a bit of money on defense because the US was there.

So, the US is willing to stick it’s neck out for the independence of countries other than itself. And Europe?

welsh said:
Has the US done terrible things? Yes. Have we done great things, often unselfish things, yes.
Bullshit. Now you're depicting the US as some kind of knight of the good and true. A shining example who unselfishly does things save poor opressed people.

Hardly Kharn. There is a strong pull in the US that says that we should only send our troops to places in the world that serve the US vital interests. This was one of the reasons Clinton got into heat over Somalia and why it took longer than it should for US troops to go to the former Yugoslavia.

As for painting the world in black and white, no. Actually I have been pretty clear that the US has done some terrible things. But it has done some good things as well. I would never paint the US as a “knight of what is good and true” but rather as a tarnished figure that is trying to figure out what it should do, and often makes mistakes. Read the post more carefully next time before trying to put words in my mouth.

Bullshit! Poor unfiltered bullshit! You interfered in Europe out of political and economic motives, this includes the Marshall Plan. You invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for selfish motions. Every war the US has ever waged is to further American goals, and that is how it should be, that's how politics work.

Actually the US had pretty much turned it’s back on Europe until Marshall came to Europe and saw the danger of communism within Europe as well as the threat posed by the Russians. And even then, it wasn’t an easy sell to Congress because at the time, it was a lot of freaking money. But in the late 1940s most Americans were tired of Europe, didn’t want to go back, had fought the war and wanted to get on with their lives. Hell Stalin was still Uncle Joe until about 1948.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq- not sure about Afghanistan. Maybe the motives were selfish. I think it was just a question of payback. As for Iraq, hey, I have argued that our motives are, at least partially, selfish. It’s about the price of oil. Of course that a lot of that oil goes to Europe means it’s good for you too. But that’s good for us as well because in the globalized world, the US and the EU have become more closely integrated then ever.

No country ever does "unselfish" things. Europe and the US, equally, all do some simple easy things for people who're worse off because we feel guilty, and that's about it.

Guilt is irrational behavior and usually doesn’t figure into economic choices.

Actually that’s not true. You send in the marines for disaster relief in Bangladesh, and that’s pretty noble. You stick you hand between Kashmir and India to stop a nuclear war from breaking out. Do we get something out of it, yes, a bit more peace. Back in the old days though, nobody would have cared much.

welsh said:
A crappy agreement.

Yeah! Good thing we have that American agreement to replace it with, huh?

Oh wait...
I didn’t vote for the guy.


welsh said:
But Congolese own their own country. Can you say that about the Indians? The only European countries who have committed atrocities to gain their countries equal to that of America are the Portuguese and Spanish in the South. Wiping out an entire people to emplant your own. That's one of the sickest acts in history, dude, but you like to gloss over that, don't you?

Oh come on and don’t be silly. The Europeans would have wiped out everyone in Africa if they could. The only places they didn’t try to settle were too deadly, their people kept dieing off. What Spain did to the Incas and the Aztecs one finds being done by the Australians to their Aborigines, and the Boers doing to the blacks. It was done because it was cheap and the Indians were in the way. Excusable? No.

welsh said:
Our blood, your prosperity.

And don’t forget, the blood that gets spilled today- the same type that runs through people on this board from Ellisar who is going to Iraq, to others who were vets, to Malk, who may get drafted, is the same that flowed through their grandfathers who died in Europe in the last big war there, their great grandfathers who died in the big war before that, which ran through their fathers who stood guard during the Cold War, and their brothers who were in the Balkans.

FUCK YOU, welsh. The French lost thousands in Vietnam.

I could tell you to fuck off too Kharn, but that's not very meaningful over the internet, and you for one should be above that.

France- To support their colony after they got their asses kicked out by the Japanese and because they didn’t want to give the indigenous people freedom despite the fact that Ho was leading the Indochinese Communst Party in a war of resistance against the Japanese. And the French did the same thing, and worse, in Algeria and got their asses handed to them.

The resistances lost thousands during WW II. European blood was spilt all over the world fighting for freedom and security.

The resistance, a communist organization that fought while the majority didn’t. And when the war was over they got crushed. And if Europeans were fighting in World War 2, they should have. It’s your fucking backyard.

It is being spilt now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, and God bless them.

So how about you take that high-and-mighty "the US is the only one that fights for world peace" attitude and stuff it?

Did I say that, Kharn? No, I said Americans have been spilled to make Europe prosperous. That’s what I said. And this in response to this kind of sentiment-

From Alec-
It's bound to happen sooner or later, what with all the bullshit this wonderfull nation is causing the world nowadays. I'm already looking forward to it.

From Alec, who as quoted above seem so happy with the idea that that there might be another plane flying into a building full of innocent people.

Now the US has done some nice things for Europe in the past. Not without benefit to the US, true, and sometimes it has done some rather unselfish acts- although some might be too cynical.

But never, in all my life, have I ever heard of anyone wishes another act of terrorism in Europe. Not another French bombing, not another shoot-out in an Italian airport, not a train blown up in Spain, not an explosion in a London bar or a Berlin Disco, not once. In fact most people I know that come here to study or work are surprised at how nice Americans are to them (even the French).

Now Alec might be saying that because “freedom of speech” means he can offend and that offensive language gets the blood boiling. Fine. Or he might be saying that because he’s being a prick. You can laugh, hey, it’s 3000 people dead. Maybe they have not connection to you or Alec, but they have a connection me.

So I am offended.
As everyone should be.

Because most of those people were as innocent of any crime as you, me, or Alec.

Do I like this administration. No and I am looking forward to a change. But give me a break from this pompous bullshit. And yeah maybe you should look at yourself a little more closely.

welsh said:
I love Europe. Don’t get me wrong. My folks come from there and I love visiting. I love the cafes and the charm and the history. I appreciate what you have done for your quality of life, I enjoy talking to the people and visiting and living and working there. Really, Europe is great.

It’s been awhile since I was there but I remember a few things. I especially remember the refugees that people will look down their noses at because they escaped a war-torn country. (We got a lot of those in America and some of those became the parents of lawyers and doctors). I remembered the homeless and the drug addicts in the subways, and I remembered how Western Europeans would point to Eastern Europeans and think, they steal our cars and they ruin our times in the market? I remember how Europeans would look down on Africans and Muslims and treat them as second class. I remember how people would blame the Auslanders for the problems of their society, that they got fat on European social security when in fact many were working jobs like garbage man and kitchen workers that most Europeans wouldn’t take. How they hated the new immigrants. I remember Swiss complaining about how the Jews were suing the banks because the banks didn’t want to return the money they stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. I remember Brits calling Indians niggers and pakis. Or how people were criticizing the Chinese for selling souvernirs to tourists made in China. I remembered the discrimination I saw of European on non-Europeans and how so many of those non-Europeans had so little opportunities. But mostly I remembered the Yugoslavian woman trying to ask for money in a street in Germany and how people ignored her like she was rubbish. That happens in NY too, where you become desensitized to the poor and homeless, but this woman was a war refugee from a war that happened on your doorstep.

So yeah, I love Europe and would love to live or visit. But damn, I am proud of being an American and would never give this country up.

Yeah, because the US is famous for having an easy immigrant policy, that allows anyone to come in. And you treat your people fine, right? There are no Mexican slumholes or African ghettos in the US? And those Africans have been in your country for 200 years, yet you KEEP treating them like shit.

Nope we have slums and ghettos, but a lot of people can get out of them. They can achieve a better standard of living. We don’t have any African ghettos, although we have plenty African-American projects and neighborhoods. But we also have an affirmative action program that helps them get out of the shit.

Does Europe?[/quote]

Are you saying the American projects for equalising oppertunities are there because oppertunities are already equal? Yeah right.
Hardly. This is a country with the market run amock and only now people are coming to realize that the market can’t do everything.

But hey, if you want to pretend Europe is one racist shithole while the US accepts everyone to soothe your own conscience, then fine, go ahead.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My point was that Americans think and reflect and do stuff about this. But I don’t see much reflection in Europe. Just a lot of finger pointing.

welsh said:
You were our fathers. But you kicked us out. We were too poor or too many, and you didn’t care for us. You kept us poor and starving, and you used us for your wars of imperialism and abuse. You denied us opportunity because we were common. So you kicked us out, or we left home. Either way, ours was an intent of building a new and better world.
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Are you going to deny that most of the immigrants who came to the US were looking for new opportunities that didn’t exist in Europe. That we didn’t have starving Irish, or poor Italians, that New York doesn’t have new neighborhoods of Russian and Eastern European immigrants? That Washington DC has a huge Muslim population (which you can see regularly at Tyson’s Corner- one of the area’s biggest shopping malls – where they have the money to shop with everyone else).

welsh said:
And we did that.

And we made better what you had done. Where your world is divided by nationalities, we made one unified nation. Where you persecuted for religious reasons, we accept all religions. Where you lived in a system of class relationships, we overcame that so that the poorest can be among the richest.

We took what you had, and we did better. We furthered your industrial revolution and made it part of our lifestyle. We took your notions of liberalism and spread them around the world.

It wasn’t easy, and there were plenty of mistakes, and we lost much blood in the process. But we did better than anywhere else you got your grubby hands on. Because while you sucked the world dry the way a vampire needs new blood, we were stronger.

And when you were sick and dieing, when cancers were gnawing at your bones, we came and our children died for you. We made your rich, and helped you establish a quality of life like you never had, and thus rescued you from the threat of communism that would have led to your own perpetual dictatorship.

And when you were well again you treated us with spite. Perhaps it was jealousy or envy. But so it goes, and again, when the time comes, it will probably the US that once again returns to Europe when you are in need.

Welsh is right.

Repeat those words, think, repeat those words.

Of course I’m right. 

The US ruled the world better than Europe ever did.

19th century Europe ruled the world better than 18th century Europe did.

questionable that- the European age of colonialism really kicks in during the 19th century.

Tsaric Russia did more good for its people than the mongol hordes did.

Rome did more good for its subjects than its previous rulers did.

Y'know what? That's progress. The world is moving forward. Becoming more moral, developed, better. It's not a linear movement, but that's how it works. And the US is doing the world more good than anyone ever did.

Why? Because the US is somehow better, holier, greater than any previous country? Like the US is not constantly under international pressure to do better, If Europe weren't whiny little bitches, did you think the US would even be NEAR the quality it is now?

I agree, the US is not more holy. Better and greater, perhaps. Does international pressure matter- not really.

Some, yes. We take notice when a million Italians protest in Rome. But then we forget it in a day or two. And it matters when we look for allies and the Italians say no, because of those million protestors. So yes. It does matter a little.

Does it matter a lot? No.

I have discussed the idea of American Exceptionalism (which I don’t agree with- we are just like everyone else- as Kharn argues). But Americans have a history of two big oceans and friendly neighbors. So we don’t worry about it. There is a lot of criticism thrown our way, but mostly it gets ignored.

When politicians act, they act mostly based on what their constituents (or the special interests- especially for the Republicans) want.

Get off your high horse, welsh. That's how history works. If Europe takes over from the US again, we'll do better. Why? Because we'll have you looking over our shoulder, criticising our every move. International pressure, historical movements, that's what makes the world what it is. Not the US somehow being magically greater than anything before it.

No high horse Kharn, and you’re wrong. Not because societies don’t evolve, but because the future is at best uncertain. We have only the past as guide and that’s not a very good one. Yes, history has shown evolution towards a better world. But then, was Rome better than Ancient Greece or did it just do military and administration better? Did the colonialism of the 19th Century give birth to a better 20th Century of former colonies? Was Mao’s China better than that of the Emperors before that?

You assume a teleological argument- that the world will always improve and that’s a fallacy. But there have been times when things have turned the other way. With the exception of the wars of Napoleon Bonapart the there were no “world wars” in the 19th Century. In the early 20th Century there was a belief that with liberalism there would be no more wars among the Europeans because of the benefits of trade. The glory of the Romans gave birth to a Dark Age of over 1000 years.

The future is uncertain, and thus we need to pay attention to history least we mistake ourselves in our vanity that we can do no wrong, or that we will do better. For every generation has said the same thing- they will not repeat the mistakes of the past but failing to learn those lessons, often repeat them just the same.
C'mon, welsh, you can't possible believe the European criticism is a bad thing. That somehow Europe subtly forcing the US to change bad policies makes us bad and you good. If you do, fuck you.

You’re being rude Kharn, really.

Do I think European criticism is a bad thing? No. Especially not of this administration. Will it have the effect of changing things. Slight but I think less significant than you wish.

But what pisses me off is when some prick says that more planes should crash into buildings, and that’s a good thing.

For the record, I love Europe, and I appreciate the sacrifices Europe has made for making a better world.

In fact, that leads me to the next point, to grab back on something I said earlier. The World Debt Crisis. Y'know what the biggest atrocity of the world is, currently? It's the debts that mean the African countries have to pay more to the Western countries than they receive in "foreign aid". Think about that for a second. We give them money, they give it back. But our money is temporary, free, just "aid". Their money is a desperate attempt to get rid of money they owe us permanently. This is ruining them.

And to make it prettier this is not the only thing. The EU and the USA both have huge amounts of money to spend on their own "poor lil' farm". Each farmer gets loads of money to grow way too much food, the surplus of which is then dumped into Africa for almost nothing, ruining any chance their farmers have of selling their goods in their own country or even internationally, and ruining their agriculture. In the colonial days we used to tell the people what to do. Now, under American freedom, we just use economic policies to do exactly the fucking same.

Yep. I say it’s time to reduce the farm subsidies.

Of course it’s those debts that allow the developed world to squeeze the third world. Cheap food in exchange for expensive imports is part of the problem.

But also, a lot of those governments are really fucked up.


And while they're fighting wars, wasting lives and billions, what does the US do about these two atrocities? Absolutely nothing.

Hold on there. There has been a move in the US to open it’s markets to agricultural goods. Also there has been quite a move here to forgive the debt.

All any Western country would have to do is wave those debts away. It would be an economic hit on us, sure, but it would save them. Yet the EU has done more against this, the greatest atrocity of our current age, than the US. When it boils down to it, neither of us are doing shit about it, the EU is doing less not shit.

While I agree with what you are saying however, to be honest, forgiving the debt might
(1) make little difference – since for the most part no one believes the debts will ever be repaid anyway.
(2) Could create more problems.

I know that sounds terrible, but let me explain. The ability of a country to make loan repayments is a sign of it’s economic strength and reform. The better it’s repayments the more likely the country is to be seen as credit worthy. For these countries there have been moves to forgive the debts they have as well as to stimulate more investment and aid. Ghana is a good case.

That said, there are a lot of countries that are not credit worthy and are getting little investment. Many of these countries use their repressive powers against their people to extract as much capital as possible. Should they be seen as credit worthy, they could get more loans and more investment- but there is little reason why those rulers would use that money to improve their countries in any meaningful way. In fact, judging by politics in Central Lakes, they might use that money to rearm and attack rivals. The recent case in Sudan might also be an illustration of that.

Though I have to agree, the debt crisis is a real fuck up.

Which boils down to the main point of this discussion. The US is doing better than the EU did. The current EU is not doing worst than the US is, considering its position. The next world power might well do a lot better than the US is doing now. In either case, both the US and the EU currently have great flaws, so stop sounding off like the US is absolutely better.

Hardly the point. My point was that the US has often come to Europe’s aid, and that Europeans, including Alec, should reflect a bit more before wishing more planes into our buildings. If you are to criticize us so severely (and I admit we deserve some of that) perhaps you should look at yourselves first.
 
welsh said:
But what pisses me off is when some prick says that more planes should crash into buildings, and that’s a good thing.

welsh said:
Now Alec might be saying that because “freedom of speech” means he can offend and that offensive language gets the blood boiling. Fine. Or he might be saying that because he’s being a prick.

So now I'm a prick as well. Jeez.

I only said that because you obviously didn't get why 9/11 happened in the first place. It has very little to do with us Europeans (and I don't give a shit about those Economist articles and such - American propaganda, for all I care). So if you Americans keep denying the fact that you had it coming, then yes: another disaster might be in order. As gruesome as that might be. But get this: do you ever think about all the innocents that have been killed and mutilated in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, I do. And I feel offended if some prick doesn't seem to care about them. They're humans too, you know?
 
alec said:
welsh said:
But what pisses me off is when some prick says that more planes should crash into buildings, and that’s a good thing.

welsh said:
Now Alec might be saying that because “freedom of speech” means he can offend and that offensive language gets the blood boiling. Fine. Or he might be saying that because he’s being a prick.

So now I'm a prick as well. Jeez.

Normally I'd say no. Hey Alec, you know I love ya. But some of the crap that you have been saying, man, it's painful and offensive.

If you want to piss off people, you have to expect them to respond to you pissed off.

I only said that because you obviously didn't get why 9/11 happened in the first place. It has very little to do with us Europeans (and I don't give a shit about those Economist articles and such - American propaganda, for all I care). So if you Americans keep denying the fact that you had it coming, then yes: another disaster might be in order. As gruesome as that might be. But get this: do you ever think about all the innocents that have been killed and mutilated in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, I do. And I feel offended if some prick doesn't seem to care about them. They're humans too, you know?

I am not sure a lot of people know why 9/11 happened. But I will say this- Osama Bin Laden was pissed off that the US was in Saudi Arabia and wanted the US out. He got support in Afghanistan and was willing to orchestrate a series of terrorist attacks, and did so. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

The people he used were radicals. Many had been radicalized in Europe. That's fact, rather you wish to acknowledge it or not is your choice- why they were radicalized in Europe is something I think Europeans should think about carefully- just as I would say that Americans should ask themselves why some Muslims in the US are radicalized.

Do we, Americans, care about the dead in the middle east. To a certain extent we have been shielded from that, and we shouldn't. That alone makes Michael Moore's documentary worth seeing- seeing images we have not been aloud to. But yes, we care. For many Americans we believe that while there are people being maimed or killed because of Americans, we hope that the countries will be, in the end, better places for their people, and that this is the price.

Some would say we shouldn't act. But what is the price of not acting?

Did we have it coming? Considering that the US has brokered a peace plan, that the US defended Saudi Arabia from Iraq, that the US has sent millions of aid and supports a lot of good causes in the middle east, then no, 3000 americans did not deserve it, and your argument that they do, is offensive and callous.

Hey bud, you know I have a friend I went to school who had an office in one of those buildings, and she was a real sweet hearted person.

Or do you believe that one dead person justifies another?

Ok, longer response-
alec said:
]
I am really that cynical.

Yes, I’ve noticed. That’s not too healthy you know.

welsh said:
Sure the Tokyo tribunals were less fair and more subject to the claim of “victors justice” but were the war crimes trials a good idea? If not, then what would you suggest?
I suggest everyone starts minding their own business.

And thus the Nazis go free, the Pol Pots, those who preach ethnic cleansing? Isn’t that like hiding your head in a hole and hoping the world gets better.

Well, judging by America's actions and attitude lately, it apparently does.

Happily it’s an election year.

Of course it is easy to point fingers and all. But it's also damn easy to open up your encyclopedia, visit a few sites on the internet, consult a dictionary or two, and to quote and paraphraze others, drop a title or two, just to appear enlightened and smart.
I tell you, welsh: we are not impressed.

Verses what exactly? You espousing how nice it would be for another airplane to crash into another building?

Or do you just not like being informed?

I see you Americans are still in denial. "Hey, don't you forget that those terrorists were radicalized in Europe, you lazy bitch!" Meaning what? That Americans are paying for what Europeans are doing to them? Get real.

Get real? Who colonized the Middle East? Are you saying that there are no Muslim radicals in Europe? Are you kidding? You have a largely marginalized population that you have largely failed to integrate, and you don’t think they’re pissed off?

If this is the attitude of most Americans, you still have not understood the message and thus a new 9/11 scenario might be useful.

Actually a lot of Americans are wondering why we are in this shit, and there has been a lot of soul searching.

And this justifies a bunch of fanatics whose ideologies espouse keeping women as chattel and that when they die they get to fuck 60 virgins for a noble cause?

You know Alec, there were almost 50,000 people working in the Trade Center. 50,000 is basically my entire town. And most of these people probably were too busy living their lives and trying to get by to think much about the middle east.

But your cynicism and bitterness advocates their deaths? Especially when you’re living in a world that is prosperous in part because of US policies. Great.

Get this: they hate yanks. They hate America. They hate the USA. They hate the modern crusaders down in Israel because of what they are doing to the Palestinians. And they know those crusaders are your closest friends. They hate your unnecessary presence in Iraq and they want you to leave them and their natural resources the fuck alone. That's why they knocked down the World Trade Center and that's why they bomb the shit out of you guys on a daily basis in Iraq. Deal with it. That's reality for ya!

You know something Alec. I hate what the Israelis do to the Palestinians. But I also know that the Jews who go there justify themselves because when they were in Europe, the Europeans largely turned them over to the Nazis and gassed them. Now I am not justifying one for the other, but you can’t really blame the Jews for thinking that they have to conquer their own homeland to survive. It’s that or move to Brooklyn.

And those same fanatics are of the same cloth that created a nation in which women were enslaved, where development went to shit, and the quality of life was like in the stone age and if you spoke out against it you got stoned.

And that was cool if they wanted that? The US didn’t invade Afghanistan before 9/11. And I know that Iraq has no tie in with Afghanistan, although AL Queda is now supporting the resistance. But do you really think that if “the insurgency” wins, they will be much better than they were under Saddam?

They crashed a plane into the US because the US fought a war against Iraq to get them out of Kuwait. And the US stayed there to make sure the oil stayed there. And it did that so that the price of oil was stable and the flow kept coming, so the people in the developed world, the US, Japan, Europe, could maintain their quality of life.

So yeah, you benefited from this. You continue to benefit from it.

Do we pay the price, yes.

Judging from what you just said about muslim terrorists getting radicalized in Europe before bombing the shit out of the USA, I recommend YOU take a good look behind the rhetorics to view the reality of it all. It ain't pretty, welsh.

Nor is your cynicism Alec. I have posted the articles here and before.

I sincerely hope so, but since I'm not unfamiliar with the history of the world, I have to say I wonder if the world will ever become "a better place". Ah, one can only hope it will... one fine day...

Great for you to espouse the bloodshed for others while you get to enjoy your latte.

welsh said:
Or will the US have to come to the defense of Europe again. Two world wars and one Cold War, plus the mess in former Yugoslavia- that's a pretty solid record of involvement in the US to protect Europe and one day we will have to pay for it.
Dude, this is your worst post ever. You can't help it, I'm sure, but stop blaming Europeans for the mess you guys are in. You reap what you sow, my friend, YOU reap what YOU sow.

What are you denying now that the US has come to Europe’s defense?
And we are paying for it.

NATO, provides the security shield that allows European intergration to happen. Part of that initial integration happens thanks to the Marshal Plan, but it’s mostly Europe. However, they do it because they are not competing with each other militarily, and thus repeating the mistakes prior to both World Wars. At the same time, because you don’t have to spend as much on defense as you had, you get to reinvest in social services. This creates unrivaled prosperity in Europe throughout the 1950s-70s such that Europe is essentially rebuilt from World War 2.

In the meantime the Europeans are not spending on defense because they are benefiting from US public goods- international security, so the US is stuck with a large defense budget and the need to intervene, ideally on the cheap, in other parts of the World- like in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Southeast Asia- former colonies of Europe. To some extent the Europeans play a part there. The Netherlands fights in Indonesia to hold on, the Brits fight in Malaya, Kenya, the French lose in Algeria and Indochina (and the Americans pick up the slack). In Africa, the US leaves France in control of it’s old colonies- setting off French sustained neo-colonialism. The US takes on the brunt of the fighting in Korea, it safeguards the sea lanes.

Through all that Europeans continue to invest abroad, maintaining ties with former colonies, making a profit. The Europeans are able to buy cheap goods made from raw materials cheap from former colonies, they prosper and get comfortable, and start working towards unification.

In the meantime the US is left with places like Palestine, to arbitrate the Arab-Israeli conflicts, to get involved in Lebanon. So yes, it’s our mess, but we inherited it from you.

welsh said:
Most of the muslims I know in the US can find jobs, can worship as they please, can send their kids to school and can have their own businesses and can be happy when their kids do well. I know. I teach some of these kids. Some of them are my friends.
Same here, welsh, same here. Except for the job thing, but then again: we don't even have jobs for our own people lately. Unemployment is extremely high over here for the time being. But muslims do have chances in Belgium, it would be downright stupid to deny that.

See articles above for the role of muslims in European society.

Hell no, I don't want the responsibility. I don't want to have to pay for what that capitalist scum in parliament decides. Do you want to get personally blamed for what your President is doing? I didn't think so. And really: what can one individual change? I'm not naive. At least I write books in which I vent my angst, my criticism and my sarcasm. That's more than most people do. At least I try to get another message across.

And espouse that another 9/11 is a good thing. How heroic.

And now we are pushing you to stop colonizing the East. What's so hard to understand about that?

To be honest, I don’t want the US colonizing the middle east either. But then again, neither do I want another dictator in Iraq, nor do I really want a regime that can’t do anything for it’s own people because of it’s religious rhetoric except point to the US, call it the great satan and send it’s people to fly airplanes into our buildings.

Because, no one really gave a fuck about Afghanistan until 9/11. Not when they were treating women like cattle, when they were stoning journalists who reported the story. Not when they were killing those with different ideas. No one cared that the country was still in the stone age and preaching the idea to spread that ideology all over the world. No one cared. Not until they killed 3000 people. And then they cared.

And maybe it’s because no one cared that it happened in the first place.

And to be honest, now I am not that sad that the Taliban regime is gone.

Oh, and fighting the world's infections: this might come as a shock to you, but Europe isn't actually a primitive part of the world, you know? We cure a disease from time to time as well. There's very few American drugs on the European market, by the way.
The power of European pharmaceuticals!
Communist dictatorship? Are you still hinting at that stupid hypothesis about how Europe would've become communist if you guys hadn't saved our asses in WW2? I'm not impressed, welsh. You got some crystal ball in your attic which tells you about alternative timelines and realities and such? If so: get help. If not: shut up.

I am not going to even bother Alec, because Kharn already did.

Americans are paranoid androids. Always looking for an opponent, something evil that needs to be conquered, that needs to be wiped from the surface of the earth.

Thank God you are there to simplify everything for us.

Communism. Muslim fundamentalism. Dictators. Next thing you know, you'll be fighting Europeans because we don't agree with the madness anymore. That'll be the day.

Why would we do that when most of the worlds capital and telecommunications flows between the two of us.

Here’s the thing Alec, Europe is benefiting from US policies. OK, so the US is doing for it’s own goals as well. But you bitch and bitch, but what does Europe do to take it’s own course? Nada. You grin and bear it, and enjoy the fruits.

Because, chances are, if you were in our place, you’d do the same damn thing. Why? Because it’s your fucking quality of life that you have to protect. If it fails, if oil shoots up in price, than your economy grinds down, you can’t pay for heating and the crap you normally buy and you will protest your government. So you have the luxury to protest the Americans for what they do, even if you’d still be doing probably the same thing.

So you reap the benefits, but don’t pay the price. And in lieu of that you bitch about it. And the guys who go there, and their mostly Americans, die in the process.

Yes. You need to concentrate on the present and the future. Even a good student with a perfect record can become a mass murderer in due time.

Indeed, that’s another reason why it’s good we are having an election this year.

welsh said:
Coke- world’s most popular drink.
And biggest poison.

That or beer. I drink European beer actually, how many Europeans choose to drink Coke?

That's just teh funny. I hope you're kidding.
Last I checked no two countries with McDonalds have gone to war with each other. But there might be one in India and Pakistan. So it’s not perfect.

Why not? Well it has to do with quality of life. Generally speaking if you are a society with a certain per capita income you don’t suffer civil war. So congrats, you don’t have to suffer civil war. Furthermore generally speaking countries with about the same per-capita living don’t go to war with each other- mostly the wars are between rich and poor countries. So yeah!

Guess what- you have McDonald, and prosperity, you don’t have to worry about war. Lucky you.

Yeah, I bitch and bitch and bitch, because - basically - I can't do anything else. If I see something awful happening, I point my finger, I use them vocal chords and I just bitch and moan and bitch and moan. I wish I could do more (like pushing a red button and ending this sad charade), but alas! I just bitch.

And offend people by saying that 3000 dead people on 9/11 was a good start. That’s almost a lawyer joke. So you offend because you have the liberty to. Gosh, if only more in the world could have that liberty-

But you would rather hide your head into the sand.

Yes, sure: all Indians living today own casinos. Instead of their precious forests, they now own those giant lightbulbs in Vegas filled with slotmachines and poker tables and stuff. Wow, they must be so happy.
With "amusement parks" I meant "Indian reservations". I was, you know, trying to be funny. Again.

Not working. Hey, at least we have programs to help the Indians out, we give them a chance to make money off the US society. And in Congo the civil war is heating up again. (Get that head back into the sand).

First man on the moon] one of the great achievements of mankind. Let’s You got into space so soon thanks to Nazi Germany and Wernher von Braun (which is another great example of American hypocrisy).

Hardly, most Americans know it was German scientists that helped with the rockets.

You got into the deep oceans thanks to Jacques-Yves Cousteau, a Frenchman (diving gear).
A Frenchman and, I heard he was a Muslim too.

But that's not the point. The point is: so what? Is it really worth to burn all those fossil fuels just to get a new satellite in orbit so we can watch more channels or have a better telephone connection? Is it really, welsh? Or am I too cynical when I call all of this space crap plain propaganda? The nation to set foot on the moon for the first time, is the best nation there is? The nation that gets a human walking around on the surface of Mars is godlike? Or do you really think that all those experiments in weightlessness will one day make for miracle drugs that will cure people who live under the influence of gravity? And what has all the other galaxy stuff really taught humanity? Has the message gotten through? That message being that we are totally insignificant and extremely lonely? That we only have this one, little, beautiful planet and that we should take much better care of it? No, I don't think that message has gotten through yet. Maybe we need to venture a little further into space for that to happen, burn a few more tons of fossil fuels.

Cynical Alec, very cynical. A lot of people look at the space travel as one of the great achievements of mankind and one that launched a whole world of innovation. Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy that much.
Well, in that case, you will be glad to hear that I just had a new contract handed to me by my publisher. Happy now? I'm a writer, welsh, writers sit on their asses a lot.

Again, congrats. I am glad you got the book contract done. I know you were worried about it.

Wow, this is getting a little personal here, welsh. I can't stop thinking that if you react the way you're reacting now, I must have touched a weak spot somewhere. Something sensitive. So maybe there is more truth in what I've been saying than you are willing to admit. Just my two cents.

Not at all Alec, this isn’t personal. Yes, it’s important to reflect. And I think that a lot of people reading here should reflect. Americans should reflect on what they are doing in the world and whether we are living by our own sense of morality, if we are doing what we should be. This is an election year, and if we are to vote for a new leader, we should be clear about whether our current leader has met our expectations and has served as well or if we need a change. I vote for a change.

I think it’s important for Americans to reflect on that.

But I also think it’s fair for Europeans to reflect as well. You are becoming a prosperous land and you have ambitions to play a greater role in the world. But you can’t look into your future and make your changes if all you can manage to do is point a finger at the Evil Americans and say Bad, least you ignore your own faults. If you wish to criticize the US for what it’s done, well what about Europe and what it has failed to do, or where it has done wrong.

Because it’s easier to point to the other guy. Hey, I’m cool with looking at the mistakes of the US. I have done that many times here. Are you capable of looking at the mistakes of Europe?

If so then perhaps you might have second thoughts about saying, “those muslims should fly another plane into a building in the US and kill another few thousand Americans” because you know, you benefit the same as us, you do the same as us.

welsh said:
See what I mean with "personal"? Trying to hurt good old alec's feelings. Trying to wake him up perhaps? But I am awake. I look in the mirror from time to time (but not constantly as the Americans do - your words) and I ponder on life, morality, responsibility, all kinds of stuff actually. The result is always the same: I start bitching.
Oh, and I'm not surprised no one takes me seriously. See, I don't take anyone seriously either. One should never take someone else seriously, that's a known fact. Trust me.

You’re right, that was personal. Sorry Alec, you have been offensive a bit too much of late, and that shot pissed me off. You want to offend, offend, but don’t be surprised if people, even people who think of you as a friend, get offensive in response.

Seriously though, I am glad you got the book deal.

Well, first of all, it's not exactly the same blood, is it? Perhaps it's the same bloodtype, but it's not the same blood. (Just nitpicking.)
Secondly: don't ask me to feel for anyone who is going to Iraq. You guys started the mess, now you can go clean it up as well for all I care. That's only fair.
Thirdly: I already told you that I think the world would be a much better place if everyone started to mind their own business.

Again, no actually we didn’t. We adopted a colonial mess that you guys left behind, and we did it to keep gas prices calm, so that our (America and EU)’s precious quality of life doesn’t get fucked.

Minding ones’ own business can lead to a lot of grief in a world where everyone keeps bumping up against each other.

As if you are of any significance to this world because you take responsibility and write way too long posts, which I have to answer to not look "ker-pwned" or whatever you guys call it. There will be no difference between you and me in the long run. Trust me.

Actually I teach. So yes, I hope to make a difference and I’d like to think I have some significance to the students I teach. Most come from poor families that are tying to get by in a college and I try to give them some meaningful skills. And I examine problems of the world, and I try to find answers that work, or at least explanations.
Is that significant? Don’t know.

But those were the choices I made about what I wanted my life to be, and I have few complaints.

Sounds like you stayed over here for more than ten years or so. But honestly: a European visiting America can make a similar list, no doubt. All in all, you're pointing a finger at Western civilization. I do so myself.

Sure they can. The thing is that most Americans are aware of them too, and are concerned about those problems. This is not making a statement that the US better and the EU is worse, only that the US is reflecting on these problems and trying to find answers. Some, like those of the current administration, would rather ignore it and support the privileged. Others, would prefer a more equal and just world. One examines ones world and sees what they like and dislike, then they make the changes.

I like that last sentence: "I hope you have more than that." That's so... Western. Civilized. Intellectual. Enlightened. "Dude, you may think that this or that is crap, but can you perhaps also quote a few sources, drop a few titles of books that you've read on that subject, and at the same time come up with a good alternative, because else your opinion doesn't matter, dude, no, it's just cheap talk."

My point was simple- you got little to offer expect offending people and that’s because your cynical and probably sad. I am happy for your recent success, really. But Alec, you’re just damn unhappy, ya know.

Dude, stop that professor's mentality. When I hear Bush farting out of his mouth and using the word God and Justice and other crapola at the same time, I'm getting nauseous and yes, even a little bit scared. I don't need to read the Bible and the Quran and the last new essays by some obscure American pseudo-intellectual, to justify that feeling whatsoever.

Alec, you know I don’t take Bush seriously. As for some essays- well, it’s your option if you want to be informed or not.

You should mail the fragment above to Spielberg or something.

I have to admit I liked that too.

He can use shit like this in one of his movies, no doubt. I was almost convinced myself. No, really. You almost got me there, welsh, but all in all, it just doesn't sound right. Always that attitude of "we're the saviours of the world, we're bigger and better and stronger then you." No, you're not.

Nor did I say that. I only said that you kicked most of the people who are currently Americans out. That we built a stronger country (and we were, by the end of the 19th Century economically outperforming most of Europe) and we came back a few times to help out Europe when it was in trouble. Saviors of the world? No. Read my post, I have been plenty critical of the US.

You guys are just as frail and weak and naive as us. It only takes some cash, some preparations and a few idealists to blow a huge hole in your national pride and make you feel like something the cat dragged in. And you guys are so afraid, aren't you? You must be if you start to invade countries when there is no reason to do so (other then getting rich asap). So stop feeling almighty when you're just as vulnerable as the next guy.

This I will agree on. That the US felt the need to invade Iraq is, in one way, an example of it’s own weaknesses. And as much as I protest the lies that went into starting the Iraq war as a fraud, hell, I am not sad to see Saddam gone.

As for being afraid, well, when a bunch of Saudi’s fly airplanes into the buildings of your cities, you have reason to be afraid as well.

[I'm not blind to what's going on in the world today, bud. I'm well aware of most things, don't you worry. As for the responsibility you wake up to each morning (which, in the best case, I interpret as some sort of daily moral contemplation): try harder, because the results are not what one would expect after so much "pondering".

alec

Like I said, hopefully things will change with an election year.
 
welsh said:
Well the US has gone before the ICJ before. But the problem with the ICJ is that parties opt to bring their suits there, they are not compelled. Since there is no mandatory jurisdiction, there is a problem. If say Saddam’s Iraq where to deny jurisdiction, no one cares. If the US does, oh that’s bad.

That’s why the Russians never had to worry about it for Hungary and Czechoslovakia, why Pol Pot didn’t worry about it, why Mao never worried about it, or any of the other ruthless tyrants.

When the Brits brought suit in the Corfu Channels case against Albania, the Brits won, but the Albanians never paid. Thus the problem for the ICJ. Good for settling border disputes, but not much else.

...

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this makes the ICJ fallacious in its judgement. The fact that countries can deny jurisdiction doesn't mean the ICJ can't judge those countries on its jurisdiction, does it? That's like saying the statutes in the Fourth Geneva Conventions are worthless because Israel didn't sign it.

I see what you mean in how the ICJ is flawed, but that's hardly relevant in their judging of those that do fall under their jurisdiction.

welsh said:
An international criminal court might be different, but as mentioned before, there is plenty of reason to believe that it would be used as a political platform.

Maybe so, maybe not. In a way I doubt it, tho', and I moreso doubt if it would effect the neutrality of the court.

That's the same reason why OBL, if captured, should be put on trial at the IJC. No way any American court or muslim court would be neutral.

welsh said:
That said, perhaps a better way to deal with Saddam might have been to charge him in an international criminal court, but that would deny the Iraqis their right to apply justice as a sovereign state.

My problem would be that Iraq really isn't a sovereign state.

welsh said:
We’ve actually had this discussion before. Yes, many Islamists have been radicalized in the West, in part because Muslims often see themselves as perpetually in the margins of European society-

Ok, don’t like that source-

Those articles boil down to empty rhetoric too, I'm afraid. Even if you can prove that living in Europe radicalized muslims, how can you prove what's causing it?

You argue that Europe radicalizes because we segregate muslims from Europeans in a negative way.

I argue that Europe radicalizes muslims by giving them more freedom to build their own communities than the US does, and gives them more access to any sources they wish.

I'm guessing that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, the situation of muslims in Europe can be pretty bad, but we also have a lot more muslims than you, who group and worship so much that the Rotterdam council had to limit the building of mosques simply because they were cluttering up the city (an act that was blocked by the state, I think)

welsh said:
Or you can hide your head in the sand and ignore the problem.

Much like the US is doing? Blaming the 9/11 attacks purely on outside sources is stupid and dangerous

And that's not the only things. Segregation and discrimination are in no way a European problem. Yes, in Europe the subjects are terrorist extremist, and that's the hype now, so we pay attention to that. But in the meantime, no attention is paid to the segregated sufferers of discrimination in the US. What's it going to take? A Mexican terrorist attack?

welsh said:
If you look at the number of attacks by Muslims in Europe, they far outweigh those against the US. Those in the US were more significant in that they picked more noteworthy targets. But for years Muslims have been setting off bombs in France, they captured a embassy in England, they hijacked an Italian cruise ship. They did a lot of things in your backyard.

That's quite a significant difference in size you're talking there, welsh, and remember 9/11 was supposed to be bigger. I think if you tally up all muslim terrorist attacks of the past 10 years in Western Europe, you'll still not reach the number of deaths in the US.

Eastern Europe is another story, because of their history, but you were referring to the rich European countries that breed extermism, not the balkans.

Truely, the bigger problem of Europe is Christian extremists, like the Basques and the Irish.

welsh said:
Actually until George Bush got tough on Muslim students, we had a lot of Muslim students here. Are some of them fanatics, sure. Do we regulate how they are taught, not before George Bush we didn’t. But most didn’t become terrorists because there was little point to it.

Y'know we have muslim schools with muslim teachers here. I live two blocks away from the Islamic University of Rotterdam. Do you have anything even vaguely comparable to that?

welsh said:
What, you want me to prove who I teach? As for the Europe articles, I have included them above. I sent you the others but I am not sure if you read them.

No, you keep firing off the "European muslims are worse off than American muslims" or "Americans are so nice to muslims". But you never once came up with a simple, unbiased article with statistics backing it up proving either of these statements. Any article I've ever read on the subject tends to be biased or empty, and every one of them focuses only on Europe, rather than comparing the two.

And that's pointless. They're just making Europe sound bad, without even pointing to a "this is how to do it, because the US is doing better"

welsh said:
Hey man, I sent you the studies. It’s your choice whether you want to ignore them.

Are you talking about a while ago? I think I've read everything you mailed me, but I might be wrong.

welsh said:
You get Muslims, we get Latin Americans. Happily our Latin Americans generally don’t fly airplanes into buildings. Your Muslims do.

That somehow means our treatment is wrong and yours is right? As if segregated and abused Latin Americans don't lead to troubles.

welsh said:
As for the article- you did note that the people being deported were illegal immigrants, right?
(...)
Now, being married to an immigrant I don’t like the US INS rules, and have posted so here. But that said, how would the US not deport these people if they broke law? If we didn’t deport them would that be fair to anyone else who is here illegally? Or should we just give them all amnesty. (And for the record, I often think the amnesty thing is best- especially as 20% of the new jobs are going to illegals anyway).

But they are not being deported because of their faith but because they are here illegally.

The whole "register please...oh wait you're illegal lets boot you" is not only pretty assholic, it's also obviously a front to kick out people you don't like. Muslims.

welsh said:
That makes little sense. The US doesn’t usually ask a person when they come in “are you an extremist” although it might ask if the person plans to attack the US through sabatoge or violence. And some people lie.

Considering how easy it is to sneak into the US, it would be near impossible to keep extremists out. That’s why so many of the illegals or those without visas getting caught are being thrown in detention- which I will agree is an awful policy, but that’s George Bush’s War on Terrorism for you.

Look, the US has strict entry tests and requirements, it's no coincidence that there're more immigrants from farther reaches of the world in Europe than in the US, and it's no real coincidence that those that get into the US love the country to bits.

welsh said:
Now, now. Let’s not get too happy. You still have your Nazis and we still have our KKK. There are plenty of extremists to go around for everyone.

Aye, but that's Christian extremism. That isn't a problem. You do realise Bush quietly passed a statement and maybe even acts to narrow the gap between church (church, not mosque) and state, right?

welsh said:
You are getting rude. Kharn that’s not fair and is a fallicous argument. You are reducing this to a simple question of a false alternatives. I have not said Europe is evil. I have said that you are less responsible for yourselves than you should be, and that you point your finger at the US instead of looking at yourselves.

Actually, read your message. There was hardly a single statement in there about bad things done by the US. You named plently of examples of terrible things done by Europe, ignoring the fact that the US did pretty comparable things. Excuse me for reading that as a loose "Europe bad America good" post.

Yes, yes, I know you were just reacting to Blade, but I was reacting in the same sentiment.

welsh said:
Reflection is hard. I can see why the Dutch often look at the Dutch East India Company as a great moment and ignore the atrocities

Uhm, actually, the first two things you are told about the Golden Age of Holland are these:
1. It might've been a Golden Age, but there was a helluva lot of poverty in Holland.
2. We got our riches by oppressing, abusing and murdering the Indonesians

When the Dutch look back at the Golden Age with a feeling of pride, it's because we were the most powerful country in the world. That does not mean we're not concious of what we did there.

Tho' I will say all the European former colonial powers have the habit of glossing over the acts in the colonial countries. This is bad, but hey, it's not like the US doesn't do the same for its history.

[quote="welsh"For the most part, yes. The US got the English to go along because the English had to. The French got in because they didn’t want to be left out. We got the Latin American countries to sign on because they were in our sphere of influence. So yes, it’s mostly a US creation.
(...)
The European way was positivist international law, the same old school that rejected the 14 points and make a mockery of the League of Nations. It was the business of secret alliances and rule by conquest.

As for getting the Russians to join that was part of the tradition based on the Council of Europe- the big powerful countries all sit around a table and try to work out their agreements instead of shooting at each other as the normal course of business.

So you have a security council, but you also have an Article 2(4) that basically makes law illegal unless there is a threat to international peace and security.[/quote]

True dat.

welsh said:
Of course it was a real smart move of the Russians to put missiles in Cuba in the first place or pledge that it would support any country in Latin American that had a communist revolution. And don’t be so harsh on Kennedy. When his advisors where saying let’s do a surgical bombing strike, Kennedy said no- why, because he had just read the Guns of August and didn’t want to feel like the Germans.

Aye, you can spot a good president because he's swayed by a book :roll:

Man, the world got off narrow during the Cuban crisis. It would've come off a lot less narrow if the President hadn't been a warmongering nutjob. It would have also come off a lot less narrow if the Soviet Leader was more like the oldskool Stalin.

welsh said:
Indeed, and that because most of the European powers were too broke to maintain those colonies in the end. But of course that doesn’t dispute the point as to the morality of the Europeans when they have enough political power.

Same goes for any country, really. But get to that later, I hate splitting points in two.

welsh said:
Perhaps. The Indian ocean had a strong merchant trade before the Europeans showed up and conquered it with cannon. There were a number of states in Africa that were powerful sovereigns before the Europeans showed up. Your primary advantages were guns and disease. A common argument now is that those colonies and the colonial administrations inherited by post-colonial states are reverting back to more ancient forms of politics. However, most of the colonized suffered in quality of life when they were colonized, and they have since hurt even more.

They were hurting when we got there. Colonisations gave the colonized countries roads, railways, technology, teachings, healthcare and democracy on a level unknown before we got there. Like it or not, if you take just two loose points in history and ignore the atrocities of the colonization, the colonized countries did improve in status.

welsh said:
No, but without the US it’s doubtful that the Europeans would have been able to stop the spread of communism.

's what I said to Big T

welsh said:
Ah France, the country that showed up at the last minute. Because it had a score to settle with the English and in those days wars were acceptable diplomacy, same rules that led you to World War 1 and World War 2.

Yeah, showed up at the last minute. Kinda reminds me of another country in two other wars.

welsh said:
Actually the French were still interested in supporting Mobutu and were pissed off when the Rawandans supporting Kabila, knocked him out of office.

So? The US has kept on oppressive regimes they instated for a long, long time after the Cold War, with the difference that unlike France, nobody could really criticize the US. Two striking examples are the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Yes, you did something against Hussein, later on, but you did fuckall against the Taliban until the Afghanistan War.

welsh said:
Not sure what that refers to. We grew fat because we grew rich and lazy, and because we don’t walk to much and give too many subsidies to corn. As for England, we fought them twice, but then they decided to enforce our Monroe Doctrine and we’ve been buddies ever since (well except for a hick up during the US Civil War).

You think you could've dealt with England as easily if it didn't have other things, like the Napoleonatic wars, on its mind? Do you really think that if England cared, it couldn't have just grabbed the coastal lines of the US and left it at that?

welsh said:
So, the US is willing to stick it’s neck out for the independence of countries other than itself. And Europe?

Europe has done the same. Pakistan springs to mind, doesn't it?

However, you miss my points. The US did not back up Taiwan out of noble sentiments.

welsh said:
Actually the US had pretty much turned it’s back on Europe until Marshall came to Europe and saw the danger of communism within Europe as well as the threat posed by the Russians. And even then, it wasn’t an easy sell to Congress because at the time, it was a lot of freaking money. But in the late 1940s most Americans were tired of Europe, didn’t want to go back, had fought the war and wanted to get on with their lives. Hell Stalin was still Uncle Joe until about 1948.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq- not sure about Afghanistan. Maybe the motives were selfish. I think it was just a question of payback. As for Iraq, hey, I have argued that our motives are, at least partially, selfish. It’s about the price of oil. Of course that a lot of that oil goes to Europe means it’s good for you too. But that’s good for us as well because in the globalized world, the US and the EU have become more closely integrated then ever.

...Uhm, dude, you're basically just agreeing with me on your above statement. My point was that you had selfish motions in all those acts, you're just elaborating on those selfish motions.

welsh said:
Guilt is irrational behavior and usually doesn’t figure into economic choices.

Economic? No, but political policies in economies, yes. Foreign aid is just a way to soothe the people's conscience, and politicians know this.

welsh said:
Actually that’s not true. You send in the marines for disaster relief in Bangladesh, and that’s pretty noble. You stick you hand between Kashmir and India to stop a nuclear war from breaking out. Do we get something out of it, yes, a bit more peace. Back in the old days though, nobody would have cared much

No, but while the US has been of vital importance in the changing the world so that countries cease not caring for one another, the two most important things it did for that (American Revolution and Abolishment of Slavery) are quite a while ago.

welsh said:
I didn’t vote for the guy.

So what're you doing against him? Time to get off your lazy ass and do somethnig!

welsh said:
Oh come on and don’t be silly. The Europeans would have wiped out everyone in Africa if they could. The only places they didn’t try to settle were too deadly, their people kept dieing off. What Spain did to the Incas and the Aztecs one finds being done by the Australians to their Aborigines, and the Boers doing to the blacks. It was done because it was cheap and the Indians were in the way. Excusable? No.

I think you need to brush up in your colonial history if you think the French, English and Dutch colonial policy was the same as that of Spain or Portugal. There are essential differences between the two.

welsh said:
I could tell you to fuck off too Kharn, but that's not very meaningful over the internet, and you for one should be above that.

Like it or not, and whether you meant it or not, your singing praise of American blood completely trivialised everything Europe did for world peace. And that's sick.

welsh said:
France- To support their colony after they got their asses kicked out by the Japanese and because they didn’t want to give the indigenous people freedom despite the fact that Ho was leading the Indochinese Communst Party in a war of resistance against the Japanese. And the French did the same thing, and worse, in Algeria and got their asses handed to them.

Like it or not, France was fighting the same war as you were. What their final goal was is another matter, but a la, you can't predict history.

welsh said:
The resistance, a communist organization that fought while the majority didn’t. And when the war was over they got crushed. And if Europeans were fighting in World War 2, they should have. It’s your fucking backyard.

It's not our backyard, it's our house. We fought because we believed the principles of democracy were valid above those of the nazis. We could've also chosen not to, and then where would you be? Without the UK, how hard do you think it would've been for the US to do anything against nazi-Germany? Almost impossible.

welsh said:
Did I say that, Kharn? No, I said Americans have been spilled to make Europe prosperous. That’s what I said.

It's not how you sounded.

welsh said:
From Alec, who as quoted above seem so happy with the idea that that there might be another plane flying into a building full of innocent people.

Alec is a fucktard, I thought you head learned that by now.

welsh said:
But never, in all my life, have I ever heard of anyone wishes another act of terrorism in Europe. Not another French bombing, not another shoot-out in an Italian airport, not a train blown up in Spain, not an explosion in a London bar or a Berlin Disco, not once. In fact most people I know that come here to study or work are surprised at how nice Americans are to them (even the French).

Really? You must live a very lonely life. Try dropping by Asshats once in a while. If you really think there're no Americans, or even not a significant amount of Americans, cynical enough to be gleefull about "those stupid Frenchies getting what they deserve", you're somewhat naive

welsh said:
Nope we have slums and ghettos, but a lot of people can get out of them. They can achieve a better standard of living. We don’t have any African ghettos, although we have plenty African-American projects and neighborhoods. But we also have an affirmative action program that helps them get out of the shit.

Does Europe?

Actually no. Holland is not that familiar with the concept ghetto/project, as our "achterstandbuurten" are generally prospereous neighbourhoods which just happen to have less rich people in them than other neighbourhoods. The closest thing we have to the American concept of slum are these container-parks were asocial, mostly white, people live.

As for affirmative action...this never has been too popular in Europe. In Holland the biggest problem is that muslims go to their own schools, and their own universities, live in their own blocks. We're trying to get them to spread more amongst the white people, to prevent segregation. Affermative action as such is an old-time practice, but it kacked in a bit after the 80's. Might be a good time to revive it, yeah.

welsh said:
Hardly. This is a country with the market run amock and only now people are coming to realize that the market can’t do everything.

Excuses are like assholes. Everybody's got one

welsh said:
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My point was that Americans think and reflect and do stuff about this. But I don’t see much reflection in Europe. Just a lot of finger pointing.

Oh bullshit. You don't live in Europe, you don't even read European newspapers, so how do you know this. Immigration and integration has been THE biggest issue in France, Germany, Holland and the UK for half a decade now, and there you sit saying "there is no reflection". Tsss.

welsh said:
Are you going to deny that most of the immigrants who came to the US were looking for new opportunities that didn’t exist in Europe. That we didn’t have starving Irish, or poor Italians, that New York doesn’t have new neighborhoods of Russian and Eastern European immigrants? That Washington DC has a huge Muslim population (which you can see regularly at Tyson’s Corner- one of the area’s biggest shopping malls – where they have the money to shop with everyone else).

That...I hardly see how that's relevant.

welsh said:
Repeat those words, think, repeat those words.

Of course I’m right. 

Right, sorry Wilhelm. Wir hatten immer gleich, auch als wir nicht gleich haben

welsh said:
questionable that- the European age of colonialism really kicks in during the 19th century.

Yes, it does, but the policies in the colonial areas saw some improvement, especially in the late 19th century.

welsh said:
I agree, the US is not more holy. Better and greater, perhaps. Does international pressure matter- not really.

Some, yes. We take notice when a million Italians protest in Rome. But then we forget it in a day or two. And it matters when we look for allies and the Italians say no, because of those million protestors. So yes. It does matter a little.

Does it matter a lot? No.

I have discussed the idea of American Exceptionalism (which I don’t agree with- we are just like everyone else- as Kharn argues). But Americans have a history of two big oceans and friendly neighbors. So we don’t worry about it. There is a lot of criticism thrown our way, but mostly it gets ignored.

When politicians act, they act mostly based on what their constituents (or the special interests- especially for the Republicans) want.

Y'know, I don't want to offend you, but you're pretty naive. The part of politics we see and vote for is only half.

Another quarter is agreements we see. Think Kyoto, Geneva, etc.

Another quarter is agreements we don't see. Backdoor policies, agreements between countries etc.

When the US speaks, the world listens, but it's not the only one. When Germany speaks, the US is obliged to listen. Why? Because Germany is simply to powerful to ignore.

Your idea stems from the notion that politicians only have to pay attention to the people that vote for them. In an absolute sense this is true. However, politics is just that, politics. The US can get backing from a country by giving them certain things. The EU can force the Netherlands to change its weed-policies by pure pressure and whining.

You're thinking of the common American. I betcha don't really care what Europe says, or forget it quickly. Your politicians, however, don't have that option.

If you really think they do, you're going to haveto explain why they spend so much time abroad, negotiating and renegotiating.

welsh said:
No high horse Kharn, and you’re wrong. Not because societies don’t evolve, but because the future is at best uncertain. We have only the past as guide and that’s not a very good one. Yes, history has shown evolution towards a better world. But then, was Rome better than Ancient Greece or did it just do military and administration better?

Yes. Hellenic Greece waged some fucking terrible wars, and did some things in Asia that some would argue borderline genocide. Alexander the Great was a war-mongering nutcase that stomped through half of Asia with no clear plan for the future.

I'd say Rome generally brought more prosperity then the Hellenics, yeah.

welsh said:
Did the colonialism of the 19th Century give birth to a better 20th Century of former colonies? Was Mao’s China better than that of the Emperors before that?

Yes and yes, really, but very arguable indeed.

welsh said:
You assume a teleological argument- that the world will always improve and that’s a fallacy. But there have been times when things have turned the other way. With the exception of the wars of Napoleon Bonapart the there were no “world wars” in the 19th Century. In the early 20th Century there was a belief that with liberalism there would be no more wars among the Europeans because of the benefits of trade. The glory of the Romans gave birth to a Dark Age of over 1000 years.

The future is uncertain, and thus we need to pay attention to history least we mistake ourselves in our vanity that we can do no wrong, or that we will do better. For every generation has said the same thing- they will not repeat the mistakes of the past but failing to learn those lessons, often repeat them just the same.

Wait...You argue that history doesn't have a trend yet we should look at history because we could repeat the same mistakes?

Look, I'm not talking in absolute terms. Not every step moves in the same direction and there's no telling what the next step will be. But, bar an insane oppressive country, if the next country is a democratic state or union comparable to the US, it *will* do better than the US.

What I'm mostly trying to show is that the US is a child of its time more than a child of itself.

welsh said:
You’re being rude Kharn, really.

I know.

welsh said:
Hold on there. There has been a move in the US to open it’s markets to agricultural goods. Also there has been quite a move here to forgive the debt.

Uhm, excuse me, but Brazil had to sue the US to get you to change your cotton laws. I might be missing something, but I do believe Europe has done more for the good in this matter than the US and its World Bank and IMF have.

welsh said:
(1) make little difference – since for the most part no one believes the debts will ever be repaid anyway.

Uhm, welsh, the debts *are* being repaid. Ghana, for instance, had to pay more to France for its debts than it received in foreign aid in the last couple of years. Even if the debts aren't paid, the percentages certainly are.

welsh said:
That said, there are a lot of countries that are not credit worthy and are getting little investment. Many of these countries use their repressive powers against their people to extract as much capital as possible. Should they be seen as credit worthy, they could get more loans and more investment- but there is little reason why those rulers would use that money to improve their countries in any meaningful way. In fact, judging by politics in Central Lakes, they might use that money to rearm and attack rivals. The recent case in Sudan might also be an illustration of that.

Baby steps. Economic prosperity enables the people to rise up against the opressors. People don't rise up while starving if all they know is starvation.

welsh said:
Hardly the point. My point was that the US has often come to Europe’s aid, and that Europeans, including Alec, should reflect a bit more before wishing more planes into our buildings. If you are to criticize us so severely (and I admit we deserve some of that) perhaps you should look at yourselves first.

Wasn't *my* point.

Perhas you should look at yourself first before criticizing us. Lets face a couple of things here:

1. Both the US and Europe have done some fucked up things.
2. The US looking over Europe's shoulder is good.
3. Europe looking over the US' shoulder is good.

You see, like it or not, read back your own points and you see you quickly gloss over the problems of the US, or don't mention them at all. You actually dare to keep mentioning the muslim extremists becoming extremist in Europe as if that actually matters.

As doctor Phil would say "well then that's your own problem". Look at yourself first, the other second. Europe isn't the only one who fails to do this. You just can't shut up about how much better the US is.

alec said:
It's not the first time I've used "n'est-ce pas". At least, I know how to right it correctly ("n'est pas?").

"N'est pas" is a short statement, kinda like "sait pas." It's not correct French, but it's common in the corner of France I used to visit. Others have been anal about it, so I adapted. Buncha anal pricks.

alec said:
But I follow you, Kharn. Don't think I don't know how good life can be in the West. I'm just spoiled, but at least I know it. I know I wouldn't be able to live with the morals and values from the past or other cultures. But does that mean I shouldn't vent my criticism? I'm not able to give people an alternative that'll work, I'm not smart enough to pull that of, but then again: no one really is, are they? Pointing a finger at the wrongs in this world isn't such a badass thing to do: you always need to define the problem before you can actually start curing it. And imo there is a lot that needs to be cured. I hope someone really smart shows up really soon.

Aye, you're right there, there's always room for improvement. But this is as true for now as it's ever been. Doesn't change the fact that we have it better than any society has ever had.

As for innocence...ehehehe, you = so naive.

alec said:
So now I'm a prick as well. Jeez.

Actually, you are a prick. Can't be helped. Do try to realise the depth of a statement like you made, tho'. 9/11 is pretty recent, and for a nation that considered itself immortal and invincible it's a pretty deep wound.

But I'm afraid you're also right. People like welsh who lay the blame purely with other countries will never find a way to truely combat terrorism.
 
(offtopic somewhat)
welsh said:
Many had been radicalized in Europe
...
Are you saying that there are no Muslim radicals in Europe? Are you kidding? You have a largely marginalized population that you have largely failed to integrate, and you don’t think they’re pissed off?
...
the Europeans largely turned them over to the Nazis and gassed them.
I would appreciate it if you would try to stop referring to all Europeans as one group. There are large differences between the policies (and historic policies) of European countries. We're not the United States of Europe yet. ;)

Also, what is your fascination with cafés? :?
Eat your tarts and cheese...sit back and drink your latte etc.

Anyways, thread may continue
/offtopic
 
What can I say, I love cafe's in Europe. Pastries too.

But you're right, Europeans are not one group but very different. My issue is primarily with the Europe that sets itself up to be high and mighty judge of actions that it would probably do and might do worse if given the same opportunities.

Kharn is right in that I often see the world through an old-age tint. That's because I'm getting old, maybe. That or the danger that history repeats itself, lessons are lost and people get careless and reckless, especially those with power. We generalize from the lessons of the past to predict the future- that's what gets done in the social sciences. Hopefully things work out for the better.

But you're right, Europeans are not one big group. There are a lot of Europeans who do give a shit and want to act in the world, who also saw the 9/11 tragedy as a tragedy.

The thing is that a lot of European think of themselves as a "new age of Europe" even if they are governed by leaders from the old order. I think it's great that Europeans are more hopeful and support greater human rights in the world. It's not that long ago I remember Americans were generally the same way. But Americans have been growing conservative for awhile and that has led us to George Bush and his policies that favor privilege over equality. But it might take a very bloody war to do that. I hope not. That's too much a price to pay.

Anyway, I was being a bit hot-headed because Alec pissed me off.
 
Big_T, forgive me for trying to lighten the mood. I guess you like flames and anger in debates? It was a simple joke, have a sense of humor, or humour for you brits.

Secondly, Alec, it's called free enterprise. Don't like it, too bad, do something about it. Go to Coke's and/or Mcdonald's doorsteps and do something constructive, instead of complaining to us about the influence American companies have on the world.
 
Paladin Solo said:
Big_T, forgive me for trying to lighten the mood. I guess you like flames and anger in debates? It was a simple joke, have a sense of humor, or humour for you brits.
Are we talking about your "Who's Sadam?" post?
Well, I apologise if I'm missing it, but I can't detect any humour (or humor for you Yankees) in your statement. I was certainly not advocating flaming and I fail to see how my post could be construed as such. In fact, your post was far closer to a flame than mine.
Meh, at any rate it's a little late to bring that up, it was 2 pages ago.
 
welsh said:
Well the US has gone before the ICJ before. But the problem with the ICJ is that parties opt to bring their suits there, they are not compelled. Since there is no mandatory jurisdiction, there is a problem. If say Saddam’s Iraq where to deny jurisdiction, no one cares. If the US does, oh that’s bad.

That’s why the Russians never had to worry about it for Hungary and Czechoslovakia, why Pol Pot didn’t worry about it, why Mao never worried about it, or any of the other ruthless tyrants.

When the Brits brought suit in the Corfu Channels case against Albania, the Brits won, but the Albanians never paid. Thus the problem for the ICJ. Good for settling border disputes, but not much else.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this makes the ICJ fallacious in its judgement. The fact that countries can deny jurisdiction doesn't mean the ICJ can't judge those countries on its jurisdiction, does it? That's like saying the statutes in the Fourth Geneva Conventions are worthless because Israel didn't sign it.

I see what you mean in how the ICJ is flawed, but that's hardly relevant in their judging of those that do fall under their jurisdiction.

There is a difference between the ICJ and the Conventions. The ICJ lacks mandatory jurisdiction. If parties want to go there, they must choose to, they can’t be forced. That’s the main reason only one or two cases come before the court and these are often border conflicts that each side wants to resolve without conflict. True, some agencies of the UN can also bring suit, but it’s optional. So if the Kuwait were to sue Saddam, Saddam could merely say, I refuse to accept jurisdiction in this matter, and the case dies. There was an argument that if you signed the UN Charter you were automatically under the ICJ’s jurisdiction, but that has never been accepted.

Now the Geneva Conventions are a bit different. Based on the notion of treaty law, if you sign a treaty you are bound by it. You can, later, decide out of a treaty, but once you are in others have a right to think that you are bound. So if you sign the Geneva Conventions you are bound to comply. But there are problems there as well. Some countries sign international law more as a statement of principles. So the Universal of Declaration becomes part of their constitution, but these are countries that neither have the ability nor probably the will to enforce those rules. In the US that wouldn’t work. If the US signed the Universal Declaration, that people could sue to enforce that- and since the standards are unclear- (for example- everyone has a right to a home- but what kind of home? A mansion or a cardboard hut?) the US couldn’t sign.

So, to your example. If Israel signed the Geneva Conventions it’s bound but law. Even if it acts as if it believes that it is bound by the Geneva Convention such that it is customary to comply with it, even if Israel didn’t sign it, than it’s bound under a doctrine of Customary International Law. However, if the Palestinians say- we’re suing you in the ICJ for what you did to us. The Israeli’s could tell them to fuck off.

There are consequences to that, of course, but they have more to do with international reputation. This is one of the problems with the US not signing on to the Criminal Court.

welsh said:
An international criminal court might be different, but as mentioned before, there is plenty of reason to believe that it would be used as a political platform.
Maybe so, maybe not. In a way I doubt it, tho', and I moreso doubt if it would effect the neutrality of the court.

That's the same reason why OBL, if captured, should be put on trial at the IJC. No way any American court or muslim court would be neutral.

And that’s the problem- can you get a neutral tribunal? There has been some luck with the WTO courts, and some others, including in the EU- to some extent. But the US would look at it’s experience in the UN with the General Assembly, where there was a lot of heat against the developed states and the US, during much of the 1970s and 80s (and one of the reasons so many Americans hate the UN) because those states were numerous and wanted concessions but at the same time many of those states had their own flaws as well. This was an age of Marxist Developing states that were very cruel to their own people (Ethiopia) dictators who became predatory and Soviet proxies.

Honestly, I think the US would have a hard time if someone in East Timor brought a suit against Henry Kissinger for giving the Indonesians the green light for occupying the country. It is the consequences of a rather faustian bargain- to fight the communists (which the US saw as the greater evil) we made pacts with smaller devils.

welsh said:
That said, perhaps a better way to deal with Saddam might have been to charge him in an international criminal court, but that would deny the Iraqis their right to apply justice as a sovereign state.
My problem would be that Iraq really isn't a sovereign state.

Not in a Weberian sense, if in a legal sense. In real sense it’s still a protectorate. But for the last 60 years we’ve accepted a definition of sovereignty as a legal identity. That’s very problematic. If you want to point at the sovereignty of Iraq as a fraud, and I agree there are plenty of reasons to accept that, than you have to look at every other protectorate (basically France’s African neo-colonies).

I think things will get a bit better when the country has a free and fair election and if the Iraqis can put down the insurrection. But one need not be democratic to be sovereign. It only needs to have a government that is recognized by other countries. Sovereignty has historically been decided by “recognition” more than any empirical standards (monopoly of force, administrative infrastructure, etc).

Those articles boil down to empty rhetoric too, I'm afraid. Even if you can prove that living in Europe radicalized muslims, how can you prove what's causing it?

You argue that Europe radicalizes because we segregate muslims from Europeans in a negative way.

I argue that Europe radicalizes muslims by giving them more freedom to build their own communities than the US does, and gives them more access to any sources they wish.

I'm guessing that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, the situation of muslims in Europe can be pretty bad, but we also have a lot more muslims than you, who group and worship so much that the Rotterdam council had to limit the building of mosques simply because they were cluttering up the city (an act that was blocked by the state, I think)

You’re right. You do have more Muslims than we do. I could say that we have more Latin Americans than you do, but they don’t go flying planes into our buildings. And it’s not because they don’t get the shit deal. My wife was in Texas and she noticed how crappy Whites treat Mexicans. On the other hand, I think that the Islam helps overcome collective action problems and compounds frustrations and radical ideas. I have spoken to some Muslims here and it strikes me that when you take a minority and move that into a society in which it becomes very defensive of it’s culture, it is more like to become radicalized.

The only real way is to talk to Muslims about how they feel. I think those articles do that. I also think that the community has to, sometimes, reflect on itself. This is why, I think, few muslim radicals come out of India. Sure, there are some Muslims in the US who become very defensive and very aggressive. You bombard a person’s foreign culture with alien ideas those cultural values become more a part of that person’s identity.

But this is where I disagree- Ok, we don’t have schools that are just for Muslims, unless they are owned by Muslims. We don’t have neighborhoods that are zoned for Muslims. Muslims do form their own communities, just like every other ethnicity that has come to the US has does. And while they, like everyone else who came to the US, has to put up with some shit in the integration process, they opportunities still exist. Muslims in the US are more or less following the same pattern as Asians did, first generations work and go to school and pursue higher income jobs. We have Muslims from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a lot of Turks, but also from North Africa and Southeast Asia- they are linked by religion but I don’t think they are especially targeted (until George Bush at least) as a class. They are no different then the Chinese, Filipinos, Latinos, Eastern Euros, Russians, and everybody else that comes in.

I credit that to the rather flexible nature of American national identity, which basically is a mutt- a mongrel dog created by mixing of different breeds of humankind. In Europe, from what I have seen, the identity of nation still matters more. The French care about who is French, the Swiss don’t like non-Swiss and the Germans don’t like Auslanders. In American, for the most part, we really don’t care, and when we do it’s in the clash of city ghettos which act more or less as informal communities until recent immigrants move out.

But come on Kharn, Europe has a long tradition of radicalizing people from the developing world. Is it your educational institutions- perhaps. Many of the leaders of revolutionary movements during the 20th century were educated in Europe. And there is the problem that the Saudis who did crash those planes were radicalized in Europe before coming to the US.

welsh said:
Or you can hide your head in the sand and ignore the problem.
Much like the US is doing? Blaming the 9/11 attacks purely on outside sources is stupid and dangerous.

Purely an external problem- no. But yes, the US had a hand in what happened. We ignored Afghanistan, and we didn’t take the problems of our presence in Saudi Arabia as seriously as we should. We’ve also been too one-sided in the Israeli-Arab problem.

I suspect though, that 9/11 would not have happened if the US would have kept it’s forces off Saudi Arabia and returned to the “over-the-horizon” presence we had before the first Gulf War.

And in that sense, most of the credit for 9/11 has to fall on Osama bin Laden and his ability to utilize his weath to support Muslim terrorism.

And that's not the only things. Segregation and discrimination are in no way a European problem. Yes, in Europe the subjects are terrorist extremist, and that's the hype now, so we pay attention to that. But in the meantime, no attention is paid to the segregated sufferers of discrimination in the US. What's it going to take? A Mexican terrorist attack?

I think a lot of the problems of segregation and discrimination in the US comes up in the face of crime. You have a lot of unemployed youth with time on their hands, little opportunities and access to violence. Ironically the World Bank identified these same variables as being major causes for internal war. The difference is size- criminal gangs are too small and disorganized and driven for private profit to be a political threat. But it’s a social phenomena that this administration has not taken seriously enough.

The answer is not more cops. It’s not even less guns (Gwydion is probably smiling) but jobs and opportunities. The problem is we have a cult that believes that the market can do everything. It can’t do everything. While I think the market should often be left be, we also need to take into consideration of where the market fails. This is why I continue to support affirmative action- a crappy answer at best, but better than nothing.

welsh said:
If you look at the number of attacks by Muslims in Europe, they far outweigh those against the US. Those in the US were more significant in that they picked more noteworthy targets. But for years Muslims have been setting off bombs in France, they captured a embassy in England, they hijacked an Italian cruise ship. They did a lot of things in your backyard.
That's quite a significant difference in size you're talking there, welsh, and remember 9/11 was supposed to be bigger. I think if you tally up all muslim terrorist attacks of the past 10 years in Western Europe, you'll still not reach the number of deaths in the US.

I think that’s correct. Even if you took all terrorists of all makes and models, your Red Brigade, ETA, IRA, Basques, Baader Meinhofs and who ever else- perhaps then you’d have similar numbers, but I doubt it.

We should also remember that there were supposed to be more planes than the 4 that crashed, and that a similar plot was done a few years prior in the Pacific and got foiled.

But in that case I think the targets were mostly Asian nations, not America. I’ll have to check that.

Eastern Europe is another story, because of their history, but you were referring to the rich European countries that breed extermism, not the balkans.

Truely, the bigger problem of Europe is Christian extremists, like the Basques and the Irish.

And I think that’s one of the problems you are going to face with terrorists. There will always be some of them that will commit bizarre and terrible acts of violence to get attention because they believe in some whacko notions. Israelis had to worry about the those groups that wanted to commit acts of violence during the Millenium in the hope of ushering the second coming of Christ.

Whackos.

And then you get a country like Afghanistan where the whackos are breed and trained and were the ideology holds the country together and shelters your Osama’s in part, perhaps, because they provide an added means of violence or easy capital. I mean, is it a surprise that the countries that are supposed to harbor terrorists are mostly on the shitty end of the development scale? And that’s a problem- so far no one has come up with a good argument of how these movements are raised and why? This is about hearts and minds, but also about the belly. If you live in a starving country and are sick and tired of starving and you don’t know why, I think there’s a damn good chance you are going to look for an ideology that will give you something to channel your anger against.

welsh said:
Y'know we have muslim schools with muslim teachers here. I live two blocks away from the Islamic University of Rotterdam. Do you have anything even vaguely comparable to that?

Let me check. However, there are a lot of religious universities in the US. We have Jewish schools, and Evengelical schools. Liberty University is an hour away and is owned by Jerry Falwell and that fucker charges top tuition to his students- oh yes, he’s a religious man so it’s not a profit- bullshit.
Ok, quick yahoo search identifies five but I doubt that’s exclusive-
http://www.schools4us.com/universities.html

There’s also a Islamic University in Chicago.

That said most of our better Universities have some departments on the middle east or have muslim religious studies. From my Uni.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/mesp/ or they can major in Islam in religious studies-
http://www.virginia.edu/religiousstudies/programs/ugrad/themajor.html

and a lot of your better scholars will teach at major universities where salaries are better. I know both Harvard and Yale have Islamic studies.

welsh said:
What, you want me to prove who I teach? As for the Europe articles, I have included them above. I sent you the others but I am not sure if you read them.
No, you keep firing off the "European muslims are worse off than American muslims" or "Americans are so nice to muslims". But you never once came up with a simple, unbiased article with statistics backing it up proving either of these statements. Any article I've ever read on the subject tends to be biased or empty, and every one of them focuses only on Europe, rather than comparing the two.

Ok, Kharn, I will see what I can find for you.

Here’s a book review- but it’s mostly on Europe but it sites to a book. I will probably go into school and will check the ERIC database, and if you like I will email it to you- because I think most of the viewers are tired of reading this.

International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Spring 2002 v2 i1 p83(5)
Muslims in Western Europe: Bridging the Gap between Integration and Marginalization. Allah in the West: Islamic Movements in America and Europe, Muslim Communities in the New Europe, A Heart Turned East: Among the Muslims of Europe and America, To Be a European Muslim: A Study of Islamic Sources in the European Context. (Review Essay). (Book Review)_(book review) Robert J. Pauly Jr..

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath have engendered a renewed interest among scholars and laymen alike in the Islamic religion generally and the relationship between Muslims and adherents to the Christian and Jewish faiths specifically. As a result, the popularity of two classes of scholarly works in particular--those addressing the extent to which (1) an emerging clash of Islamic and Western civilizations or (2) the growing presence of Muslims in the West will become defining 21st century issues--has increased markedly. Notwithstanding the significance of the former issue, the latter is perhaps of greater relevance, most notably as relates to the present and future impact of Islamic communities on society and governance in Western Europe, which is home to nearly 15 million Muslims, including as many as six million in France, 3.3 million in Germany and two million in the United Kingdom.

Islam is currently the second largest faith in terms of membership among the collective populations of the member states of the European Union (EU}-and also perhaps the least well understood. In addition to possessing the highest growth rates in the region, Muslim communities are more economically, politically and socially marginalized than is true of any other Western European minority group. This is most glaringly evident in the French, German and British cases, where the majority of Muslims are of North African, Turkish and South Asian ethnic persuasion, respectively. In each context, governments of both the left and the right have consistently failed to develop effective means to fully integrate Muslims into their societies, a shortcoming that has the potential to threaten both domestic and international security and political stability through manifestations of civil unrest such as the series of riots that emanated from Pakistani communities across north-central England in the spring and summer of 2001. The books under consideration here address these complex issues in comparable but not identical fashions, with the former three works focusing on a series of domestic case studies and the fourth taking a more regional approach. This piece covers the initial three first--emphasizing the chapters on France, Germany and the United Kingdom given that these states house the majority of Muslims residing in Western Europe and are also the most politically and economically influential in the EU--then evaluates the fourth, before concluding with a set of prescriptions to help reduce minority-majority tensions across the region in the future.

Nonneman, Niblock and Szajkowski divide their edited volume into sections on Eastern and Western Europe. Drawing on case studies ranging from the Balkans to the shores of the Atlantic--the chapters by Steven Vertovec on the United Kingdom, Jim House on France, and Nonneman and Yasemin Karakasoglu on Germany are the most relevant here-the editors reach six general conclusions with respect to the Muslims of Europe. First, they have not participated significantly in the political economies of their countries of residence. Second, socio-economic marginalization has had a marked impact upon their relationships with members of the societal majority. Third, there is not a significant difference in Catholic and Protestant attitudes toward Muslim communities in Christian-majority states. Fourth, Muslims' economic predicaments in Europe are similar to those faced by their counterparts in the Greater Middle East. Fifth, their level of political engagement is greatest in those countries in which they face the fewest hur dles to citizenship. Sixth, the level of awareness and expression of Muslim identity has risen appreciably across the European continent over the past quarter century.

In examining the British context, Vertovec stresses the significance of the emergence of Muslim-run institutions such as the Bradford Council of Mosques and Muslim Parliament in the 1980s and 1990s, astutely noting that these developments demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of Islamic communal activism. For instance, while the former group proved effective in lobbying Bradford officials to accommodate Muslim religious needs in the city's schools in the early 1980s, it also buttressed popular misperceptions of Islam as a radical, anti-Western faith by staging a public burning of author Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in January 1989 on the premise that the work denigrated the character of the prophet Muhammad. In addition, Vertovec correctly acknowledges the marginalization of Muslims, whose communities are located almost exclusively in low-income housing projects along the peripheries of major metropolitan areas, but does not offer the requisite economic statistics to back his assertions more forcefully.
House paints a somewhat clearer picture than Vertovec in describing both the development and characteristics of Franco-Muslim communities, tracing their historical roots in North Africa and identifying their ethnic, generational, socio-religious and political diversity in contemporary France. Notwithstanding his failure to provide any statistical data detailing the exclusion of Muslims from the societal mainstream--a mention of unemployment rates nearly three times the national average during the 1990s would suffice--House posits three particularly strong arguments in explaining the underlying causes of such travails. First, the diversity of Muslim communities has mitigated the capacity of their leaders to forge the necessary common sense of identity to develop effective local or regional, let alone national, political lobbying organizations.

Second, despite that diversity, the innate clash between French secularism and the transcendent nature of Islam-whether real or perceived--has engendered mutual senses of distrust between Muslims and members of the societal majority. Third, the legacy of French colonialism continues to complicate the minority integration process in France, most notably so as a result of Paris's linkages to the military-backed regimes which have governed Algeria in recent decades.

Similar to House's contribution, the Nonneman and Karakasoglu piece emphasizes the heterogeneity of Germany's Muslim population, alluding to deep political divisions between the Turks and Kurds that account for more than two-thirds of the adherents to Islam residing in the Federal Republic. Nonnemm and Karakasoglu do a considerably better job than either Vertovec or House in structuring their chapter, presenting a concise accounting of the establishment of Islamic communities in Germany through a series of government-sponsored guest worker programs in the aftermath of World War II, before shifting to an examination of the Federal Republic's inability to effectively integrate Muslims into society over the past two decades, which they attribute largely to discriminatory citizenship laws and the inflexibility of German regional education officials. Ultimately, however, the authors--as is also true of Vertovec and House--neither suggest a clear means to overcome these integrative shortcomings or denote the poten tial long-term social and political consequences of failing to do so.
In contrast to the edited volume, Kepel limits his work to sections on three countries-the United States, the United Kingdom and France-of which only the last two are instructive here. Three themes transcend the monograph generally and the chapters on the French and British contexts specifically. First, the advocacy of a clash of civilizations model of international relations by some American and European scholars and policy-makers as a replacement for the East vs. West strategic framework of the Cold War has undermined relationships between Muslim minorities and the societal majorities of states in the Western world. Second, related increases in the marginalization of those minorities have driven many British- and French-born second- and third-generation Muslims to respond to perceived majority rejection by turning to Islamic fundamentalism with potentially violent and destabilizing consequences. Third, manifestations of this trend include the aforementioned Rushdie affair and the widespread Muslim backlash against the decision of French education officials to exclude three North African girls from classes for wearing their traditional Islamic headscarves (foulards) in September 1989.

Kepel's section on the United Kingdom is both well organized and reasonably comprehensive in that it traces the development of Muslim communities from their genesis in migratory flows from South Asia in the 1950s and 1960s to their shifts in demographic character by virtue of a wave of family reunifications in the 1970s and the growth of Britishborn second and third generations in the 1980s and 1990s. The author properly gives credence to the impact of Muslims' roots in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on their present religious and ethnic identities but dwells too long on this issue at the expense of a deeper examination of the socio-economic characteristics of South Asian communities in contemporary Britain. His treatment of the minority integration process is confined to a review of legislation designed both to limit the rights of foreign-born residents within and gradually stem the flow of immigrants to the United Kingdom in the 1960s and 1970s and an entirely valid indictment of the government's ill-conce ived policy of multiculturalism, which is foolishly based upon coexistence rather than reconciliation.

Kepel's section on France is considerably stronger. His review of the rising influence of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria in the 1980s and 1990s--though somewhat longwinded-is instructive as much of that group's support is drawn from the same strain of disillusionment prevalent among the Muslim youths that populate the low-income suburbs (banlieues) ringing French cities such as Paris, Lyon and Marseilles. He considers the foulard affair as a defining event in the troubled relationship between Muslims and the French government, one that has helped to "create a favorable environment for re-Islamization movements among young [North African] beurs" (p. 153). When coupled with the failure of domestic Muslim leaders to establish effective multiethnic political organizations, this trend has the potential to render beurs more vulnerable to recruitment by transnational terrorist groups, which is a particularly frightening reality in light of the September 11 attacks.

In contrast to the Kepel monograph and the volume edited by Nonneman and his colleagues, Lebor draws on his career as a journalist in presenting an account of the plight of Muslims in the West that is long on enlightening interviews and personal observations but short on scholarly analysis. While Lebor's book includes chapters on contexts as geographically wide-ranging as Turkey and the United States, his accounts of Islam in Britain, France and Germany are the most useful in adding Muslim perspectives to the analytical frameworks in the aforementioned works. Three themes transcend each of these chapters. First, the diversity of Western European Muslim communities belies Western misperceptions of Islam as a threatening, monolithic faith. Second, economic exclusion is the principal source of Muslim resentment of Western governments generally and those based in London, Paris and Berlin specifically. Third, continued Muslim-Christian hostility has the potential to threaten Western European internal security and social and political stability in the future.

Lebor astutely describes the ethnic, generational, political and denominational diversity of Islamic communities through a series of interviews with Muslims ranging from radical political dissidents and religious fundamentalists and modernists in London, to a Francophile mosque rector in Paris to a German-born rap musician of Turkish descent in Berlin. After presenting the contrasting viewpoints of Muslim fundamentalists and modernists in the United Kingdom, for example, the author notes that as is true of "Islam everywhere, British Islam is a mosaic, a complicated pattern of different components" (p.133). Lebor finds similar parallels in the French and German contexts, where second and third generation Muslims in particular have struggled to forge identities that bridge the chasm between the developing countries of their parents' birth to the Western European societies in which they were raised but have yet to gain full acceptance. All of these points are credible. However, he fails either to propose a means to redress the integrative shortcomings faced by Muslims or to elaborate on the ways such problems can threaten the continent's domestic and regional stability. A series of terrorist bombings in France in 1995 and the 2001 riots in north-central England, for instance, are two striking examples of the latter.

With respect to the integration issue, Ramadan, a Muslim of Egyptian descent raised in the United Kingdom, does an excellent job in suggesting ways in which his fellow adherents to Islam can play more constructive public roles in states across the EU. His book is divided into sections that (1) provide interpretations of the Koran catered to Muslims residing in the West and (2) offer prescriptions for political action that will help to more fully integrate Islam into EU member societies. Notwithstanding the esoteric nature of the initial section (especially from the perspectives of members of other faiths), it serves as the basis for three particularly instructive points that Ramadan raises in the latter section. First, Muslims can adhere to the basic tenets of the Koran and still lead active social and political lives in Western Europe. Second, the onus for the pursuit of integrative progress through these means lies primarily with members of the second and third generations born and raised in countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Third, such progress also requires an increased willingness on behalf of members of the Christian majority--both inside and outside of government--to interact cooperatively with Muslims.

Ultimately, Ramadan sets four goals that Muslims must accomplish in order "to succeed in the challenge of a coexistence which would not be peace in separation but living together in participation" (p. 219). First, the enhancement of introcommunal Islamic dialogue, principally at the local but also at the national and supranational levels. Second, the short-term mitigation and eventual elimination of financial and political dependence upon external entities--whether national, international or transnational in orientation--by Western European Muslims. Third, the development of more effective organizations to undertake Islamic communal action at the continental level generally and in the French, German and British contexts in particular. Fourth, the pursuit of greater political participation by Muslims in the related Western European electoral and governmental processes.

While Ramadan's arguments are directed primarily toward Muslims, his work is equally useful as a means to dispel popular myths among policy-makers and the public at large of Islam's innate incompatibility with Western European societal norms. Similarly, the edited volume put forth by Nonneman, Niblock and Szajkowski, and the monographs written by Kepel and Lebor, are produced with distinct audiences in mind--scholars focusing on the issue of Islam in the West in the former two cases, and government officials and Muslim communal leaders in the latter instance--the themes they address are also likely to prove palatable for members of the general population struggling to gain a better understanding of Islam and its adherents in the aftermath of the events of September 11.

Collectively, the authors raise one overarching theme--the integration of Muslims into the societies of EU member states-that is in dire need of further consideration by a scholarly community that has to date been consumed with more high profile issues such as transatlantic cooperation, European integration, and national and supranational leadership. Using their arguments as a point of departure, the concluding five points provide a road map for consideration of the present and future place of Islam in Western Europe. First, the vast majority of Muslims residing in contemporary France, Germany and the United Kingdom are presently excluded from the benefits of full acceptance by members of the societal mainstreams of those states. Second, in each case, the proportions of Muslims in the population are rising and projected to continue to do so in the future. Thus, the need to integrate Muslims will not disappear of its own accord. Third, as a result, government leaders must fully recognize and openly acknowledge the relevance of present integrative shortcomings and work to more equitably incorporate Muslims into the French, German and British societies and embrace that challenge with renewed vigor. Fourth, they must attack the problem locally first rather than regionally or nationally given that the implications of the marginalization of Muslims are most pronounced in the municipalities where Islamic communities are situated. Fifth, ignoring or downgrading the significance of these issues will only increase the potential for further social and political instability fostered by the exclusion of Muslims and is thus not a viable option.

Named Works: Allah in the West: Islamic Movements in America and Europe (Book); Muslim Communities in the New Europe (Book); A Heart Turned East: Among the Muslims of Europe and America (Book); To Be a European Muslim: A Study of Islamic [ources in the European Context (Book)

Right now I am looking for more on the Muslim population in the US but here’s another article- the interesting issue is that while there was a bump up in discrimination, Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans are politically active and benefit from relatively high incomes. So far it seems we have about 5 million Muslims in the US, and while the administration has been discriminatory, for the most part this population lacks the marginalization found Europe. Furthermore, so far when I researched the issue of discrimination and marginalization of Muslim societies, the case studies keep pointing to Europe, suggesting that the social discrimination in the US is non-issue. One article made the argument that Muslims and Arabs have benefitted from the Civil Rights Movement in the US of the 60s and 70s, thus the ethnic battles alright fought have deligitimized ethnic or religious discrimination.

That said, I think it foolish to assume that Muslims don’t suffer discrimination on the basis that just about every ethnic group in the US suffers discrimination. Do they receive more discrimination or are they specifically targeted? No.

Some data- http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html
There is an anti- arab discrimination organization-
http://www.adc.org/
Brookings Review, Wntr 2002 v20 i1 p14(2)

Arab and Muslim America: a snapshot. Shibley Telhami.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2002 Brookings Institution
In a New York Times article appearing a week after the horror befell America on September 11, a Muslim woman her dilemma this way: "I am so used to thinking myself as a New Yorker that it took me a few days begin to see myself as a stranger might: a Muslim woman, an outsider, perhaps an enemy of the city. Before last week, I had thought of myself as a lawyer, a feminist, a wife, a sister, a friend, a woman on the street. Now I begin to see myself as a brown woman who bears a vague resemblance to the images of terrorists we see on television and in the newspapers. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for men who look like Mohamed Atta or Osama bin Laden."

Excruciating moments like those the nation experienced last September test the identity of all Americans, but especially those whose identity may be caught in the middle. Many Arab and Muslim Americans lost loved ones and friends in the attacks in New York and Washington, and others had loved ones dispatched to Afghanistan as American soldiers to punish those who perpetrated the horror (Muslims are the largest minority religion in the U.S. armed forces). But many also had double fears for their own children. On the one hand, they shared the fears of all Americans about the new risks of terror; on the other, they were gripped by the haunting fear of the children being humiliated in school for who they are.

Two Partially Overlapping Communities

There is much that's misunderstood about Arabs and Muslims in America. Although the two communities share great deal, they differ significantly in their make-up. Most Arabs in America are not Muslim, and most Muslims are not Arabs. Most Arab Americans came from Lebanon and Syria, in several waves of immigration beginning at the outset of the 20th century. Most Muslim Americans are African American or from South Asia. Many of the early Arab immigrants assimilated well in American society. Arab-American organizations are fond of highlighting prominent Americans of at least partial Arab descent: Ralph Nader, George Mitchell, John Sununu, Donna Shalala, Spencer Abraham, Bobby Rahal, Doug Flutie, Jacques Nasser, Paul Anka, Frank Zappa, Paula Abdul, among many others. Like other ethnic groups in America, Arabs and Muslims have produced many successful Americans whose ethnic background is merely an afterthought.

Arab Americans now number more than 3 million, Muslims roughly 6 million (though estimates range from 3 million to 10 million). The income of Arab Americans is among the highest of any American ethnic group--second only to that of Jewish Americans. Arab Americans have become increasingly politicized over the years. According to a recent survey, proportionately more Arab Americans contribute to presidential candidates than any other ethnic group--and the groups surveyed included Asian Americans, Italian Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Jewish Americans.

Over the past decade especially, Arab-American political clout has increased. Although Arab Americans were long shunned by political candidates, President Clinton became the first sitting president to speak at conferences of Arab-American organizations, and both President Clinton and President Bush have normalized ongoing consultations with Arab- and Muslim-American leaders. In the fall 2000 election, presidential candidates sought
the support of Arab Americans, not only for campaign contributions, but also as swing voters in key states, especially Michigan. The September 11 tragedy, coming just as Arab-American political clout was ascendant, had provided a real test for the community's role in American society and politics.

Impact of September 11

For Arab and Muslim leaders, the terrorist crisis has been like no other. It has forced them to contemplate profoundly their identity. Are they Arabs and Muslims living in America, or are they Americans with Arab and Muslim background? The answer came within hours after the terrorist attacks. Major Arab and Muslim organizations issued statements strongly condemning the attacks, refusing to allow their typical frustrations with issues of American policy in the Middle East to become linked to their rejection of the terror. Rarely have Arab and Muslim organizations in the United States been so assertive.

The enormity of the horror, the Middle Eastern background of the terrorists, and the terrorists' attempt to use religion to justify their acts have inevitably led to episodes of discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, as well as against those, such as Sikhs, who resemble them. But the support that both Arabs and Muslims received from thousands of people and organizations far outweighed the negative reaction. Arab and Muslim organizations were flooded with letters and calls of empathy from leaders and ordinary Americans, including many Jewish Americans,for most understood that at stake were the civil liberties of all Americans.

There is more to the article if you like.

However, this hardly suggests a marginalized population. Do they suffer discrimination, sure. But so do most ethnic groups and they are both active and assertive in responding to that. In otherwords, they’re treated like everyone else is.

Also http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=6410

Why do immigrants come?
Immigrants from the Arab world come for the same reason all immigrants come — economic opportunity, opportunities to have an education, to develop a professional career," said Helen Samhan, executive director of the Arab American Institute Foundation, a research group.

So Arabs and Muslims are going through basically the same immigration/integration experience most Americans have gone through. Although admittedly, the current administration is making it more difficult for them.
However, this hardly suggests a marginalized population. Do they suffer discrimination,

sure. But so do most ethnic groups and they are both active and assertive in responding to that. In otherwords, they’re treated like everyone else is.

Here’s a Frontline piece on muslims in the US.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/portraits/us.html

This part- on the problems between Muslim and African-Americans who convert to Islam, is interesting and part of the problem in defining Muslims in the US.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/interviews/wadud.html

(and by the way, all this digging up info is cutting into my game playing time).

Oh wait- here’ s a comparison-
http://www.csis.org/islam/islamineurope.pdf

I have scanned through some of this, and it looks fairly representative. As for comparative surveys- so far it’s the best. But I’ll keep looking.


And that's pointless. They're just making Europe sound bad, without even pointing to a "this is how to do it, because the US is doing better"

Ok, I think the above cite does that fairly well. Interesting stuff too- because it also traces this to the character of both US and European muslim populations.

welsh said:
Hey man, I sent you the studies. It’s your choice whether you want to ignore them.
Are you talking about a while ago? I think I've read everything you mailed me, but I might be wrong.

Yes, I either mailed them to you or I cited them in the last time we had this discussion. Not sure if it was on the old board.

welsh said:
You get Muslims, we get Latin Americans. Happily our Latin Americans generally don’t fly airplanes into buildings. Your Muslims do.

That somehow means our treatment is wrong and yours is right? As if segregated and abused Latin Americans don't lead to troubles.

Actually when I was in San Diego I was a bit concerned that most of the lower-end jobs were done by Hispanics, but Hispanics make up the majority of the lower-income populations (there were few blacks).

That said, as stated, so far I can think of no acts of terrorism committed by Latin Americans inside the US. Why? Because there are a lot of Latin’s who have middle income and upper income jobs. It’s an immigrant wave coming to a country based on immigrant waves. They usually get the low-income jobs and then work up.

welsh said:
As for the article- you did note that the people being deported were illegal immigrants, right?
(...)
Now, being married to an immigrant I don’t like the US INS rules, and have posted so here. But that said, how would the US not deport these people if they broke law? If we didn’t deport them would that be fair to anyone else who is here illegally? Or should we just give them all amnesty. (And for the record, I often think the amnesty thing is best- especially as 20% of the new jobs are going to illegals anyway).

But they are not being deported because of their faith but because they are here illegally.
The whole "register please...oh wait you're illegal lets boot you" is not only pretty assholic, it's also obviously a front to kick out people you don't like. Muslims.

Assuming we don’t like Muslims of course- never mind that the Muslims and Arab populations are among the highest earning in the US. I know a few students who just got into CIA who are Muslim, but also a US citizen and she’s not alone. So it’s not like we are discriminating against Muslims, just non-citizens. Note, and the fact that my wife is not a citizen means I couldn’t go CIA if I wanted to.

Perhaps. The country has gotten security nutty, and the fact that a couple of the guys who did Sept 11 where in the US illegally has made the US more restrictive on immigration policy. I think it’s largely a bad idea. My wife has trouble getting her folks to come from Brazil, and I have a friend who can’t get his wife back from Turkey.

But the thing is, these guys were here illegally, and now are getting booted out. Same thing happens if an illegal gets caught in the criminal situation- if he gets off, he gets sent home.

Sucks for them. Really. Our immigration policies are too tough and unfair, but is this really targeted racism or religious discrimination- no.

welsh said:
That makes little sense. The US doesn’t usually ask a person when they come in “are you an extremist” although it might ask if the person plans to attack the US through sabatoge or violence. And some people lie.

Considering how easy it is to sneak into the US, it would be near impossible to keep extremists out. That’s why so many of the illegals or those without visas getting caught are being thrown in detention- which I will agree is an awful policy, but that’s George Bush’s War on Terrorism for you.

Look, the US has strict entry tests and requirements, it's no coincidence that there're more immigrants from farther reaches of the world in Europe than in the US, and it's no real coincidence that those that get into the US love the country to bits.

It’s gotten more difficult for sure.

Now if you claim asylum status you are sent to detention, in the old days you were sent free and disappeared into the fabric of society. But most of the Brazilians I meet in the US are here illegally. They come with a visa and a ticket to go home, and they never take the ticket home. Fairly standard. I would go to say that if you looked at most ethnic organizations in the US where the people come from developing countries, at least half are illegal. When I was in law school working as a busboy, the entire staff of the kitchen came from Latin America, and not a green card among them.

So in the aftermath the country got more serious and INS became part of Homeland Security.

And most of the illegals don’t want to go home. Go to Mexico City and you can see why. So yes, once they are here and they are able to find some way of staying here, they love the country to bits. Why? Because a poor person in Brazil doing the same job in the US lives better, practically the standard of living of a middle class person from Brazil. Even if they plan to go home, they can make more money illegally in the US as a Pizza maker than they could at home, and can go home and open a business.

Really, being married to a Brazilian with ties to the communities is an eye opener.

welsh said:
Now, now. Let’s not get too happy. You still have your Nazis and we still have our KKK. There are plenty of extremists to go around for everyone.

Aye, but that's Christian extremism. That isn't a problem. You do realise Bush quietly passed a statement and maybe even acts to narrow the gap between church (church, not mosque) and state, right?

Yes, Bush’s moves to support faith based initiatives have gone to Christian organizations (which are remarkably republican). That was mentioned on the Frontline link and the video I posted earlier on another thread. Of course it helps that he’s evangelical and that the evangelicals will vote Republican. Yes, it’s not good. Happily the Muslims and Arabs will probably go Democrat. Ideally, so will the Catholics.

And remember when Tone was saying that more church and state was a good thing? And how I said that was pretty fucked up?

welsh said:
You are getting rude. Kharn that’s not fair and is a fallicous argument. You are reducing this to a simple question of a false alternatives. I have not said Europe is evil. I have said that you are less responsible for yourselves than you should be, and that you point your finger at the US instead of looking at yourselves.
Actually, read your message. There was hardly a single statement in there about bad things done by the US. You named plently of examples of terrible things done by Europe, ignoring the fact that the US did pretty comparable things. Excuse me for reading that as a loose "Europe bad America good" post.

No actually if you have read the post, and remember many of my earlier posts, I have said the US has done lots of nasty things in the world.

What galls me is when Europeans say, “Bad US, bad US.” And (1) profit from it, and (2) live in countries that do the same damn thing.

Yes, yes, I know you were just reacting to Blade, but I was reacting in the same sentiment.

I know, you get all Euro-defensive.

But there is a deeper point. That mess in Yugoslavia was a real fuck up, and a poor showing for European leadership. Germany recognizing Slovenia sovereignty accelerated the entire fragmentation of Yugoslavia. France protecting Bosnian Serbs who had made a great reputation for as ethnic cleansers? And how much grief have you sent to Vlad Putin lately for the crap he brings down with in Russa or the “near abroad?” Not much.

I like the idea, really, of the US sharing the world leadership with Europe. Better Europe than China. And I think a friendly two-pole world is possible, especially when you consider how much capital and trade goes between the US and Europe.

I would just like to see the Europeans take more responsibility on the global stage.

Now a cynic might say that all the US actions are self-interested, and if you look hard enough you could construct some notion of self-interest in some way. For instance US help in Bangladesh when they suffer a typhoon is a move to keep other influences out- right. US support in Somalia was to create another puppet- don’t think so. So maybe there are some things that a country does just because it is “the right thing to do.”

What I’d like to see is Europe doing a bit more of that. Not to say it doesn’t. I know Norwegian troops go on UN missions all the time.

But maybe I just don’t get enough of that news on this side of the Atlantic. But sometimes it seems, as Alec said, Europe is only interested in making itself rich and otherwise, hides it’s head in the sand.

If that’s the case, it’s a problem. If you’re going to preach values, then you have to act that way. I say the same thing for the Americans. But the Europeans could do the same, and maybe, show a bit more leadership that way.

And incidently, Brit PM Major’s deploying troops to protect the Kurds after the first Gulf War was a kick ass example of exactly that when Bush was farting around on that issue.
Brits in Sierre Leone putting down that mess is another example.

But try to get some Europeans to go to the Congo (Belgium) to stop that civil war- forget it. And it’s your old colony, it’s your oppressive administrative infrastructure they inherited. So maybe you are a bit at fault there? Is it so hard then, when millions of people are dieing, to show a little balls and take responsibility?

If the EU is to take center stage in the world, it has to do it by doing more than getting rich and exploiting the world (and fair the US does that too) and maybe do the “right thing” once and awhile.
(and French protection of the guys who committed the Rawanda genocide doesn’t count).


welsh said:
Reflection is hard. I can see why the Dutch often look at the Dutch East India Company as a great moment and ignore the atrocities
Uhm, actually, the first two things you are told about the Golden Age of Holland are these:
1. It might've been a Golden Age, but there was a helluva lot of poverty in Holland.
2. We got our riches by oppressing, abusing and murdering the Indonesians

When the Dutch look back at the Golden Age with a feeling of pride, it's because we were the most powerful country in the world. That does not mean we're not concious of what we did there.

Fair enough Kharn. To be honest, when most of us in the US learn about the migration west we learn about Manifest Destiny- or how our religious idealism leads to conquest, and (2) how we commit genocide against the Indians.

So we get a bit of guilt tripping in elementary school too.

Tho' I will say all the European former colonial powers have the habit of glossing over the acts in the colonial countries. This is bad, but hey, it's not like the US doesn't do the same for its history.

Actually we don’t spend enough time talking about Latin America in high school, although Teddy gets a bad rap for Panama. Other periods we tend to gloss over as well.


welsh said:
Of course it was a real smart move of the Russians to put missiles in Cuba in the first place or pledge that it would support any country in Latin American that had a communist revolution. And don’t be so harsh on Kennedy. When his advisors where saying let’s do a surgical bombing strike, Kennedy said no- why, because he had just read the Guns of August and didn’t want to feel like the Germans.
Aye, you can spot a good president because he's swayed by a book :roll:

No, but I appreciate the fact that he took the more diplomatic choice when it came to going to war. Unlike the current idiot. But then notice that Bush is less bellicose with North Korea. Lesson- if you don’t want the US to fuck with you, get a nuke, but make sure no one knows about it.

Man, the world got off narrow during the Cuban crisis. It would've come off a lot less narrow if the President hadn't been a warmongering nutjob. It would have also come off a lot less narrow if the Soviet Leader was more like the oldskool Stalin.

Yes, it was bad. Had we airstriked, the Russians would have hit Turkey- thus NATO Art 5 means global war. Had we invaded, the Russian brigade had tactical nukes it could have used, thus a muchroom cloud visible for Miami.

The odd thing was that McNamara, in the early part of the conference says, “strategically, those nukes don’t really matter.” Which is kind of true in a strategic way, but not in a political way. Kennedy was worried about (1) appearing to have no balls, and (2) Russian influence in Latin America.

But those were the days of the Cold War when military and political leaders both thought that the war was inevitable. Pretty spooky that kind of cynicism.

welsh said:
Perhaps. The Indian ocean had a strong merchant trade before the Europeans showed up and conquered it with cannon. There were a number of states in Africa that were powerful sovereigns before the Europeans showed up. Your primary advantages were guns and disease. A common argument now is that those colonies and the colonial administrations inherited by post-colonial states are reverting back to more ancient forms of politics. However, most of the colonized suffered in quality of life when they were colonized, and they have since hurt even more.
They were hurting when we got there. Colonisations gave the colonized countries roads, railways, technology, teachings, healthcare and democracy on a level unknown before we got there. Like it or not, if you take just two loose points in history and ignore the atrocities of the colonization, the colonized countries did improve in status.

Yes they were hurting- in Africa because of the slave trade, in Asia?

I used to argue the same thing Kharn. But the more you look at it, the more it works against you.

Except for the fact that the railways were used to further exploitation of natural resources and primary commodities which were used to further exploit and repress after colonialism ended.

Technology – was never as good as what the metropolitan states had on purpose- the metropolis didn’t want competition. And most of that technology was simply to further exploit natural resources and agricultural commodities.

Healthcare- came about in the Congo when the Belgians figured out that Leopold had killed so many Congolese (or just chopped off their arms because they couldn’t deliver rubber) that they lacked the indigenous labor to make a profit. So healthcare was used to sustain a dominated population of virtual slaves.

Democracy!- ha, Ok, no most of the African states had some democracy, but there was no administration and the first thing the winning party did was to outlaw or repress the opposition- since democracy needs at two changes of leadership, most of those states never made it. India- ok, but then there was that partition and a few million dead in the process? Other democracies?

Ok add one- links to international markets- through companies that were still in the hands of metrop businesses and dependent on the developed states for marketing. Former colonies didn’t start nationalizing until the 1970s and that generally failed to work out for them- exception being the middle east.

welsh said:
"]Ah France, the country that showed up at the last minute. Because it had a score to settle with the English and in those days wars were acceptable diplomacy, same rules that led you to World War 1 and World War 2.
Yeah, showed up at the last minute. Kinda reminds me of another country in two other wars.

Yes, I agree, the US can only take some credit in turning the tide in the First World War but that was only after the German’s last great offensive came to a stand still.

However, World War 2, 1941 is two years into the war, and four more to go. Plus we were giving supplies to the Allies earlier in both wars.

welsh said:
Actually the French were still interested in supporting Mobutu and were pissed off when the Rawandans supporting Kabila, knocked him out of office.
So? The US has kept on oppressive regimes they instated for a long, long time after the Cold War, with the difference that unlike France, nobody could really criticize the US. Two striking examples are the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Yes, you did something against Hussein, later on, but you did fuckall against the Taliban until the Afghanistan War.
True to some extent, wrong in others. The US has been supporting democratization in much of Latin America, and even stuck it’s nose in it in South Korea, told the Filipino leadership to leave when there was a revolution there too. The Taliban, like it or not, where the only real government in Afghanistan to maintain order. Plus they had some pretty spiffy policies regarding opium. As for Saddam, we supported him when he fought the Iranians, but didn’t do much after that. Mostly because he was the big bully in the middle east and we wanted to keep him happy. Then he got greedy and we pushed him down. Most of the weapons that Saddam has are former Soviet.

And don’t forget Iraq used to be in the French sphere of influence in the Persian Gulf.

welsh said:
Not sure what that refers to. We grew fat because we grew rich and lazy, and because we don’t walk to much and give too many subsidies to corn. As for England, we fought them twice, but then they decided to enforce our Monroe Doctrine and we’ve been buddies ever since (well except for a hick up during the US Civil War).

You think you could've dealt with England as easily if it didn't have other things, like the Napoleonatic wars, on its mind? Do you really think that if England cared, it couldn't have just grabbed the coastal lines of the US and left it at that?

I think the Brits played smart. It figured it could profit off Latin America and not have to pay the price of colonial administration. The lose of colonies of Spain worked to it’s advantage and so it was getting into the business of indirect empire. They got to export a lot of capital to Latin America knowing that the European powers would not get to reconquer those lands. Which is why so much of English policy revolves around the Bank of England and the flow of capital.

As for the coastal lines, the Brits were doing that before the War of 1812. While they won most of that war, we did win that peace. But as you point out, there were the French.

Europe has done the same. Pakistan springs to mind, doesn't it?

However, you miss my points. The US did not back up Taiwan out of noble sentiments.

I hardly think trade with Taiwan is worth losing Los Angeles in a war. In fact, I think if the Chinese want to strut in the Pacific, then maybe the US should let them. Instead the US continues to monitor the sea lanes, and continues to defend Taiwan. We like the Taiwanese. We have an old relationship with them, and part of that is business.

But the question is, is it worth getting between these two if there is a war. Economically, no. Not when the Chinese have sub-launched ballistic missiles that the can take out our cities from a few hundred miles off our coast.

Yet that’s policy.

As for Pakistan- it was a lot of US aid and protection that kept the Pakistanis happy when the Russians were in Afghanistan. It has also been US influence that has helped moderate Pakistan and India when they start getting testy.
 
Of course you couldn't sense the humo(u)r. You were acting uptight. And I realiz(s)e that it was two pages ago. Forfuckinggive me for not being able to post. I didn't have enough time, I was busy reading through the really long posts.
 
Welsh said:
But the question is, is it worth getting between these two if there is a war. Economically, no. Not when the Chinese have sub-launched ballistic missiles that the can take out our cities from a few hundred miles off our coast.

I dont think that the US (administration(s)) is "protecting" Taiwan because they are willing to go to war for Taiwan, but rather look at it as a gamble with favorable odds: The US has a strong military, ergo can they probably deter China from attacking Taiwan, and avoid war even though they are protecting Taiwan. I think you will agree with me if I say that as long as the US maintains its current military strength (particularily its nuclear arsenal), China is not going to war with Taiwan, as they know that it might very well cause World War 3.
[/b]
 
True, it's a game of deterrence and part of deterrence is to show resolve. You have to make the enemy believe you are willing to go to the mattresses if you are to stop them from initiating war. In that sense it's a psychological game where the deterring side has to make the enemy believe a calculation that works out as-

Gains of winning < (the risk of conflict)(cost of conflict).

But that also means getting very close. The motivation for China over Taiwan come down, I think, to nationalism and the desire for the Party to stay in power if a crisis should occur.

Given the choice between risking war with the US and losing power, I think the Chinese might risk war in the belief that the US wouldn't sacrifice it's cities on behalf of the Taiwanese. In that sense, if China is strong enough, it might risk a fait accompli (much like North Korea did in the 1950s- seize the terrority and then defend).

Argentina pulled a similar stunt in the Falkland Islands and it bit them on the ass.

That said, sending two nuclear armed aircraft carriers to defend Taiwan basically is a sign that says US deterrence is not "cheap talk" but that we are willing to put up our strategic arsenal into play and leaves the next move- attack or back down- to the Chinese.

The Chinese are left with the "last clear chance" to avoid war because, as soon as those carriers come into play, the US has committed itself- a case of letting actions speak louder than the rhetoric of deterrence.

So yes, it's a gamble but one backed up with actions.

Like the war on terrorism, deterrence is also a psychological game in which the main ingrediant is the "character" of the players.
 
True, true...

Welsh said:
Argentina pulled a similar stunt in the Falkland Islands and it bit them on the ass.

But at least they didn't risk global nuclear war. Lets hope nothing happens in the Taiwan strait (sp?) :wink:
 
Is it just me, welsh, or are you not getting something?
It seems to me that you are focusing on the USA, and PURELY on the USA, only comparing it to Europe by saying "Europe radicalised muslims."
This is very odd. You give a quite lengthy description of how things are in the USA at some point, but I see no difference with the situation here. YOu give no proof whatsoever for the statement about radicalising, and you grab back on "most revolutionaries came from Europe."
Well there pretty damned few other places to come from, were there? The USA cracked down on them (McCarthy), the Soviet Union simply killed them, and the rest of the world was too sucky to produce revolutionaries.

I also saw you refer to India as an example of a community that dealt with its muslim issues. Excuse me? Dealt with its muslim issues? Does the word "Pakistan" mean anything to you?

And lastly, you talked about Latin Americans not attacking the USA, and you claim that this is because Latin Americans have it good in the USA> I strongly disagree, I think that this is because Latin America has a lot in common with the USA. Latin America is mainly Christian, is located next to the USA and, probably most importantly, has not had the USA interfering with them in a military sense.

The Middle-East, and the muslims, however, have a completely different religion, a completely different culture, and view your culture as "evil" (and partly rightly so); but, most importantly, they view the USA imperialistic and anti-muslim. They see what ISrael is doing, and realise that Israel is backed by the USA, they see that the USA is approaching their region as a region to get oil and a region to bring in their culture, a culture they do not want, and they see this as imperialistic. This has very little to do with the economic circumstances of familiar peoples in the USA.
 
Sander- take a look at the stuff I posted, even the pdfs.

Really, you guys have been saying- show me proof, and I have given it to you. Read it. Especially the pdf.

There is a big difference between the Muslim and Arab populations in the US and that in Europe.

Consider- of the 9/11 terrorists- not one came from india- the world's most populace muslim country- why?

Most of the Saudi's who flew the planes were radicalized in Europe? Why?

And really, read what I have linked above and tell me there is no difference between being a Muslim in the US and being a Muslim in Europe.
 
Back
Top