What will be the end of the world as we know it?

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Welsh:

On these forums, I notice a disturbing trend of people who hate us for ignorant reasons. They make claims like, "George W. Bush is an idiot/uneducated/whatever" and when I have asked, "Okay, give me some examples?", I get no response, or, "He just comes accross that way."

It is sort of like this Liberia thing I'm hearing about. People in Liberia are demanding the U.S. intervene. Well, if we intervene we'll get slammed for being imperialistic. If we don't, we'll get slammed for being uncaring. I'm not sure if they situation has changed, but I didn't hear anyone else making much of an effort to help out there.

I'll try to cut it out though. I respect you from what I saw on that thread about piracy.

As for the Al-Samoud missiles, they were in violation of an agreement Saddam Hussein signed, which makes him wrong and in violation of that agreement. He was a threat to the region (I was deployed to Bahrain in 1997 because of that perceived threat).

Oh, and I love the Clinton supporters here. Clinton did about zero for the U.S. and lied to the people and congress to boot (of course that depends on the meaning of the word 'is' or whatever he said).

Man... I need to mellow out some...

 

[welsh]

Brother, the world is full with people with opinions. Ya just got to deal with it. Didn't mean to be harsh with ya. But you can understand why some of the other folks get pissed off when Americans swagger. But I also know a lot of European and other foreigners who come to the US and are surprised by both the conservatism that Americans have but also by the willingness of Americans to be warm, friendly, casual and our willingness to embrace others. Its a good image to have. They might not like our government or our politics, but a lot of folks who go home from the US have a good image of what Americans are like.

I mean, you wouldn't want the kind of reputation the French have, do you?

GB has managed to piss off a lot of people, which is kind of remarkable considering how much sympathy the US got after 9/11. Clinton had his problems, but he was pretty popular overall. In part that was because where GB seems to favor unilateralism, Clinton favored more multilateralism. GB is very causal and out spoken. He doesn't mince words and speaks his mind (which sometimes gets him in trouble). Clinton was more eloquent and charming. a bit of the boy who is smart but misbehaves. This was one of Clinton's strengths. People really liked him and were willing to forgive his faults. GB comes off as a cowboy and people are less forgiving.

Still, being the major world power does put the US in front of a lot of TVs. Whether I am in Brazil or Singapore, I was always surprised about how much of the local news concerns events in the US. If they see so much of the US, then I reckon they have a right to talk about us too. I remember almost getting into a fight with a guy in Salzburg who was hitting on a female friend of mine a bit too much and was all pissed off because he was forced to learn English for 7 years and didn't like Americans.

Just like everyone's got opinions you'll find assholes everywhere.

But dont' take it personally. If you talk to people abroad you'll find they often tell jokes about their neighboring countries too. I know Germans speaking bad about Italians and French, French speaking bad about Spaniards, Italians speaking bad about French and Germans. In Singapore they talk shit about Malaysians, in Malaysia they talk shit about Singaporeans. Don't even start with the Brazilians v. Argentina. You generally don't find that in the US. Ethnic or religious jokes maybe, but that's nothing.

You also have to think about what some of our Supreme Court Justices said about the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Sometimes the best speech was offensive, becuase it got people to talk. Its in speech, and the right to think, that democracy is preserved. Furthermore the best defense against bad harmful speechis more speech. This way dumb ideas are overcome, hopefully, and better ideas prevail in the marketplace of ideas.

As for Liberia- well, good news is that if we go, we ain't going alone. I heard that even the French might come. Considering US policies in Liberia in the 1980s that might be a good thing. Taylor is a real prick but he just wanted to take over the game that Doe had in the 1980s and Doe survived in part because the US was generous with funding (one of the largest recipients in Africa).

Yes, you're right, the missiles did violate the rules. But even so they still had limited range. Besides they were more a delivery vehicle, its the war head you got to watch out for. Its those traces of cyanide and mustard gas that were found in the river that are more worrisome. Still, I'd like to see more of those Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course, maybe it really wasn't about weapons of mass destruction at all but cleaning up a lingering problem.

As for Bill and GB's record. Well lets be fair. Getting us out of deficit spending and a balanced budget while adding lots of jobs is something to be proud of. Yes, Bill did lie to Congress and deserve to be impeached, but I also think GB's at about at the end of the rope the american people were going to give him for 9/11. Americans have been a lot more willing to give the president extensive powers since they've felt threatened after 9/11, and that willingness to allow a president to watch over our security without oversight might get us into trouble. The best check on an overzealous government is transparency and a people that hold the government accountable.

With the recent findings that the CIA knew that there were no attempts by Iraq to build a nuclear weapon and the retraction from the State of the Union speech, one has to wonder what the fallout will be on that. Clinton lying to Congress about whether some fat chick sucked his dick is nothing compared to starting a war based on bad intelligence that your own intelligence knew was no good. As the boss, the buck stops there but I bet some other sucker is going to take the fall, much like Iran-Contra.

 

[Loxley]

Welsh:


It is sort of like this Liberia thing I'm hearing about. People in Liberia are demanding the U.S. intervene. Well, if we intervene we'll get slammed for being imperialistic. If we don't, we'll get slammed for being uncaring. I'm not sure if they situation has changed, but I didn't hear anyone else making much of an effort to help out there.


Oh, and I love the Clinton supporters here. Clinton did about zero for the U.S. and lied to the people and congress to boot (of course that depends on the meaning of the word 'is' or whatever he said).

I agree with welsh here there is a huge difference about lying to your people about cheating to your wife and launching a war against country baised on lies and wrong innteligence info.
There is still people dying in iraq because of the invasion war americans as well as iraqis.

In Norway we got a huge wakeupp call in 1940 when the Germans invaded, we learned to keep our eyes open for big powers and the politics in those powers since, it might strike both ways. The US is the largest power in the world and it is important to keep a eye on them just in case some freak criminal is elected to rule the country as it happened in germany.

Now this is the real reason the war was launched, http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/enlargement.htm.

 

[Sander]

INdeed, Tone, me showing interest in how you work, does mean you are important(but if you couldn't have figured out that you were important on your own.....). However, this isn't a good thing.

When a country is improtant, and has real power in the world, they need to learn how to use that power, not how to abuse it. Because from what the USA has done the past years, they have been abusing their power. There have been multiple occasions where they have been trying to coerce countries into giving them an advantage(Such as with the international courts), or just to do something which is illegal in that country, and then trying to make it legal there. They are overstepping their boundaries, and that is something I don't like. When they come over to a country and try to enforce their ways on people, they're not being the land of the free, but the land of the oppressed. Because being the land of the free, they should learn what the _real_ meaning of free is. I've seen a lot of Americans post on boards, and while most are good intelligent men, there are also people there who assume that everything their country is NOT is evil. They assume that communism, non-capital punishment and other things are bad. ANd they assume it without reasoning or even knowing what those things mean, they say "Communism is bad" while not even knowing what it is. While I think everyone has the right to an opinion, I also think opinions should be informed, and not based purely on what people have been thought to believe.

Now, I am no USA hater, or anything like that, I actually like the country, but I don't like some of the people living there, and then specifically the current administration. Not because of how they look, or because they are republicans, but because of their actions......

About those missiles, I agree with Welsh here, I haven't seen anything, and I would sure like to see something, although I've doubted from the beginning it was about those weapons of mass destruction, but more because of some kind of feeling from Bush that he had something to repair(Seeing as how his father stopped dead in his tracks in 1991), but I still believe that the war was unjustified, unnecessary, and(most importantly) cost too much on both sides, in both people, equipment money and whatnot, to have had a really good effect on Iraq. Sure, Saddam may be out of the way, but look at the state of the country now, from what I see in the media, disorder and chaos rules there, and worse, people are still dying because of that war(Which wasn't really a war because of congress...).

And Tone, again, I'd like to say one more thing: Violating the rules calls for punishment, but punishment must differ per severity of the violation. If I were to be suspected of having a deadly firearm in the USA, I hope they wouldn't storm in, take over my house, and try to kill me. Alright, it may be a bad comparison, but I hope you get my point.....

 

[Brother None]

I mean, you wouldn't want the kind of reputation the French have, do you?

The French are fantastic people. Obnoxious to those that don't bother to learn their language, yes, but so are Americans and Brits. The thing is nobody notices around the English-speaking people, because everyone speaks English.

Still, being the major world power does put the US in front of a lot of TVs.

Yeah, you and Israel. Always on tv.

But dont' take it personally. If you talk to people abroad you'll find they often tell jokes about their neighboring countries too. I know Germans speaking bad about Italians and French, French speaking bad about Spaniards, Italians speaking bad about French and Germans. In Singapore they talk shit about Malaysians, in Malaysia they talk shit about Singaporeans. Don't even start with the Brazilians v. Argentina. You generally don't find that in the US. Ethnic or religious jokes maybe, but that's nothing.

Heh, the whole European joking-about-each-other thing is great fun. It's what you get when you have a continent which has a lot of ancient countries (though Germany is pretty recent), jokes just grow, develop.

Everyone knows it's not true, though. Somehow I feel the jokes the English make about the French are more harmless than the snide remarks from the Americans because the French won't co-operate with you anymore.

Sometimes the best speech was offensive, becuase it got people to talk.

This is also the point of comedians. I don't mean stand-ups, I mean cabaret.

Though there's freedom of speech, there're always taboos. Comedians, like the old jesters, are there to break these taboos and make people face reality.

As for Bill and GB's record. Well lets be fair.

Bill did great, but he also had an easy period when compaired to Bush. Bush has it pretty tough, though the way he manages to alienate other countries is pretty impressive.

When a country is improtant, and has real power in the world, they need to learn how to use that power, not how to abuse it. Because from what the USA has done the past years, they have been abusing their power.

Reality check. Former world powers:

Alexander the Great: forcibly conquered a lot of the Middle East

Rome: violently conquered most of Europe

Mongols: killed everyone

Charles the Great: conquered lots of Europe and forced them into Christianity

France, Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy (during the Renassaince etc,): conquered and inslaved most of the world, tried to kill most opposition

Germany, Austria-Hungary: waged two world wars

USSR: violently conquered most of Eastern Europe, repressed any attempt at rebellion by slaughtering a lot of people

US: tries to coerce people

I mean...Really...The US waged a few wars, but most with the UN and most, we can agree upon, for the good (though not all successfull (Vietnam), at least the goal was admirable). The US sends out millions of foreign aid and is willing to listen to countries it could swat like a fly with a single stroke from it's mighty hand.

Truth be told, I think we could do a LOT worse than the US.

 

[welsh]

Dear Kharn-

With regard to the French bit, to be honest, I love the French. Being a New Yorker its great to have another country where the people have such chutzpah. Love the films, love the women, love the food, even like the movies. Great beaches, great mountains, interesting cities, wonderful people. As I've posted before, viva la france. Also my Grandfather is French.

Not to say that French have always done great things. Nuclear testing in the South Pacific wasn't such a great idea, but neither was blowing up a vessel owned by greenpeace. The DGSE has got a reputation that's as bad if not worse than the CIA. When you look at French policies in Africa, well, it leaves a lot to be desired.

That's important for Europeans to think about. If the world is one in which the US will probably decline relative to Europe and China, there is a good chance that Europe will take a more assertive role in the world. That's part of France's play, to take on political leadership of the EU. But do you really want the French to lead? Think of French support for the Hutus in Rawanda, support for Mobutu in Zaire, support for Iraq in the last conflict. Its possible that the problems we see in West Africa is in part because of French and US competition in the area.

I think in that capacity, Tone Capone has a point. It's pretty easy to pick on the US as your favorite punching bag. I can sympathize for those folks who live in countries were they are not allowed to criticize their own country or where the press is not allowed to be self critical, but in those countries that sport a free press, there needs to be some more critical insight into what your own country is up to. For example, Germany's role in the collapse of former Yugoslavia deserves more consideration.

I also agree with you that as Big Powers go, the US hasn't done as bad a job as it could have done. There are a lot of things the US has to be proud of, and I think that even some of the things the US should be less proud of need to be seen on context of the time (Cold War rivalry with the Soviets where the US saw that support for oppressive authoritarians, while bad, was better than allowing a communist state to take over). There were some bad things done, absolutely, but I'll hold that the world was better off in the long run.

Oh, someone passed a note about the US trying to get immunity for its citizens from the international court. There are some pretty good reasons for this, but I think it mostly goes to the freedom of action in being a great power. If you were a great power, would you allow yourself to be tied down by another systems legal code? Interestingly, most colonial countries had similar provisions drafted up that their citizens would not be held accountable under foreign jurisdictions, in part based on the same principle.

Ok, how about that multilaterialism stuff and that, "lets all be part of the world community." Well there are a couple of reasons going against that. Now, before I go on, let me add that I am not weighing in on the right or wrong of any of these points.

First, the US has historically had a strong sense of isolationism and a sense of exceptionalism. Essentially, there is a sense among Americans that the US is best left out of international entanglements, let other people do what they want in their own backyards, and that the US is different from everywhere else. Those ties are still strong. This is why there are lots of Americans who don't like the UN, and even some who believed the UN was trying to take over the US (crazy).

Second, the US sees itself as a leader and doubts the ability of others to do the things that need to get done. Case in point- Former Yugoslavia. There was a strong feeling in the US that America should have no role in intervening between Bosnians, Serbs, Croats of Kosovars, and that the matter should be left to the Europeans (since its Europe's back yard). Frustration with putting up with the political interests of individual members of the UN (French interests in the Persian Gulf) often leaves the US with the feeling that working through communities such as the UN hamstrings the US ability to act.

Third- even when the US isn't exactly playing ball with other countries, it doesn't mean the US isn't involved. Lets not forget that the US finally got in the game in two world wars in Europe and continued to be supportive of the EU and has sustained NATO even after the mission was over. Even during the League of Nation Days, the US still kept itself present despite the fact that the "empty chair" was left for the Americans.

A lot of that is self interest. The US has a strong interest in a stable, prosperous and friendly Europe. Failure to get involved in the first half of the last century was reason to get involved in the second. ALso note that despite its frustrations and rhetoric, the US has not walked out of the UN.

 

[Sander]

To Kharn:

Right, so you're basically saying: Those countries did worse, do they don't need to watch what they do.
Hmm, seems a bit of a weird logic to me. While it may not have been good what other people and countries did, that does not give you the right to do something which shouldn't be done, but is less bad.
It's like saying: Well, those poeple got away with murder, so I should get away with stealing. While some may think this is actually a good way to go about things, I don't.

To Welsh:
Now, about the international community. While it may be good that the USA has been getting more and more involved in international business, they have actually NOT become more INVOLVED, but more meddling. They do what they want without listening to anyone other than themselves, and with one man who can basically do anything without having to answer to anyone BEFORE doing it, you can get very severe and very dangerous situations. If Bush had believed that Iraq actually had nuclear wepaons and was intending to use those against the USA, I think that he would've fired nukes against Iraq, and that we would be in great great trouble right now.
While people may think that it is the right of the USA to behave like that because they are currently the strongest, I would say that they have a right to the international community they AGREED to be part of by co-founding both the NATO and the UN to listen to that international community, and actually do something with what has been said, instead of only using the UN when they feel it would be good. TO be honest, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to remove the USA from the UN, instead of keeping them in there having an influence on everything that is done and decided, but everything that is done and decided having no influence on what they do.

Perhaps you think that I'm bashing the USA because they are the USA, or because they are easy to bash. But I am not doing that, I am voicing my opinion on the USA, not because they are easy to talk about, but because they are not doing things the way they should be doing things.

Also, about the international courts, if the USA agrees to support and help the international courts, and to do all of the things required by those very courts, they should not be asking for immunity from those courts. In my opinion, if the USA will continue with that, I think they should be excluded from the courts entirely. I know it isn't that simple, but I find it astounding that they can get away with things like this.
I shudder to think what will happen if someone who thinks that the USA should expand, will become president....

 

[welsh]

Sander-

I think you might misunderstand what I am saying. It's not that the US has an impeccable record, because it doesn't. Rather, the US has done many nasty things that many Americans are unaware of and many criticize. There are many Americans who don't like the possibility of the US becoming imperialistic, of going unilateral or expanding. In fact there are lots of Americans who believe that the US should stay out of any international entanglements. So if Europe wants to go the way it did before the First two world wars, let 'em. Humanitarian crises? Fuck em. Not our problem.

Just as there is a strong isolationist feel among some Americans, there are strong internationalists as well. Some of these support strong unilateral action- the go it alone cowboy approach. Others support a more communitarian and cooperative approach, and would support greater building of international institutions.

Understandably, many non-Americans find it all confusing, and it is. But its a democracy and different feelings prevail. I am not articulating what is right or wrong here, just what is.

But to think that the US is alone in using international agencies to do with as they would, well, you're sadly mistaken. Every great power has used international organizations in its own way, and to pursue its interests. Go back to the Concert of Europe and you'll see that the goals were on behalf of self-interested states. The Soviet policy in the UN, Malaysia's role in APEC, Nigeria in ECOWAS, France in EU are all countries using the international organization to pursue their own distinct interests. The US is no exception.

Now take the international court. For the US, joining such a court runs against strong feelings of independence and suspicion of the abuse of such courts and its faith in the quality of its own judicial institutions. But the US does support international courts. IF you need history of that, go back to the Nuremburg Trials, where Churchill was reluctant to try the Nazis and the Russian just wanted to kill them, but it was the US, especially Justice Jackson, that pushed the Court's agenda and the desire for justice over revenge.

Secondly, while some countries are able to enjoy the benefits of the current world system other countries are required to act, and sometimes those actions get nasty. Furthermore, I can tell that often trials are not about the truth, but about versions of the truth and constructions of what the truth is. There is a famous film Roshomon that captures this.

If you are a big power that has gone and done nasty things, do you risk yourself before a court of politically charged actors that are trying to construct a truth when that construction (whether its objectively true or not) works against you.

For example, there is a strong likelihood that the US will send peacekeepers into Liberia soon. In the recent past the US has been reluctant to put in ground troops because, for one reason, its politically controversial both at home and abroad. So lets say the Marines go in to Monrovia. Now in Liberia there are a lot of kids who are armed with automatic weapons in squalid squattor communities. A group of marines go into one of these slum areas, gets engaged in a fire fight, kills a dozen kids and maybe some innocent bystanders. Next thing these marines are being tried for war crimes. The charges might be bogus, but that's not as important as the political significance of the charge.

For another illustration of this, you might want to see the film the Sand Pebbles were Chinese Nationalists use the publicity of a pregnant woman's death as political leverage against a US gunboat. That the charge is bogus, doesn't matter. What matters is that for a moment the international spotlight is turned on the US.

That's what the Americans are scared of. There is also the fear that former leaders will be tried for giving money to dictators that used the money against their own people. Kissinger could be charged for giving the OK to the indonesians for going into East Timor, or charges for the bombings of North Vietnam during the war. These acts have both legal and political significance, and the two don't always correspond. And if that's what the US has to deal with, than its better not to join a court at all, or so goes the philosophy.

But imagine if the Dutch were still colonizing Indonesia. Would the Dutch go for an international court where they could be charged for acts againt Indonesians? I doubt it.

As for the US not being part of the UN, should that happen then you have what's called "the empty chair" problem- where a big and necessary power is not present in an international organization and will instead do its own thing without participating in an organization. What consequences. Well lets say there was no NATO and no US in Europe. Then you'd have an EU dominated by the military power of France of Germany. YOu're in the Netherlands, would you like that?

And if you think that France and Germany would not want to mold the EU as they prefer, you are blind. Every country that can will shape the world as it wants, and international organizations are a forum by which those individual self interests collide.

This is not to say that an international criminal court is not a good thing. Frankly, I think that Americans should be subject to international responsibility for their actions, just like everyone else. But how far back do you want to go in history? Would it be fair?

 

[Sander]

Look, Welsh, I think you are missing MY point.

I do know all of what you have said, I realise that a power wants to maintain that power and use it for it's own good, I realise that the UN would have major problems without the US(However, this may be solved by a possible joining of Russia), I also realise the problems involved with an international court.

HOWEVER, MY opinion on all of this is, that however unlikely and unrealistic it may be, things like that should _not_ happen, that it is immoral, unjustifiable when looking at a greater good and bad to do things like that, thus, I also believe that the USA should step down from it's high-and-mighty thone, and "atone" for what it has done. Basically, I'd like the USA to actualy pay heed to that international community, instead of the other way around. However, I do realise that it is improbable that that will happen.

As for your question about Indonesia and the international courts, YES I would support those sourts, and yes, I would have it that we were to atone for our actions against Indonesia, I am no hypocrite, I don't ask of others that they do what I would not do.

How far would I go back in history? I'd go as far back with anything as long as there is a person still alive who can pay for what he or she did. Meaning, I would not go along with any slavery issues, but I would go along with any issues where a Dutchman(going along with the Indonesia thing) molested an Indonesian. And I would go along with any action against a country where one or more of the major leaders of such a crime are still alive.

 

[Brother None]

There is a famous film Roshomon that captures this.

It was called Rashomon, by Akira Kurosawa, 1950. It was the film that surprised everyone in Cannes and made them say stupid things as "the birth of a great national cinema" about the old Japanese cinema.

Ehm...

I do know all of what you have said, I realise that a power wants to maintain that power and use it for it's own good, I realise that the UN would have major problems without the US(However, this may be solved by a possible joining of Russia), I also realise the problems involved with an international court.

Russia is already in the UN. You're thinking of NATO. If the US stepped out of NATO, NATO would go *poof* and be gone, which would be great, seeing how NATO is only a long arm of the US anyway.

HOWEVER, MY opinion on all of this is, that however unlikely and unrealistic it may be, things like that should _not_ happen, that it is immoral, unjustifiable when looking at a greater good and bad to do things like that, thus, I also believe that the USA should step down from it's high-and-mighty thone, and "atone" for what it has done. Basically, I'd like the USA to actualy pay heed to that international community, instead of the other way around. However, I do realise that it is improbable that that will happen.

I don't think you're seeing welsh's point.

On one hand there is this simple fact; the US is a democracy, not a very good one, but a democracy nonetheless...As a democracy, the government has to do roughly what the people want.

Now people, by definition, are stupid, but also divided in their stupidity. Because there are those that wants the US to go international and those that want them to go into seclusion, you'll never have a government do only one of those two, but always a slice of either (or both).

And the roughest part of it is that seclusion pisses everyone off ("How can you just stand there and do nothing, you damned Americans!?"), while international actions also pisses everyone off ("Damned imperialists!")

Now true, true, Bush isn't doing too well, and the way he handles international policies are a joke, but realise Bush is just one president, he's not "America". Other presidents do other stuff, it's not like America always has the aggressive policies of Bushie...

Also, it'd be strange if you can't see why America is arrogant and high-and-mighty. They've been handed THE responsibility for the world since WW II. They never asked for it, but suddenly the Soviets are on the doorstep wanting to make everyone poor. And even now, with the USSR gone, people still expect the US to "be involved" and "give money to everyone". Hell, I'd get arrogant too.

This responsibility is theirs by default, they're the mightiest country. If you think it could actually be POSSIBLE for the mightiest country not to head the international community and, simply by heading it, manipulating all its moves, then you simply don't see how international policies work.

How far would I go back in history? I'd go as far back with anything as long as there is a person still alive who can pay for what he or she did. Meaning, I would not go along with any slavery issues, but I would go along with any issues where a Dutchman(going along with the Indonesia thing) molested an Indonesian. And I would go along with any action against a country where one or more of the major leaders of such a crime are still alive.

1. For the last part; Saddam Hussein was such a man. The Taliban were such men (read a great book about them once, they're fun people).

2. Slavery should not be ignored. Europe carved a lot of its riches out of the backs of Africa and other Third World areas. This should be compensated for, but fortunately, it already is.

PS: welsh, about the Dutchies still holding sway over Indonesia hypothesis. It would be rediculous to assume that if this were true and the rest of the world looked exactly as it does now, the Dutchies would still enslave the Indonesians and kill them by great numbers.

Don't forget, welsh, that the reason the US hasn't been doing terrible as a great world power is NOT because the US is, by its nature, a friendly happy place that's kind to its neighbours, it's because the international pressure over human rights is enormous these days (partially due to the US)

 

[Sander]

Hehe, I think you're right, I didn't see the Welsh's point, or at the most only partially . Still, I stick by mine, I still realise that it is higly unlikely, but I would still feel better about the USA handling things in a different way, because they act like a democracy inwards, but not when dealing with international politics, they act like a dictator.

Slavery actually should be ignored in my opinion, because I don't think you can hold the current generation accountable for what has been done many many generations ago. Because if they weren't to ignore slavery, you could have people asking for restitution because their great great grandparents were once enslaved, and there would be no end to those trials.
If you're talking about action against countries who used to deal in slaves and who should therefore pay money to countries such as, say, Ivory Coast, I would still have to say no. Because then, we could ask Spain for money for possessing us, and Spain could fo ask Italy for money because of the Romans, and it would cause utter chaos. There needs to be a line, and life would be my line, you may disagree with it, but I will stick by it.

And the INdonesia thingie was more of a "for the sake of the argument"thing, rather than a serious thing, IMO.

Oh, and yes, I was probably talking about the NATO, sorry .

A bit more about the USA: I realise that Bush isn't the USA, and I also realise that other presidents have done good things, however, I also realise that _currently_ Bush IS the USA. He represents the American people, for the time being, and I am not attacking the USA for what it has done 20 years ago, I am attacking the USA for what it is doing _ now_.

To finish: well, it would be a whole lot easier if there were only smart people on the world, and only people who were not out for just their own good............

 

[Brother None]

Hehe, I think you're right, I didn't see the Welsh's point, or at the most only partially . Still, I stick by mine, I still realise that it is higly unlikely, but I would still feel better about the USA handling things in a different way, because they act like a democracy inwards, but not when dealing with international politics, they act like a dictator.

Well, I will concede to your point a bit. It would be nice if America was acting a bit better, but I would still be careful in criticising them too much, because they're not doing all that bad altogether...

Improvement would always be nice, but heck, this isn't Utopia.

If you're talking about action against countries who used to deal in slaves and who should therefore pay money to countries such as, say, Ivory Coast, I would still have to say no. Because then, we could ask Spain for money for possessing us, and Spain could fo ask Italy for money because of the Romans, and it would cause utter chaos. There needs to be a line, and life would be my line, you may disagree with it, but I will stick by it.

The problem is that the Roman possesion of Spain doesn't affect Spain, currently, in any way.

The European "Golden Age" was built upon slavery. Without the slaves, we wouldn't have been this rich and without us inslaving them, they wouldn't be this poor (though there's one historian who theorises that Africans are poor because they lack "Protestant work ethic". Welsh, what was his name?)

That's the issue. Slavery effects all these countries directly, hence there should be some compensation for the issue...

The only problem is "responsibility"; why is the current generation responsible for what another generation did ages ago? They're not, but if we are to pick the fruits of that generation, we should also pay their dues.

That's why this situation is not true for, say, Germany-rest of Europe/World (WW II) or Russia-Eastern Europe (Soviet era). In both cases there is no profit on the "guilty" side...

EDIT: "The Taliban were such men (read a great book about them once, they're fun people). Remembered which book, A. Rashid's "The Taliban". Great read, very informative.

 

[welsh]

Kharn- Sorry could not remember the person that said Africa's problems have to do with a lack of a Protestant Work Ethic. Of course the founder of the Protestant Work Ethic idea is Weber, but I think a lot of folks miss the best stuff of Weber because of that argument.

A bit tangential but Sader got me thinking on this- This discussion reminds me of the film Antigone, based on the film.
Essentially you have two main characters. An idealistic young woman who wants to live an ideal world, breaks a law and is condemn to death, and must make a choice whether to abandon her ideals for a happy life, or keep her ideals which will condemn her.

The other character is the king, who is also her would-be father-in-law, who loves this girl but as king is trapped in world of compromises and the need to make hard, realistic choices. He is given the choice of to either condemn her for crime or to release her for her humanity (but of course that would give up the rule of law).

It's a great flick and kind of gets you with the division between idealism and realism that this thread has been developing and I think worth watching.

Here's the thing. For the realist, his sense of righteous rules forces him to make difficult decisions that contradict righteous ideals. In the process he risks losing all the things he values. For the idealist the question is the willingness to surrender your ideals to have a happy life and the danger of losing your life for those ideals.

But these are ideal types. In a sense most of the world is divided between these two. Some are willing to sacrifice for ideals, others willing to compromise for realistic happiness.

If we go back and pay recompense for all crimes done, then when does it end. If we fail to do so, we have not solved injustice but have drawn an arbitrary line between when crimes should be compensated or punished verse those that need to be forgiven or forgotten.

The matter is made more complex by trying to administer justice through international law. In the past most war crimes were charged under national law of the victor and thus the problem of victor's justice. But international law is in some ways primitive law, lacking many of the safeguards and procedures of some of the more developed systems.

But back to the point- the question is one between idealism and realism with the awful truth that most people live somewhere in between. There are those that would take advantage of your ideals, some who won't live up to them, others that will try to implement those ideals through realistic means and those who abandon notions of idealism all together. Much of this, depends on power.

 

[Brother None]

Kharn- Sorry could not remember the person that said Africa's problems have to do with a lack of a Protestant Work Ethic. Of course the founder of the Protestant Work Ethic idea is Weber, but I think a lot of folks miss the best stuff of Weber because of that argument.

Weber, that's the guy!

Well, the Protestant Work Ethic theory just sticks out in his work, but his writings are still standard in the Dutch universities for lots of studies (like Cultural Antropology), he has a lot of good stuff.

He does mention Japan and Korea as the only non-protestants to make it big, but as he puts it, that's because they do have the Protestant Work Ethic, I believe 'round those arguments he also mentions this as the problem of Third World Countries, 'specially Africa.

 

[welsh]

Love Weber. I need to take another look ath The Theory of Social and Economic Organization this week.

But don't forget, its partly the Protestant Ethic that screws us in the end- the iron cage of modernity!