Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
What should we ask of Bush II.2?
When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it? See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject. |
 |
Debate - Page 1/12
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Charles Warren, USA
"Demand" is not a word that Europeans use to Americans.
Jakub, Poland
Charles,
why not? Bush is more than just president of the US. He's pseudo-president
of the world. The way he behaves affects all 6 billion or so of us.
Vanessa, USA
What you can expect of this administration is more arrogant, self-righteous, macho posturing. Your demands will fall on deaf ears my European friends. You are not dealing with rational, educated citizens of the real world. You are dealing with small-minded people of "faith-based intelligence" (I love that phrase-so dead-on). They care not what you think (unless you think like them) or what you want (unless you too would like to see America and the world one big Christian Fascist regime).
M. Bastian, France
Well, "demand" should be a word used by the EU,
especially when the US administration undertakes actions that directly
affect EU interests, such as the invasion of Iraq. Are we in a position
to "demand" things from the US? Not at the moment, though if
Bush continues to antagonize Europe systematically as he has done in the
past, the EU member states might suddenly find they have a common "foe"
(if you could call it that). Thus, unwittingly, his policies may well
be the unifying factor for Europe, and a truely united Europe will be
more than strong enough to "demand" things.
Back to the question: we should ask a minimum of cooperation from the
US. No more military actions without at least consulting with us first,
especially not in the Middle-East. If Bush keeps that in mind, he might
even get support from Germany and France.
Also, we should ask that the US keep religious or so-called "moral
value" issues out of their foreign politics. This might have been
an issue for the elections in the US, but it shouldn´t be one when
dealing with Europe or the Middle-East. Neither we nor the US can afford
to look like christian crusaders, there´s too much emotional baggage
attached to that image.
Last but not least, with Arafat´s death, the Bush administration
has no further excuse not to continue with the roadmap to peace in Israel.
We should insist that the US make more efforts in this respect. After
all, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one of the biggest
sources of unrest in the Middle East. It has to be resolved if there´s
to be a chance at a lasting peace there.
Timothy Graves, USA
Ugh! Seperation of Church and State no longer exists in
America.
Bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion
as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing
from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who
is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics
or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party,
belief, or opinion.
Sue, USA
Vanessa, you can hate George Bush all you like, but he is most certainly not a fascist. Fascists worship centralized power in a monolithic state. Bush, in contrast, wants to turn decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gay marriage away from the federal government and back to the individual state and local governments. How is this fascist? Furthermore, those abroad who sneer at the idea of American exceptionalism are also most likely to "demand" that the USA behave better than other nations because of its disproportionate power. Maybe it's because I'm not as "rational and educated" as Vanessa, but this strikes me as illogical.
Cyndi Walkup, Oklahoma, USA
This right-wing, Southern Baptist, Red State, Okie is a
bit confused. I thought we were THE military and economic super power,
but how could we get this far if our peoples dare practice... ignorant
Christianity. How could our society spawn the world's great advances in
life-saving medicines, technological breakthroughs, world changing innovations
...when we've been a backward religious nation for...gosh all of our existance!
George Washington himself stated that our constitution and state of government
could only work with a religious population. Could it be that...the best
thing would be for other countries to...CONVERT?
That can't be such a bad idea. Think of the things we don't do.....issue
"fatwas", behead people, forcibly shroud our women, burn people
alive after strapping them with gasoline soaked tires, target babies,
purposely bomb children-oriented pizza places, take school children hostage
and shoot them, shoot film directors who happen to disagree with our point
of view...goodness, I'm sure I missed a few things we don't do, stand
for, or would stand for. Perhaps this religious bashing is somewhat...
misplaced.
Michel Bastian, France
Cindy
> This right-wing, Southern Baptist, Red State, Okie is a bit confused.
Not to worry, we´re here to straighten you out ;-).
Actually, this debate probably belongs into the other thread on values,
but here goes:
your comment is a typical example of why most states in the EU have an
institutional separation of state and religion. Anytime anybody brings
up religion in a debate, people feel as though their beliefs were attacked,
and that´s where things automatically start getting personal. To
put the record straight: nobody said anything about "ignorant"
christianity (well I didn´t, at any rate), or bigotry. Nobody said
you´re less intelligent because you´re a baptist with strong
beliefs. I for one pride myself on respecting people´s religious
beliefs, even if they´re not mine. However, as soon as you bring
those beliefs into a political discussion, things start getting ugly.
Mind you, I´m not only talking about the christian faith. The same
thing goes for all the other religions, and especially for islam. Case
in point: Iran, where you have a state completely based on religion. Do
they have free speech in that country? I´d say no. Does the state
respect personal beliefs and religions there? Again, I´d be surprised
if anyone on this panel thought they did. I realize this is an extreme
example and not really comparable to what´s happening in the US
at the moment, but the point I´m trying to make here is: you can
have your own personal convictions, beliefs and religion. You can even
let them dictate your actions. But if you start claiming you have the
right political program and everybody else is wrong only because "god
told you so", that´s the end of rationality and the start of
authoritarian rule. Us Europeans know all too well where these kinds of
politics end. Remember: religion is about beliefs, politics should be
about rationality.
> George Washington himself stated that our constitution and state
of government could only work with a religious population.
And that´s where we have a basic disagreement. Government
does work without a religious population. You don´t have to believe
in god to be a "good" citizen. Mind you, you can have a religious
population (and you probably will, at least in part), but it´s not
necessary for a functioning democracy. You only need a population that
agrees on very few things: the respect of other people´s life, way
of living and faith and the basic values of democracy, i.e. the rule of
the people.
>Could it be that...the best thing would be for other countries to...CONVERT?
No. Why should they convert? Because you´re absolutely right and they´re absolutely wrong? Remember what I said earlier about respecting other people´s faith?
>Think of the things we don't do.....issue "fatwas", behead people, forcibly shroud our women, burn people alive after strapping them with gasoline soaked tires, target babies, purposely bomb children-oriented pizza places, take school children hostage and shoot them, shoot film directors who happen to disagree with our point of view...goodness, I'm sure I missed a few things we don't do, stand for, or would stand for.
All these horrible crimes you´re talking about have nothing to do with religion. Oh, they´re commited in the name of religion of course, but they´re crimes regardless of what excuse you find for them. They´d be crimes if they were commited in the name of Jesus, Buddha, Ahuramazda or any other deity you might imagine. Doesn´t give you the right to demand all muslims should convert. Actually, they´re a pretty good example of what happens when you don´t respect other people´s faith.
> Perhaps this religious bashing is somewhat... misplaced.
Again, nobody´s "religion bashing". We just don´t like the way religion is mixed with politics, that´s all.
Terry Tennessee
We are not THE military superpower. There are many, many
places the US military would never dare touch- China, North Korea to name
two off the top of my head. Christianity in the US has always been freely
allowed personal practice, NOT government policy. ("In God We Trust"
and "...under God..." were added in the 50's as a result of
McCarthyism) The NeoCon(servative)s have embarked upon a campaign to change
this. "Fatwas" won't be called fatwas, but Amendments.(a rose
by any name...)
They are doing this under the guise of voter referendums on states rights
to determine their own laws.(unless a particular state's law threatens
one of the NeoCons' "core values".) If the decision of "Brown
vs. the Board of Education" had been left up to the voting public,
would segregation have ended when it did? I doubt it. I KNOW it wouldn't
have ended in the South.
The list of things that Cyndi asserts we "don't" do...she is
obviously insulated from news about a gay teen being beaten and crucified
on a fence in Wyoming, or white men dragging a poor old black man to death
behind their truck, the bombings of gay bars and women's health clinics,
the assasinations of doctors who perform abortions, all these things are
done to resounding choruses of "God hates Fags" and the oxymoronic
"Right to Life". Cyndi (and 50-60 million others)it seems, are
proud of their rose colored glasses. They will continue to wear them to
the end, even after they no longer work which will confuse and terrify
them even further.
The word bigot comes from Anglo-Saxon "Bei Gott" (by God). A
bigot,in his heart, feels that God agrees with him and his views.
Pam M.
Cyndi, not all Americans are happy with the military might and economic super power status of the US. Especially since power has fallen into the hands of people of your ilk. And while you clearly like to tout the achievements of "great advances" from the US, those great advances should no longer be expected under the current fundamentalist christian regime (which is cut from the same cloth as fundamentalist muslims). With an anti-science administration the advances will be slow in coming. In fact, I believe the Bush administration is a big leap forward in the decline of the US civilization due to the christian right - which can rightly be called ignorant christianity. Christianity did not contribute to health care advances, technological breakthroughs and world changing innovations. Open-minded scientific curiosity brought about those advances - and clearly by turning its back on stem-cell research, global warming, and environmentally sound policies aimed at preserving our world, the christian right is squandering all that has been good about the US. The problem with fundamentalist christians is that they have abdicated their ability and responsibility to think for themselves and are intolerant of others' rights and beliefs if they aren't in accord with the bible. Attempting to convert others to your narrowminded, obsolete and mindless belief system disrespectful in the extreme. The Bush administration uses so-called born-again values to make the rich richer and to maintain power for themselves. America was much better off when people kept their religious beliefs to themeselves - it was then that the technological advances we have contributed to the world were made. Let me tell you what right-wing christians have done in America: segregation, racism, lynchings, burning crosses, jim crow laws, slavery, murder of physicians, bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, bombing the federal building in Oklahoma, murder of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers, murder of three little black girls in a church bombing, torture of prisoners in Iraq and at Guantanamo, mass murder by the Jim Jones christian sect, rape of little girls at Waco by that christian sect, the unthinking deaths of over 1000 soldiers in Iraq and an unknown thousands of innocent Iraqis in an unnecessary war. Of course, when truly heinous acts are committed by christians, other christians simply disavow them as not really christian. A covenient denial system to say the least. The religious bashing isn't misplaced. And finally I would like to say that I know many good christians who are appalled by your brand of chritianit and claim that you are not really christian. In the interest of full disclosure I can say that I was raised christian, but converted to Buddhism over 30 years ago. Buddhists don't believe in a creator god (nor that the Dalai Lama is god - that's just ignorance about the religion) and we are all the better for it. Monotheism is the a huge problem in the world and if you look around you'll see that to be true.
alex, usa
This is an administration devoid of empathy, wisdom and judicious acts. You may expect jingoism, self-righteous declarations and facile attempts to deceive a frightened and confused public. And to the previous American authors -- read the history of our Civil War, see what happened during desegregation in the 60's and compare our country's baseline educational assessments to those of Japan, Poland, Finland, Argentina. Much of our nation's problems stem from an undereducated and misinformed public that is reactive rather that proactive.
Dalls Comfort, USA, NC
Unfortunately, I believe we can expect more division within
our nation as a result of W. being graced with more "political capital"
and the craven need to spend it furthering a right-wing christian-soldier
agenda.
America is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of innocent
Iraqi women and children (I believe the current figure is over 100,000
collateral casualties.) This is as much a fatwa against Arab peoples as
it is anything. How is this not targeting innocents? How is Abu Graib
a symbol of our great humane society? Torture is torture, war is war.
Hate is hate by whatever name you call it.
An intolerant puritan streak has emerged in 21st century USA bolstered
by our current leading political party.
It's shameful to see America ignore the 200 years of American values.
Values such as equal rights, humane treatment, tolerence, personal rights,
liberties, and opportunity for education.
Religion has no place in government. Any religion that preaches or promotes
violence is motivated by greed and fear.
We should demand a return to unity in our country. A return to tolerence
and realistic agendas. Do I see our president following this advice? We
can hope for a miracle and keep pressing for peace.
Susan, USA
You cannot separate 'religion' from politics. Governing
is all about deciding right and wrong. However, right and wrong is really
just an opinion. How we develop our opinions is generally from our upbringing,
our peers, media, etc. Why is something determined to be wrong, against
the law, bad or whatever? It is because the people of the world have tried
to make sense of thigs since communication began. People made sense of
the world by creating a god or religion. Rules, morals, values, laws have
been created out of this religous base. Why is it immoral, because 'God'
says so.
If there is no Heaven or Hell and no God, what is the point of law or
politics. Just to keep people in line. Why is murder wrong if there is
no God? What difference does it make in the big scheme of things if you
nuke the entire planet, if there is no God? The earth would still be here.
Billions of years later life would begin again.
Politicians, Judges, Presidents, lawmakers of every ilk are guided by
their opinion of right and wrong. Morals, values, justice are all based
on religion. Even atheists are guided by values with their base in religion.
What morals need an atheist adhere to?
Regarding Bush, he is an admitted Christian. Read the bible and you will
discover what he believes. I don't necessarily agree with Bush, however
I do not fear him. The Godless leaders of history have done far more damage
than the God fearing.
With all the bashing of the USA and Bush, you still think the USA should
bring peace to Isreal and Palestine. Who else is responsible? Hopefully
now that Arafat is dead this can be done. If Bush brings peace to Palestine
and Isreal would he be considered a good President?
Ronald, US/Belgium
Michel-
You make a good point though I don't think there is a disagreement about
the church and state issue between Europe and the US. At least there wasn't
in the beginning:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance
of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves
for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt,
1813.
Cindy-
George Washington, though he attended many different churches, was essentially
a Deist.
There are many websites about Deism. Or read Thomas Paine's "Age
of Reason" as George Washington did.
I am not accusing you personally of course, but when you speak of the
horrors that "We" do not commit you forget the ones "We"
do.
Remember how Matthew Shepard died? Ever heard of Reverend Phelps? Visit:
hatecrime.org for the gorey details of what is happening to people.
Remember the doctors and nurses killed for performing abortions? Were
they not the result of a "fatwa" called out by certain (not
all) Evangelicals? Or do these not count?
Remember Oklahoma City? Not relevant?
These were all committed by extremists who thought they were right to
do so. "We" tell ourselves they were insane and not really Christian,
and I know many Muslims who think the people who commit the crimes you
mention are insane and not really Muslim. I cannot justify terror and
oppresion, but I cannot pretend it never happens here. Luckily there are
still laws and a brilliant constitution to discourage it by claiming all
to be equal. Well, until that's fixed.
But back to the topic.
What must "We" demand of this administration?
"We" must demand that it does not become the very thing it is
supposedly fighting: a terror to half of its citizens as well as the rest
of the world.
Depriving people of equality at home while dropping "smart"'
bombs on people who don't think the way they do and don't want to convert..
And we must demand it because the US constitution demands that we do.
Jakub, Poland
Cyndi,
Your list of crimes that America apparently doesn't commit ....
1) I daresay no nation on earth has killed as many children as the United
States.
2)America continued to practise legally enshrined apartheid as late as
1965 and, in many areas, continue in practice.
3) What has taking school children hostage got to do with anything? I
can only presume you're referring to Beslan, which clearly has nothing
to do with a clash of values between Western and Islamic values.
4) Given the number of people that get shot in America, i daresay a few
film directors have been killed. It's statistically likely
5) America should no longer hide behind a facade of being more civilised
than the rest of the world. A friend of mine, a doctor, was murdered by
anti-abortion activists. Sounds almost third world doesn't it ?
Clearly no country which continues to have the death penalty can consider
itself civilised.
D.L. Granberry, USA
Personally, I'm wondering what the US should demand of
Europe and the UN.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6479933/
Charles Kohnen, Canada/Germany/USA
Reading the above comments I can not really disagree with
anyone. If you balance it out America has done more good than bad over
the years and the world has changed tremendously quickly through the process.
It is important for everyone to acknowledge that the country has done
some truly great things and some horrible and stupid things also - One
can not simply take assessment of the USA through one single prism. Overall,
on a Macro level, America's development as a country and as a world player
has helped more than it has hurt...so far.
After working in many many countries in Africa, Europe, Middle East, and
Asia over 10 years and then working in America these last 10 years I find
it very difficult to explain to Americans and to non-Americans (depending
where I'm at) the reality on the ground. USA is not about to become a
military driven theocracy, Europe is not about to become a group of decadent
sissy hethens, Africa is not a hopeless cause, China will not become a
new cold war, the Middle East has just as many beautiful people and idiots
as everybody else.
What should we all demand of this administration? To acknowledge that
the country stands on many shoulders in the USA and abroad and that therefore
on the long run an inclusive approach will be more helpful than an exclusionary
one. This applies to all free countries and their citizens not only to
the power brokers.
Everybody needs to try a little harder.
Michel Bastian, France
To Susan
> You cannot separate 'religion' from politics. Governing is all about deciding right and wrong. However, right and wrong is really just an opinion.
That´s exactly my point: it´s an opinion, it´s
not based on empirical fact. Now I agree that you´ll never actually
be able to completely separate religion and beliefs from politics. That´s
impossible because the people making politics inevitably have their principles
and they act upon them. However, you should not institutionalize one religion
or set of belief over another, precisely because you don´t know
you´re right. You only believe you´re right, however strongly.
Not only should you keep an open mind, but you should keep political discourse
(and of course, political institutions) as free as possible of absolutes.
Why? Because absolutes polarize, and polarization is detrimental to reasonable
debate. Religion is about as absolute as you can get. It tends to forbid
any kind of compromise between two people of different beliefs in a given
matter. And what´s politics all about? Compromise (mostly, at least).
You´re not going to have the possibility to always implement your
own beliefs, but you´ll at least have a shot at striking a deal
so that your own beliefs don´t get run over completely. If your
political leadership doesn´t give you that possibility (by keeping
an open mind and honestly taking into consideration other opinions, religions,
faiths etc.), that´s not politics anymore. There´s a name
for that: it´s called despotism. Mind you, I´m not saying
that Bush is a despot, but by publically bringing religion and the absolute
of "good vs. evil" into every last one of his political decisions
he´s polarizing the issues, and pretty soon there´ll be no
place for rational argument any more.
> How we develop our opinions is generally from our upbringing, our peers, media, etc. Why is something determined to be wrong, against the law, bad or whatever? It is because the people of the world have tried to make sense of thigs since communication began.
Yes, I´m with you on that, but....
> People made sense of the world by creating a god or religion. Rules, morals, values, laws have been created out of this religous base. Why is it immoral, because 'God' says so.
... no, that´s where I beg to differ. Morals, principles
and beliefs do not necessarily come from a religious background. Even
communism, however misguided it might have been, had a moral base: the
idea at the start was to even out social injustices that were running
rampant in Europe at the time of Marx and Engels, which in itself is not
an amoral goal. And I´m pretty sure nobody would contend that communists
believed in God, Heaven or Hell. Indeed, democracy itself is not a religious
idea. It comes from ancient greece and its foundation was the very moral
perception that no single person should be allowed to impose his views
on every other person through government. It was not based on religious
beliefs, but on empirical fact gathered in hundreds of years of historical
experience, namely that, as somebody later put it, "power corrupts,
but absolute power corrupts absolutely".
> If there is no Heaven or Hell and no God, what is the point of law or politics. Just to keep people in line.
No. Law and politics should serve to let everybody live
a decent life while at the same time keeping up a functioning society.
It´s not necessary to believe in God, Heaven or Hell for that, and
it sure isn´t necessary to impose this belief on others.
> Why is murder wrong if there is no God? What difference does it make in the big scheme of things if you nuke the entire planet, if there is no God?
Well, we´d all be dead, which can´t be the
goal of any sane human being on the face of this earth, regardless of
their believing in god. It doesn´t make any difference whether it
matters in the grand scheme of things, because if you´re dead you
won´t be able to think about the grand scheme of things anymore.
That´s my whole argument: a functioning society is necessary so
you can live your own life, including reflecting about the grand scheme
of things. A functioning society needs a moral base, but it doesn´t
necessarily need a religious moral base. Indeed, a functioning free society
is better off without a religious moral base in my book.
> Politicians, Judges, Presidents, lawmakers of every ilk are guided by their opinion of right and wrong. Morals, values, justice are all based on religion. Even atheists are guided by values with their base in religion.
True, politicians, judges, presidents and lawmakers are
indeed guided by their opinion of right and wrong. But they´re not
necessarily guided by religious absolutes.
> Regarding Bush, he is an admitted Christian. Read the bible and you will discover what he believes. I don't necessarily agree with Bush, however I do not fear him. The Godless leaders of history have done far more damage than the God fearing.
Ooooh, I´d be very careful with that statement. If
you look at history, the amount of crimes commited by religiously motivated
leaders is pretty high. Frankly, I doubt that "godless" leaders
have actually done more damage than the faith driven. European history
teaches us otherwise. Incidentally, that´s probably the reason why
we europeans react so negatively to mingling affairs of state with religion.
> With all the bashing of the USA and Bush, you still think the USA should bring peace to Isreal and Palestine. Who else is responsible? Hopefully now that Arafat is dead this can be done. If Bush brings peace to Palestine and Isreal would he be considered a good President?
Well, if he actually pulled that one off he´d be considered one of the truely great presidents, were it not for Iraq. The damage that has been done to his image by this war is probably not repairable. But that´s all conjecture. At the moment, he won´t be able to bring peace to Palestine and Israel on his own simply because the Palestinians don´t trust him or America. He´ll need us "old" Europeans for that, and even then it´s going to be an uphill battle.
Nicholas, America
1. We should expect the US Government to go into debt to
the point where many social welfare programs can no longer be adequately
funded. Including the privatization of the Old Age Pension (aka. Social
Security), which will lead to benefit cuts.
2. We should expect the Upper Class to profit, and the gap between rich
and poor to grow wider and wider.
3. We should expect a more anxious and depressed American citizenry.
4. We should expect more Americans to have either no access to health
care or inadequate access to health care.
5. We should expect average people to go into great debt in order to attain
an education.
6. We should expect that the Armed Forces will recruit more minorities
and non-citizens.
7. We should expect longer deployments for soldiers and more frequent
activations for combat missions, combined with a relative decrease in
benefits.
8. We should expect a growth in the US Prison population combined with
a liberalization of the way prisoners are farmed out as labor.
9. We should expect wages to fall for average people, and management positions
to be outsourced.
10. We should expect a greater number of home foreclosures and bankruptcies,
alongside economic growth.
11. We should expect economic growth that only benefits the top 10-15
% of Americans.
12. We should expect Social benefits in the EU to erode as member states
struggle to remain competitive on the world stage.
What should the EU demand of Bush?
1. US corporate interests are partnered with the WTO and they run the
government. The IMF is probably mixed up in this too. Since the EU member
states also negotiate with the WTO and fund the IMF, I fail to see what
you can demand of the USA - unless France helps the EU become a counter-balance
to the USA∑ What you could do is pressure your leaders to demand
transparency in the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. Pressure them to add Human
Rights to the agreement. Trade is good, but Management has to respect
the workers.
John R., USA
Jakub,
1) This is absurd! Good grief, and they say US education is bad... Your
statement is based on what? How about the organized and intentional government-sanctioned
killing done by Iran or the former Taliban regime? WWII era Germany and
Japan? Look at the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge (mis-spelled,
I'm sure) in Cambodia? Stalinist Russia?
So where have these killings taken place? Civilians may have been killed
in battle, but that's war. Not to say it isn't tragic, but it's a fact
of war.
Surely you're NOT talking about the atomic bombs in Japan? If you read
history, the entire island was preparing to fight to the death! Those
bombs killed tens of thousands, but when compared to the lives NOT lost
by US soldiers and Japanese civilians fighting a fruitless "last
stand" the cost was worth it.
2) Where? (this is hypothetical) Your statement is entirely without merit
3) Actually it does. You should not mistake Islam as peaceful. There may
be many who aren't militaristic, but the religion as a whole advocates
violence against ALL non-Muslims
4) Have you ever actually BEEN to the US? Do have any real numbers? (another
hypothetical)
5) This has occured only a handful of tiems and most of the killers were
caught. I'd call your statement unlikely or simply a lie to make a point.
That being said, the US has issues with violence and should (IMHO) make
greater efforts to work with the Europeans. I personally believe Iraq
had to happen at some point. Yes, there should have been more diplomacy
used, but at some point - Saddam had to be dealt with.
The US may act where the EU would prefer not to, but I grow weary of the
accusations that the US is a gun-slinging, war-mongering cowboy. I'm all
for civilized discussion, but these kinds of statements are out of line
and need to stop.
Finally, I'm not particularly impressed with a "civilized country"
(France) which is happy to circumvent UN sanctions to get discounted oil
from a totalitarian regime...
Robert, USA
"Belief in a cruel God, makes a cruel man." -Thomas Paine
Michel Bastian, France
To John R. and Jakub,
> 1) This is absurd! Good grief, and they say US education is bad...
Your statement is based on what?
Errm, I frankly can´t see what Jakub´s statement
is based on either, so I concur: americans have no genetic or cultural
predisposition to kill children as far as I can see. To say so is pretty
polemic (and I´m being polite here). Sorry, Jakub, but you just
can´t say things like that and expect to not get flamed. Actually,
from my experience (and I have lived in America for a time) american parents
tend to be rather protective of their children.
> How about the organized and intentional government-sanctioned killing done by Iran or the former Taliban regime? WWII era Germany and Japan? Look at the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge (mis-spelled, I'm sure) in Cambodia? Stalinist Russia?
Well, I´m sure if we read up a bit on our history,
we´ll find lots of horrifying crimes like that, so the point is
moot. Like I said, americans aren´t worse than any other nation.
But they aren´t better either. Incidentally, Khmer Rouge is the
correct spelling. You could also call them Red Khmer if you want, but
thanks for using the french term ;-).
> So where have these killings taken place? Civilians may have been killed in battle, but that's war. Not to say it isn't tragic, but it's a fact of war.
Yes, true, but that´s the reason why we europeans are pretty reluctant to go to war in the first place. That´s one of the things that our own history has taught us in quite a painful way. Myself, I live in the german city of Cologne. The ravages of the second world war are still very much present here today, sixty years after the war. You can still see it in the architecture: the whole town was basically flattened. And there were many other towns like that all over Europe: Coventry, London, Rotterdam, Dresden, Hamburg, you name it. If you don´t believe me, I can send you pretty grisly picture postcards of the time if you like. Some of my own family have fought and died in the war on both sides (I´m half french, half german actually). Casualties of war, you´ll say, and I´d say you´re right. But Americans have never had war on their own soil, so they have another take on that. You can´t blame the europeans if they have one iron rule: war is only the very, very, very last resort.
> Surely you're NOT talking about the atomic bombs in Japan? If you read history, the entire island was preparing to fight to the death! Those bombs killed tens of thousands, but when compared to the lives NOT lost by US soldiers and Japanese civilians fighting a fruitless "last stand" the cost was worth it.
Historical debate, really. I´m not sure, but I remember
having read a piece by a british historian a long time ago who contended
that the japanese wouldn´t have fought a last stand due to a massive
shortage of resources. Then again, I´m no historian and for the
life of me I couldn´t tell you where I read that anymore. Whatever
the truth is, the argument still stands: you should only use war as a
last resort, especially when you´re using weapons of mass disappearance
and faulty intelligence as the excuse for going to war.
> 2) Where? (this is hypothetical) Your statement is entirely without
merit.
Well, this is one where I have to take sides with Jakub:
there is still a problem with racism in some of the southern american
states (ever been to Houston, New Orleans, Baton Rouge or Lafayette? go
live there for a while and you´ll see what I mean). It´s not
institutionalized and widespread like it used to be before the sixties,
but it´s still an undercurrent in parts of the population in the
southern states. However, to be fair, we have our share of racists and
xenophobes in Europe, too, so I wouldn´t make an argument that the
americans are exceptional in that respect.
> 3) Actually it does. You should not mistake Islam as peaceful.
There may be many who aren't militaristic, but the religion as a whole
advocates violence against ALL non-Muslims.
Well, no. Beslan had to do with a few crackpot Tchetchens
who didn´t even know what they actually wanted from the russian
government. Islam wasn´t really an issue in that case. Insanity
was. And I wouldn´t agree with you either that Islam itself is an
aggressive religion. When you compare the Coran with the Bible, for instance,
you´ll always be able to find wording to justify a holy war in both
of them. Islam isn´t any more or less aggressive than any other
religion. To quote a phrase often used by the NRA: holy books don´t
kill people, people kill people ;-).
> 4) Have you ever actually BEEN to the US? Do have any real numbers?
(another hypothetical)
Well, I have been to the US, and I think they do have a
problem with violent crime, mostly related to gun control, and more so
than Europe. To give you an example: in New Orleans, the lady that rented
me my room was a school supervisor who had to go inspect several highschools
in some of the parishes of the NO area. She told me that she couldn´t
go into some schools without bodyguards and a flak jacket for chrissakes!
Of course, these are extreme examples, and I´m sure she was exaggerating
a bit, but there is definitely a problem with gun-related crime in the
urban areas of the US.
> 5) This has occured only a handful of tiems and most of the killers were caught. I'd call your statement unlikely or simply a lie to make a point.
Again, this is not necessarily an american problem. Every
nation has idiots who think that in order to make their point they have
to kill or harm their political opponent. Actually, Jakub, I seem to remember
that there was something like that in Poland too during the eighties (though
it was not related to abortion, of course). Popieluszko ring a bell? And
I´m sure that if I look hard enough I´ll find other examples
in Germany, France or the UK too.
> That being said, the US has issues with violence
and should (IMHO) make greater efforts to work with the Europeans. I personally
believe Iraq had to happen at some point. Yes, there should have been
more diplomacy used, but at some point - Saddam had to be dealt with.
The US may act where the EU would prefer not to, but I grow weary of the
accusations that the US is a gun-slinging, war-mongering cowboy. I'm all
for civilized discussion, but these kinds of statements are out of line
and need to stop.
I agree with you that all this childish namecalling should
stop, on both sides of the argument. Like I said, I don´t think
the americans (if there is such a thing as "the americans";
generalisations are always error-prone) are any worse or any better than
us europeans. However, with respect to Iraq, I do think that the Bush
administration (mind you: not all the americans, just their president)
have made a grave mistake. I don´t think Bush is an idiot or a cowboy,
but he did mess up in the worst way, for whatever reasons. And he should
be held accountable for that mistake.
> Finally, I'm not particularly impressed with a "civilized country" (France) which is happy to circumvent UN sanctions to get discounted oil from a totalitarian regime...
Oh, darn, that story again: ok, to put the record straight
once and for all about this oil for food "scandal": this is
a story that was forcibly rammed down the collective throat of the international
press by a certain William Safire, columnist of the New York Times. Mr.
Safire, incidentally, is known to be a, shall we say, staunchly right-wing
republican with a particular taste for France-bashing. As the story goes,
French firms were "involved" in a purported bribe scam to secure
contracts under the oil for food program. The Duelfer report seemed to
verify that story by vaguely stating Saddam had a plan to bribe France
(among others) with oil in exchange for support in the UN security council.
Other than that, not a shred of evidence was given of actual french involvment
in any illicit oil for food deals. In his letter to Congress about the
oil for food program, Jean-Marie Levitte, french ambassador to the US,
stated that most of the "french" firms involved in the oil for
food program were actually subsidiaries of notable american firms (which
he named). The total volume of contracts these firms obtained was 530
million dollars, of which Halliburton alone got a mere 130 million dollars´
worth.
Now I know the french government is by no means made up of saints, but
neither is the american government or press. So do us french a favour
and check you facts before you continue spreading this kind of slander.
I must confess that I´m really getting tired of these rather stupid
and obvious france-bashing attacks.
Susan, USA
To Pam M.
How can a Buddhist support stem cell research? Isn't the
material needed for stem cell research harvested from life murdered in
the womb?
To M. Bastian
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I would like to clarify my thoughts on religion by using the word mythology
in place of the word religion. Since the dawn of time man has tried to
explain his world. The heavens, earth and sea were mysteries. Man created
his own stories or myths about these things. Joseph Campbell wrote extensively
about mythology. I believe Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim
and any other permutation of a belief system is created out of mythology
and refined over thousands of years. Mythology or storytelling or whatever
you want to call it has been around since long before democracy or communism
or any other political ideology was born.
Therefore, I stand by my comment that people made sense of the world by
creating a god (or gods) or religion (mythology). Rules, morals, values,
laws have been created out of this belief base. I seriously doubt you
can ever get religous beliefs out of politics.
Atheism is a fairly new and intellectual belief system that hasn't had
nearly the impact that thousands of years of mythology have.
You spoke of ancient Greece being the founder of democracy and that it
has no relgious base. Surely you have heard of Greek mythology. Of course
the Greeks were affected by their stories of the Gods. How could they
not be?
What would the world be like if the US pulled out of every country on
the planet? We have plenty of troubles on our own soil to deal with. If
countries are warring against each other in far away lands, the US should
not get involved. If their are countries who need aid, let them go to
EU. If genocide is being committed in places like Bosnia, EU should handle
it or not as they choose. I know this is a typical response, however,
the US does a lot of good and you never hear much about that.
Bush will be no better or worse than any other leader of the free world
just because he believes in God and isn't ashamed to say so. Saddam is
a murderer and torturer of people, good riddance. Saddam's sons were hideous
monsters, you should read up on their history if you don't believe me.
I hope Bush can find a way to help the Iraqi's obtain peace and democracy.
There is such a thing as good vs evil. EU experienced that in the 1940's.
Sue, USA
Several posters have mentioned rare and isolated instances of abortion-clinic violence as evidence that the US is somehow descending into the dark night of theocracy. However, those who perpetrate such violence are punished to the full extent of the law and treated to the full disdain of society. Not even evangelical Christian churches support these mentally unbalanced killers. Under a Bush presidency, or any other presidency, violent lawbreakers will be punished, period. Bush as an individual is not that important. The system will work as it always has; it is bigger than any one individual who occupies a certain role in it. Bush's powers are quite circumscribed, as a hypothetical President Kerry's would also have been.
Susan, USA
To M. Bastian
You keep talking about the lessons learned by EU because of war on their
own soil and that somehow this makes EU far wiser on these matters. The
US has lost its sons and daughters on foreign soil including France. Do
you think that the loss of US soldiers is taken lightly. Do you think
Bush or any other leader goes to war without considering it the gravest
of choices?
Michel, say that Americans (and by that I guess you mean US) have never
had war on their own soil. US has had war on its soil. The most recent
was in the 1860's. Around 750,000 people lost their lives in our civil
war. Before that, their were other wars including the revolutionary war
with Britain.
EU had war forced on it by Hitler in the 1940's, it was a most horrific
experience for all who endured it. The US was isolationist at that time
because of the horrors of WWI and the horrible loss of US lives overseas
helping Europe, the US never wanted to get involved again. Churchill had
to plead and plead for help from FDR. Finally the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbor and the US joined the fighting all over the world.
As WWII was winding down and the concentration camps were discovered and
the horrors and loss for all of Europe were made perfectly clear, I believe
there was a sense of guilt and disgust with ourselves as Americans that
we did not get involved sooner. US has been involved ever since.
The French and German's now seem much like the US after WWI, isolationist.
The horrors of war are too recent and in your own back yard.
As far as Iraq, in the 90's US was asked to go there on behalf of Kuwait.
US knows Saddam is an evil man and his people are oppressed. Genocide
was being committed on the Kurds by Saddam. After 9/11 70% of the people
in the US supported war in Iraq. Saddam was not cooperating with the UN
inspectors. Not Bush all by himself, but the US congress supported war
and voted on it, including Senator Kerry.
Now we know that they cannot prove ties between Saddam and Bin Ladden.
No WMDs were found. But, now the country is in chaos and must be brought
to order before the US can leave.
Fragano, Brit in US
Bush now believes that he has a mandate. Domestically, he has to feed some red meat to the Christian fundies -- so legal abortion may be in danger, and gays are likely to be forced back in the direction of the closet. Internationally, the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to the post of Secretary of State suggests that the War on Islam/Terror/the correct pronunciation of Iraq is going to be treated as the hot front of a new Cold War.
Roisin, Ireland
his resignation?
Susan Murray, USA
Most of you seem to have lost all common sense. You equate
all born-again Christains with hate-mongers. Jimmy Carter was a born again
and a liberal. Bill Clinton prayed with Jesse Jackson (a born-again) over
his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The outrage over Bush's faith is hypocritical.
It appears to be acceptable to be a born-again as long as you are a liberal.
It is unacceptable to you to for a President to be a Christain and a conservative.
That is the botom line; it doesn't have anything to do with what they
believe in their hearts. Kerry made an attempt to portray himself as a
Catholic alter boy, but it didn't buy him any political points. Religion
and American politics have always been bedfellows, albeit strange at times.
I am a non-Christian and a conservative. Bush was elected because the
majority of Americans lean to the conservative side, not because hordes
of born-again Christians marched to polls in support of W. Those same
hordes promptly threw the bum Jimmy Carter out even though his beliefs
were Christian in the extreme.
Our apologetic group of born-again liberals just can't seem to get over
the fact that they flat-out lost and need to find a "reason"
why. The fact that a slim majority of Americans simply don't agree with
them must be too hard to accept. What arrogance!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Reply to M. Bastian, France
>Well, "demand" should be a word used by the EU,
Not in this lifetime, IMHO, unless you enjoy being told to "go pound
sand".
>especially when the US administration undertakes actions that directly
affect EU interests, such as the invasion of Iraq.
IMHO, our liberation of Iraq doesn't affect your interests at all, unless
you are referring to the Europeans' interest in receiving vouchers for
oil at cut-rate prices from Saddam Hussein in return for giving Saddam's
regime a kickback.
>Are we in a position to "demand" things from the US?
Not at the moment...
Actually, "not in this lifetime" is a more-accurate answer,
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO).
>..and a truely united Europe will be more than strong enough to "demand"
things.
The EU's supposedly "strongest" economies, France and Germany,
have been in recession for literally years on end. Decades, more like.
Productivity is falling because lazy, overpaid unions in France and Germany
insist that they somehow have a "right" to be supported indefinitely
at businesses' and taxpayers' expense even if their employer's business
collapses. Small wonder that overpaid German auto workers are losing their
jobs to American workers in Alabama and South Carolina. So much for Europe's
"economic strength". I won't even get into the issue of the
EU's supposed "military strength".
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Reply to M. Bastian, France:
>Back to the question: we should ask a minimum of cooperation from
the US.
I am sure you will get the "minimum", alright.
>No more military actions without at least consulting with us first,
especially not in the Middle-East.
You will not get a "Veto" over US actions. "Consulting"
does not mean the same thing as "asking permission". I am sure
that the US government would "advise" Europe of any military
action that might be taken, before the action gets taken, but we do not
need your "permission" or "consent" to have our own
foreign policies.
>If Bush keeps that in mind, he might even get support from Germany
and France.
Personally I do not especially care if Bush has "support" from
Germany and France or not. "Nothing" plus "Nothing"
is still "Nothing".
>Also, we should ask that the US keep religious or so-called "moral
value" issues out of their foreign politics.
Not acceptable. Our policies are a derivative of our moral beliefs, values
and precepts.
>This might have been an issue for the elections in the US, but it
shouldn´t be one when dealing with Europe or the Middle-East.
IMHO, Europe needs to fundamentally understand that there is such a thing
as basic moral values and that many of these values derive directly from
basic religious definitions of Right versus Wrong. A nation, or a continent,
that has no basic moral underpinnings, that has no basic absolutist definitions
of Right versus Wrong, is a society in which nothing is ever declared
to be morally Wrong; in which anything can be justified, excused or rationalized.
It is a society in which Human Life is implicitly devalued and disposed
of, from so-called "voluntary" Euthanasia in Britain, to the
Nazi-era "culling out" of the disabled, to the ignominy and
Moral Wrong of allowing mass murderers to go on living at Taxpayers' expense
when they rightly should be executed. A continent that has no Absolute
Values, believes ultimately in nothing, except perpetuating its own existence.
>Last but not least, with Arafat´s death, the Bush administration
has no further excuse not to continue with the roadmap to peace in Israel.
We should insist that the US make more efforts in this respect.
IMHO It is not up to the Bush Administration to "make more efforts"
to "force" two peoples who clearly want to kill each other,
to "play nice". It is up to the warring parties themselves to
resolve their issues. And there can be no resolution of the conflict so
long as one side, the Arab side, still blindly believes it has an Allah-given
right to wipe the other side, the Israelis, off the map of the Middle
East.
>After all, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one
of the biggest sources of unrest in the Middle East. It has to be resolved
if there´s to be a chance at a lasting peace there.
The biggest source of unrest in the Middle East is the continuing blind
unwillingness, in almost every Muslim-oriented country, at every societal
level, to accept the basic fundamental Fact that Jews have as much right
to a homeland of their own in the Middle East as Muslims do; that this
homeland is called the State of Israel; and that the existence of this
homeland is an irrevocable fact, not a temporary "abherration"
that can be "revoked". Until Arabs recognize these Facts, there
can be no peace, lasting or otherwise.
There will be NO Israeli pullback to pre-1967 ceasefire lines (they were
never "borders" to begin with). U.N. Resolution 242 calls for
Arab nations to accept Israel's Right to exist within Recognized and Secure
Borders. No Arab nations other than Egypt and Jordan recognize Israel's
existence, and the pre-1967 ceasefire lines were never "borders",
nor were they "recognized", nor were they "secure".
There will be NO "right of return" for Palestinians who fled
their lands; territory abandoned becomes the rightful property of the
victors. Palestinian "refugees" should receive the same level
of sympathy afforded by Europeans to anti-Castro Cubans whose lands and
property were seized; namely, Nothing At All.
J.Z. Smith, USA - Souther California
Interesting thread, but I think the "moral values"
thing is completely blown out of proportion. There was a question in exit
polling that asked, "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how
you voted for president? (Check only one)". "Moral Values"
(MV), as we all know, was the answer most often given, though "economy/jobs"
was a close second, followed also very closely by "terrorism",
and "Iraq". If you lump the latter two together, they are the
clear winner.
MV can be quite different to different people. To some, the war in Iraq
is a moral issue, while to others it means simply doing the "right
thing" even when no one is watching. To draw the conclusion, as has
Vanessa above, and as have so many on the left, that the reason GWB won
re-election is because a bunch of red-neck religious idiots were brainwashed
into voting for GWB is utter foolishness. The condescension of the left
in their post-election tantrums has been very illuminating. The very people
they claim to be "for"˜the vast working class˜ are
the ones they think are idiots. Their true feelings regarding "the
masses" have been exposed, and unless they can come to terms with
that elitist attitude they will never regain their lost political power.
To my European friends, you should know that overwealming majority of
those who voted for GWB did so NOT because they are stupid, or because
they are relious zombies, or mind-numbed robots. They heard and understood
the proposals of John Kerry and the left, and REJECTED them.
One more thing, we are not a "deeply divided" country. We are
closely divided, which is another way of saying we are balanced between
extremes. We are a country that is balanced between the right and the
left.
Christine, Red State, USA
It is laughable to even pose this question. How can the
EU ever imagine that they can "demand" anything of anyone. What
will their response be if their demand is not met? A vote in the UN? Economic
sanctions of the US? How about all Europeans roundly mocking and taunting
us? (I think that has been tried) Please. They only time the world gives
a flying fig what Europe thinks is when they know that Europe is backed
up with American might. While I do find this hypothetical discussion amusing,
it does seem absurd to me due to its total lack of grounding in reality.
Whether negotiations occurr between something as common as a parent and
a child or as complex as one nation to another, if there is no serious
consequence that can be rendered, all demands are meaningless.
Additionally, it seems to me that the time for the EU to beg for perks
from us is long gone. Those countries who have any hope for garnering
favors should have earned good will with the US up front by helping us
in our time of need. (Do Europeans know the story of the Little Red Hen?)
As someone who has family members that gave their lives on the beaches
of Normandy, it makes me ill to see the sacrifice our country made so
easily forgotten and dismissed by those who benefitted most. I would imagine
that the vast majority of those men buried there would have plenty in
common with the much reviled "red state, homophobe, bigot, evangelical".
I would be willing to bet there were not a whole bunch of high brow, European
trip taking, intellectuals in their crowd. Oh well, they served their
purpose. Now you all can sit comfortably back in your safe, semi-free
countries and look down your noses at their type while your leaders backstab
and sell out our country. I am sure there will be many more lofty discussions
to be had regarding the doltish, hillbillies that people the American
continent and our silly, naieve beliefs. But when the time comes that
events like those in Holland and Spain occurr with greater frequencey
and devastation, we all know whose door the weak kneed world will knock
on. The real question is will the stupid, Jesus-loving, boor who lives
there answer. I think that is the real question the EU ought to be pondering.
Tim, USA
>Bush was elected because the majority of Americans
lean >to the conservative side
Susan: I must say i disagree here.
Bush was elected because 60 million out of approximately 200 million eligible
voters (that's 30%) fell victim to a massive disinformation campaign designed
to hide the systematic abuses of power that have occured in the last four
years.
Expect disaster. Demand accountability.
Michel Bastian, France
> To M. Bastian
> You keep talking about the lessons learned by EU because of war on
their own soil and that somehow this makes EU far wiser on these matters.
Nope, not wiser, just much more cautious about war. Don´t take everything
as a personal attack on the integrity or the intelligence of the american
people or its leaders. Is ours the right approach? Don´t know, but
it´s our approach and we´ll stick to it for the reasons I´ve
given you.
> The US has lost its sons and daughters on foreign soil including
France. Do you think that the loss of US soldiers is taken lightly. Do
you think Bush or any other leader goes to war without considering it
the gravest of choices?
No, I didn´t say that. I´m pretty sure Mr. Bush and the american
public does indeed care for the american troops killed in Iraq and doesn´t
undertake war lightly. However, in my opinion, in the case of Iraq (and
in this case only) he used the military option much too fast. To stress
that point: I don´t think he did the wrong thing in Afghanistan.
Indeed, there were solid reasons to go to war there because there were
proven ties to terrorist activities and 9/11. Also you coudn´t otherwise
eliminate the very real threat of Al Quaida that was based there, and
since you couldn´t talk reason to the Taliban either, there was
absolutely no way to solve the situation through diplomatic channels.
So we (and I mean WE, as in not just the US, but also the EU) went in.
In Iraq, however, it was a totally different situation. There were still
diplomatic options left open, there were no ties to terrorist activities
except the very doubtful evidence given by the CIA and by the british
government, there was no evidence for WMD (indeed, there was counter-evidence
by the UN inspectors who didn´t find anything despite extensive
searches), so the only reason Bush had to send an army to Iraq was that
Saddam had repeatedly broken UN sanctions. Well, if we go to war every
time a nation breaks a UN sanction, there´d be wars all over the
place.
> Michel, say that Americans (and by that I guess you mean US) have
never had war on their own soil. US has had war on its soil. The most
recent was in the 1860's. Around 750,000 people lost their lives in our
civil war. Before that, their were other wars including the revolutionary
war with Britain.
Sorry, I misstated. They didn´t have war on their own soil in recent
history and not on the massive scale we had in the last two world wars.
> EU had war forced on it by Hitler in the 1940's, it was a most horrific
experience for all who endured it. The US was isolationist at that time
because of the horrors of WWI and the horrible loss of US lives overseas
helping Europe, the US never wanted to get involved again. Churchill had
to plead and plead for help from FDR. Finally the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbor and the US joined the fighting all over the world.
As WWII was winding down and the concentration camps were discovered and
the horrors and loss for all of Europe were made perfectly clear, I believe
there was a sense of guilt and disgust with ourselves as Americans that
we did not get involved sooner. US has been involved ever since.
The French and German's now seem much like the US after WWI, isolationist.
The horrors of war are too recent and in your own back yard.
Exactly, that´s my point.
> As far as Iraq, in the 90's US was asked to go there on behalf of
Kuwait. US knows Saddam is an evil man and his people are oppressed. Genocide
was being committed on the Kurds by Saddam. After 9/11 70% of the people
in the US supported war in Iraq. Saddam was not cooperating with the UN
inspectors. Not Bush all by himself, but the US congress supported war
and voted on it, including Senator Kerry.
I don´t deny Saddam´s regime was oppressive, brutal and criminal,
and the fact he is gone is a good riddance. But that´s actually
beside the point. The disappearance of Saddam´s regime is only a
positive spinoff in an otherwise messed-up situation. By invading Iraq
without a UN mandate and without even consulting with many of its closest
allies, Bush triggered three reactions: a. some of his biggest allies,
particularly France and Germany, were needlessly alienated, creating a
massive rift between the US and Europe b. he gave the whole arab world,
and particularly islamist extremists, a good reason to rally against the
US, thereby actually promoting terror instead of fighting it and c. he
ended up with a country in upheaval where he continuously has to send
in troops just to keep the situation halfway stable.
> Now we know that they cannot prove ties between Saddam and Bin Ladden.
No WMDs were found. But, now the country is in chaos and must be brought
to order before the US can leave.
Again, I completely agree on that one. There´s no use in the EU
taking up a childish "I told you so" attitude and refusing to
cooperate with the US. The mess is there, sure enough, and we´re
not happy about it. However, we have to deal with it and since the US
are still (at least in our eyes) our friends and allies, we have to help
them. Even if Bush was wrong in invading Iraq in the first place, we should
still help him. The US helped us in Bosnia, too, when we messed up. And
yes, IMO that includes sending troops to Iraq (at least a token force
roughly equivalent to the british forces; we don´t have the capacity
to do much more than that, since we´re also engaged in Ivory Coast
and Afghanistan), though I´m probably the only Frenchman on the
planet saying that. Another reason for my opinion is this: if the US don´t
manage to bring order to Iraq and if they eventually had to pull out like
in Vietnam, the consequence would probably be another mullah state with
terrorist ties, WMD and what have you. That´s in nobody´s
best interest, so until the situation there stabilizes (and we´re
talking years here, not months), there´ll have to be troops in Iraq.
The problem is: the french and german public and, more importantly, our
political leaders, don´t see it that way. The "party line"
on Iraq in France and Germany is: we´ll help them out by training
Iraqi troops and police in Europe and by cancelling Iraqi state debt,
but not with troops. In other words: Bush got himself into this mess on
his own, let him get out on his own. Not a very far-sighted policy (and
not one I endorse), but there it is. Because of that, perhaps a viable
alternative would be to send european troops to Darfour,Rwanda and other
hotspots, thus relieving the US of the pressure of having to intervene
there, too.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Dear Susan Murray,
I think your 'take' on the attitudes of many concerning religious believers
is right on the money. To them, it is acceptable (barely) to be born-again
or religious, but only so long as one is a liberal. It's also acceptable
to them (barely) to be personally wealthy and successful, but only so
long as one donates millions of dollars to liberal and left-wing causes
to show that one is "repenting" and "showing solidarity
with the poor". No one on the Left bats an eye or acknowledges their
hypocrisy, for instance, when a "left-wing" multi-millionaire
like Ted Turner gives $1 BILLION to the U.N., or when wealthy businessmen
like George Soros or the owner of Progressive Insurance (I forget his
name) give millions of dollars of their own money to blatantly try to
"buy" the election for the Democrats.
Jakub, Poland
John,
In my defence, my message above was posted in response to another post
which basically claimed that ALL uncivilised acts take place outside the
US. I admit that to say that no country has killed more children than
US is flippant speculation but not only is the US the world's most active
military agressor but is also the biggest sponsor of internal terrorism.
Elsewhere on the site, people have justified intervention in Iraq on the
grounds that Saddam Hussein was committing genocide against his own people.
In actual fact, anything resembling genocide was only committed by Hussein
during a period when he was a big friend of America.
What does Islam not being peaceful have to do with Beslan? It is entirely
an issue of ethnic mobilisation and demands for sovereignty. Radical Islam
doesn't enter the picture. And yes, i have been to America. And have lived
here for just under twenty years.
My post obviously has infuriated you but it was an attempt to the mirror
the absurdity of Cyndi's post further up the board.
LeeAnn, USA
Having just come upon this thread, I'm going to make comments
on a number of points, without properly differentiating them. Full disclosure:
I'm a politically liberal Christian in the Pacific Northwest.
Susan asked about stem cell research: the cells come from fertility clinic
embryos which would have been discarded otherwise. They were fertilized
in vitro and were never in the womb. Make of it what you will.
As for atheism being a recent development, Epicurus came up with an atheistic
philosophy in the 3rd century BCE and the Roman Lucretius wrote his book,
The Nature of the Universe, based on that philosophy around 55 BCE. There
have always been atheists and believers and always will be. We must live
with each other as we are.
As to the statement, "Regarding Bush, he is an admitted Christian.
Read the bible and you will discover what he believes." Surely you
know Christians interpret the Bible in all sorts of different ways. As
Shakespeare, said, the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.
Maybe Michel Bastien didn't go into enough detail on the religious wars
of Europe, but in the 16th and 17th centuries Catholics and Protestants
killed each other off by the tens of thousands over how to interpret the
Bible. The wars of religion were a terrible era in Europe, and it's too
bad Americans don't understand this history better. Certainly the death
tolls wrought by the godless dictators of the 20th century may be higher,
but you have to remember that overall population levels were higher as
were levels of technological efficiency. All I can say is that fanaticism
is dangerous in any guise. The people of the Enlightenment, including
our Founding Fathers, were very concerned that religious fanaticism, which
was still fairly fresh in their minds, not be allowed to threaten civil
society.
But enough of religion. The Bushite attacks on science are not necessarily
based on religion, but on their disdain for the reality based community.
Sometimes they seem to have a basis in religion, or at least in concern
for Bush's religious base, as in the stem cell or abortion related issues.
But sometimes they seem to have a basis in Bush's relationship to the
energy or pharma industries (see the environmental or drug issues). Indeed,
there have been cases in which the Administration has kept scientists
off international committees simply because they didn't sign statements
saying they had voted for Bush. This all has the potential to seriously
damage American science.
And what should Europeans demand? Are you joking? Have you been watching
who he's been appointing? He's surrounding himself with people who will
always tell him what he wants to hear. You should take steps to protect
yourselves and to further your own interests. Your best universities should
offer jobs to the best discontented American scientists. Your governments
should avoid cheap grandstanding and carefully work out a unified strategy
that's in your best interest when this whole thing explodes in our faces.
Charles Warren, USA
Bastian, you have no idea how much European (particularly
French) pretensions amuse us. "Demands" are only made by those
who are willing to struggle and suffer and fight for greatness and this
clearly excludes most of Europe. All you ask is your 35 hour workweek,
to retire at 50, and six week vacations. And you clearly understand that
challenging us in any way, shape or form would require that you sacrifice
some or all of these things. You won't do it. Really, ten years from now
as the Baby Boom retires your economies will collapse from under the weight
of all those pensions and greatness costs money that you simply won't
have. Twenty years from now, Europe will be a museum that puts on live
sex shows.
Only a nation that believes that there is a higher good in life than animal
comfort can be great. Your great grandfathers understood this. You no
longer do. Only a civilization built around religious principles can believe
in itself and respect itself and never doubt for a minute that it has
the moral right to destroy its enemies. American liberals, because they
have no fixed moral principles and could never imagine anything they would
be willing to fight for, need the approval of Europeans or the UN. Thank
God America has a great president who will not subordinate the struggle
against Islamist barbarism to the "consensus" of a political
culture that did not have the backbone to even handle Serbia.
The European "reluctance" for war isn't the result of any "moral
superiority". It is the conviction of a decadent amoral society,
one that cannot understand any motivation higher than comfort, that everyone
has his price, that any enemy can be bought off. It is as modern as a
late Roman emissary bearing sacks of tribute gold to Attila (frankly,
I'm waiting for you to resume a tribute of virgins). That is why you Europeans
always insist about poverty being a "root cause" of terrorism
because you think you can buy your way out of the problem, as if religious
fanatics can be bought off. Christian Americans know they can't.
Jakub from Poland, the death penalty is truly something Americans have
every right to be proud of. You see, in Europe the man in the street supports
the death penalty. But he doesn't have it because laws in Europe are made
by mandarin elites who sat down together and decided that it would be
abolished as a precondition for EU entry. The people of Europe did not
make that decision. An elite of transnational mandarins did. In America
mandarins tried during the 70s to impose their manners and mores upon
this country through judicial activism. But the American people fought
back and won. America has a death penalty because the American people
won and the "enlightened" mandarins lost. Liberals have been
seething ever since because the only way they can advance their agenda
of mandarin rule is to use the judiciary to impose it on the American
people. That is what they love so much about Europe. A place where the
people are helpless and obedient and an elite of mandarins makes all decisions.
But ordinary, decent, righteous Americans wouldn't let the "experts"
and their "superior virtue" (and notice the dripping condescencion
with which liberals on this board view the lower orders who dared to challenge
their betters by reelecting Bush) rule this country. In Europe the mandarins
are the direct replacement of the old hereditary aristocracy. We don't
want an aristocracy here.
Susan Murray, USA
Dear Phil Karasick and other conservatives,
This outpouring of angst over Kerry losing the election to the ignorant,
born-again Christians is a bunch of hogwash. It is also naive and I can
only presume that Europeans and liberal Americans do not understand America's
religious institutions and what they believe in and that candidates speak
for their parties which are both comprised of factions with interests
in certain issues.
George Bush and Dick Cheney are Methodists as is Hillary Clinton and George
McGovern. The official position of the United Methodist Church opposes
the war in Iraq and war in general. All the mainstream chuches in America
opposed with war with the exception of the Southern Baptists who are lukewarm
on it. I really believe that Jerry Fallwell, who is a Southern Baptist
(as is Jesse Jackson) tried to talk him out of it.
Pat Robertson and most other televanglists are of the "Charismatic"
christian churches who represent a small minority of Christians in America.
They are just very noisy and controvesial and get a lot of attention.
All of George Bush's positions are part of the Republican Platform which
was worked out by the Republicans to reflect the party's constituents.
The Republican party has many Christian members. All churches, to my knowledge,
condem abortion and creation of fetuses solely for the purpose of stem
cell research. The Methodist Church (of which George Bush is a member)
accepts stem cell research on fetuses donated by their parents for scientific
reserach. Most churchs reject homosexuality and gay marriage. The Methodist
Church (of which George Bush is a member) is much more open to homosexuality,
ordains women, and favors civil unions of gays (not marriages, even though
the first marriage of a gay couple in a church occurred in a Methodist
Church).
John Kerry is a Catholic and I do not think I need to lay out how the
Catholic church stands on many of the social issues which Kerry supports.
John Kerry stood for the platform laid out by the Democratic Party whose
constiuents include many gay people, African-Americans, the liberal elite
from the Northeast and California, labor unions, greens and other extreme
environmentalists, and radical feminists. It's a very strange assortment
who do not make good bedfellows at all. The trucker from Arkansas (a member
of a labor union) is not likely to be pro gay marriage and PETA means
to him People Eating Tasty Animals. The religous Southern black person
does not support gay marriage is unlikely to convert to a vegan lifestyle.
The liberal elite attempts to bond these interests together to support
a increasingly social democratic government because I think they must
be ridden with guilt for being born privledged.
Problem is that the majority of Americans are moderate to conservative
and if you don't believe me then look at Bill Clinton. Clinton was essentially
a conservative and reflected the values of African-Americans so well they
think of him as the first black president. He was conservative enough
to be acceptable to many swing white voters. He was opposed to big government
and opposed to continuing our current system of welfare which had created
an underclass of no escape. He was the most savvy dem since FDR and a
southern born-again Christian (gasp!).
One group who supported Bush that has been neglected is the small business
owner. I am one and am happy I can provide jobs to 11 others who are paid
well and happy to have them. The Republican party supports small business
and the Democratic party seeks to legislate us out of existence. We cannot
instantly have health insurance for all people becuase health insurance
(other than big company ERISA plans) is regulated by the States, not the
federal government. It is a quagmire with no quick fix possible. The Republican
proposal of allowing small businesses to unite into large groups (reducing
our risks) will allow to buy health insurance in large groups and form
ERISA plans. If you want an example of Democratic legislation written
to protect someone gone bad, look at ERISA. ERISA was written to protect
pension plans but has turned into a system that gives huge advantages
to big business in procuring health care for their employees. ERISA protects
insurance companies from being sued for denying medical care to patients
and disqualifing people from disability payments.
George Bush's religious affiliation did not influence his decision to
go to war. I believe he felt that the sanctions were immoral in the sense
they were hurting the Iraqi people and not accomplishing anything good.
I belive he was convinced that Sadam had WMDs and would be happy to share
them with a terrorist in order to harm the US. And he was just pissed
off (as are many Americans) that the UN is such a feckless, impotent agency
and time had come to make a stand. How can anyone stand to work with the
UN is beyond me. Having the patience of a saint would be a minimum requirement
for the job of UN ambassador.
To the Eurpoeans: find a copy of the Republican and Democratic party platforms
and you'll discover that each position of the respective candidates reflected
their party's platform. The Democratic party's platform also stated that
many Democrats supported the war. I suppose that justifies being for a
war and against it. :-)
Our politics are not so simple, our people are not simple minded and George
Bush is not stupid.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jakub,
You stated in your post that
>but not only is the US the world's most active military agressor but
is also the biggest sponsor of internal terrorism."
I am wondering if you went off your meds on the day you posted that statement.
The US does not "sponsor internal terrorism" in any way, shape
or form, at all. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested
in seeing it.
You also stated that
>In actual fact, anything resembling genocide was only committed by
Hussein during a period when he was a big friend of America.
Saddam Hussein was never, ever a "big friend of America" in
any way. He was always a thug, and was always recognized as being a thug
by the US government. We never especially "liked" him at all.
I can remember quite vividly from the 1980s a political cartoon showing
Iran and Iraq in the form of two vicious, rabid animals trying to kill
one another, with acaption that read something like "Pick who the
'Good Guys' are." The fact that we sold him weaponry did not and
does not make Saddam our 'friend', and the fact that don't sell weaponry
to others dis not and does not make them our 'enemy'. Nobody in the US
ever suggested that Saddam and Iraq should have suddenly and without warning
invaded Iran, triggering an 8-year war, but his having gone and done so
anyway (without US foreknowledge or 'approval", incidentally) was
useful to the US in terms of keeping the lunatic mullahs in Iran from
spreading their insanity by force throughout the Gulf. Saddam's national
interest in not being defeated and overthrown by the Iranians, dovetailed,
briefly, with our American national interest in not permitting the Iranians
to overrun and overwhelm every moderate and pro-Western country in the
Persian Gulf. Saddam was never our "friend"; we tolerated his
existence while he was useful to us, and we used him for our own reasons,
just as he used and played off the US against the USSR. That's how global
power politics is played, Jakub. Governments do not have "friends";
they have National Interests.
Tom, US
Europe can demand that the US increase funding for preventing AIDS in Africa to a reasonable level-- say, $15 billion. (oops, been there, done that) Europe can demand that Bush support Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and other settlements as well as a two-state solution. (oops, done that, too) Europe can demand that the US cease supporting middle eastern dictatorships, help the oppressed peoples of the region overthrow fascists and theocratic tyrants, and support free elections in the region. (MAJOR oops-- wait, we didn't mean AFghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine... and Iran?? Hey wait a second, the mullahs are very lucrative trading partners for us-- you can't ask them to let their people decide who their rulers are, that's, that's ARROGANT...)
Marieanges, Catalonia
&I think that people who elected Bush, lives in a big lie because they believe in words that the president Bush say, but are they sure that this person tell all the truth, or simply, the truth? No, he isn't. He say words that all people can say but there's a difference, he doesn't believe in him, so Why should american people believes in him? I think that most of american people doesn't see what is Bush doing? He says that the terrorism should finish but he is financing it, and more, he's colaboration and doing terrorism in front of your eyes. REACT please, this person doesn't do anything good for the world and some americans believe in his politic. I say, if you don't react at this situation, world becomes a truly terrorism place, and then will be too late. Can you reflect or are you disposated to live in this big lie?
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick
> Not in this lifetime, IMHO, unless you enjoy being told to "go
pound sand".
Oh, Dubbyah didn´t tell us to "go pound sand" in the steel
tariffs dispute now, did he. The problem with his administration (and
the likes of you) is that they only respect one thing: strength, preferably
military strength. There´s no use trying to talk reason to them
unless we can back it up with strength. In that respect, he´s just
like any other politician with supposedly absolute power. And yes, it´s
up to us to get strong enough so that he has to take us into account.
We already are economically (don´t bother flipping a lid to that
yet, we´ll get into details later on, you can go all out then :-)).
Our big problem at the moment is twofold: a. we don´t have a unified
foreign policy, so we loose impetus in foreign diplomacy b. we can´t
coordinate our militaries enough and we don´t spend enough on defense
so as to be a viable partner to the US yet.
>especially when the US administration undertakes actions that directly
affect EU interests, such as the invasion of Iraq.
IMHO, our liberation of Iraq doesn't affect your interests at all, unless
you are referring to the Europeans' interest in receiving vouchers for
oil at cut-rate prices from Saddam Hussein in return for giving Saddam's
regime a kickback.
Yeah, right, I forgot, nowadays you don´t have to prove accusations,
it´s enough just to put them into print often enough. BTW, american
firms alledgedly got vouchers too, as did the russians, the Saudis, the
Brits and quite a lot of other people. Also, before you start pounding
BNP Paribas again for mismanaging the oil for food program funds, guess
who administered the other half of the program (well 48% of the program
is near enough, I think): Morgan Stanley (yes, they´re under investigation
too, but the Duelfer report, besides refusing to name the american companies
involved, conveniently forgot that as well; surprise, surprise). So do
me a favour and get off your high moral horse for a while.>Are we in
a position to "demand" things from the US?
Not at the moment...
> Actually, "not in this lifetime" is a more-accurate answer,
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO).
Well, you´d better pray you´re right, because if we ever get
into the position to demand things, people like Chirac or Schröder
or Zapatero will remember how Dubbyah spit´em in the face, and it´s
going to cost him. Again, before you start flaming me, I personally wouldn´t
do it that way, but believe me, you have no idea how resentful especially
our dear Jacques can be. BTW, that´s the main reason I think the
Bush administration actually doesn´t want a united Europe and is
going to do its damnedest to prevent it.
>..and a truely united Europe will be more than strong enough to "demand"
things.
The EU's supposedly "strongest" economies, France and Germany,
have been in recession for literally years on end. Decades, more like.
Productivity is falling because lazy, overpaid unions in France and Germany
insist that they somehow have a "right" to be supported indefinitely
at businesses' and taxpayers' expense even if their employer's business
collapses. Small wonder that overpaid German auto workers are losing their
jobs to American workers in Alabama and South Carolina. So much for Europe's
"economic strength".
Oh dear, another american who knows it all about Yurup. Man, do yourself
a favour: read up on your economy facts a little: EU GDP (per capita,
all member states) is way above US GDP, we don´t have near as high
a national deficit as the US, the dollar is going down fast, largely due
to the Bush administration´s trade and taxation policies (if indeed
you can call that mess a "policy"), Snow has to promise the
other G8 members he´ll work on the deficit because otherwise the
US economy is going to go into instant recession, there´s a massive
outsourcing of american jobs to Asia and nearly two million jobs lost
in the last few years (and don´t feed me that bull about Dubbyah
having "created" a million jobs). If you want to continue dreaming
of a perfect US economy, go ahead. But don´t be surprised if you
wake up one day and find your job has gone missing.
As for the german unions, they´ve just agreed to massive reductions
in pay just to keep the jobs alive. Why? Because otherwise the german
social system would have to support another 2000 jobless workers because
GM mismanaged Opel for the last 5 years. BTW, the jobs wouldn´t
have gone to Alabama or South Carolina anyway. Too expensive. They´d
have gone to Poland and the Czech Republic, or else to Brazil or India.
So much for the almighty american economy. Don´t kid yourself: it´s
not that tough to beat the US economy anymore nowadays.
> I won't even get into the issue of the EU's supposed "military
strength".
That´s the one point where you´re actually right. We´re
not a military superpower. However, we have the potential, and you´d
be surprised at what we can do if we actually decide to pool resources
in that field. Oh, and another thing: I hate to repeat it again, but guns
don´t solve all the problems. Actually they tend to create more
problems than they solve; see Iraq for that.
So Phil, before you start spouting fire and brimstone, get informed, especially
about Europe. You´re in good company, though. The number of times
I´ve read horrendous nonsense from americans about the EU is mind
boggling.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick
> Not in this lifetime, IMHO, unless you enjoy being told to "go
pound sand".
Oh, Dubbyah didn´t tell us to "go pound sand" in the steel
tariffs dispute now, did he. The problem with his administration (and
the likes of you) is that they only respect one thing: strength, preferably
military strength. There´s no use trying to talk reason to them
unless we can back it up with strength. In that respect, he´s just
like any other politician with supposedly absolute power. And yes, it´s
up to us to get strong enough so that he has to take us into account.
We already are economically (don´t bother flipping a lid to that
yet, we´ll get into details later on, you can go all out then :-)).
Our big problem at the moment is twofold: a. we don´t have a unified
foreign policy, so we loose impetus in foreign diplomacy b. we can´t
coordinate our militaries enough and we don´t spend enough on defense
so as to be a viable partner to the US yet.
>especially when the US administration undertakes actions that directly
affect EU interests, such as the invasion of Iraq.
IMHO, our liberation of Iraq doesn't affect your interests at all, unless
you are referring to the Europeans' interest in receiving vouchers for
oil at cut-rate prices from Saddam Hussein in return for giving Saddam's
regime a kickback.
Yeah, right, I forgot, nowadays you don´t have to prove accusations,
it´s enough just to put them into print often enough. BTW, american
firms alledgedly got vouchers too, as did the russians, the Saudis, the
Brits and quite a lot of other people. Also, before you start pounding
BNP Paribas again for mismanaging the oil for food program funds, guess
who administered the other half of the program (well 48% of the program
is near enough, I think): Morgan Stanley (yes, they´re under investigation
too, but the Duelfer report, besides refusing to name the american companies
involved, conveniently forgot that as well; surprise, surprise). So do
me a favour and get off your high moral horse for a while.>Are we in
a position to "demand" things from the US?
Not at the moment...
> Actually, "not in this lifetime" is a more-accurate answer,
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO).
Well, you´d better pray you´re right, because if we ever get
into the position to demand things, people like Chirac or Schröder
or Zapatero will remember how Dubbyah spit´em in the face, and it´s
going to cost him. Again, before you start flaming me, I personally wouldn´t
do it that way, but believe me, you have no idea how resentful especially
our dear Jacques can be. BTW, that´s the main reason I think the
Bush administration actually doesn´t want a united Europe and is
going to do its damnedest to prevent it.
>..and a truely united Europe will be more than strong enough to "demand"
things.
The EU's supposedly "strongest" economies, France and Germany,
have been in recession for literally years on end. Decades, more like.
Productivity is falling because lazy, overpaid unions in France and Germany
insist that they somehow have a "right" to be supported indefinitely
at businesses' and taxpayers' expense even if their employer's business
collapses. Small wonder that overpaid German auto workers are losing their
jobs to American workers in Alabama and South Carolina. So much for Europe's
"economic strength".
Oh dear, another american who knows it all about Yurup. Man, do yourself
a favour: read up on your economy facts a little: EU GDP (per capita,
all member states) is way above US GDP, we don´t have near as high
a national deficit as the US, the dollar is going down fast, largely due
to the Bush administration´s trade and taxation policies (if indeed
you can call that mess a "policy"), Snow has to promise the
other G8 members he´ll work on the deficit because otherwise the
US economy is going to go into instant recession, there´s a massive
outsourcing of american jobs to Asia and nearly two million jobs lost
in the last few years (and don´t feed me that bull about Dubbyah
having "created" a million jobs). If you want to continue dreaming
of a perfect US economy, go ahead. But don´t be surprised if you
wake up one day and find your job has gone missing.
As for the german unions, they´ve just agreed to massive reductions
in pay just to keep the jobs alive. Why? Because otherwise the german
social system would have to support another 2000 jobless workers because
GM mismanaged Opel for the last 5 years. BTW, the jobs wouldn´t
have gone to Alabama or South Carolina anyway. Too expensive. They´d
have gone to Poland and the Czech Republic, or else to Brazil or India.
So much for the almighty american economy. Don´t kid yourself: it´s
not that tough to beat the US economy anymore nowadays.
> I won't even get into the issue of the EU's supposed "military
strength".
That´s the one point where you´re actually right. We´re
not a military superpower. However, we have the potential, and you´d
be surprised at what we can do if we actually decide to pool resources
in that field. Oh, and another thing: I hate to repeat it again, but guns
don´t solve all the problems. Actually they tend to create more
problems than they solve; see Iraq for that.
So Phil, before you start spouting fire and brimstone, get informed, especially
about Europe. You´re in good company, though. The number of times
I´ve read horrendous nonsense from americans about the EU is mind
boggling.
Clive Barker, Zimbabwe/Canada
Guess what? It's been almost three weeks since the Prseidential
election in the United States and the sky hasn't fallen. What's with all
the hysteria/paranoia? After all the good that America has done in the
last 100 years, along with unprecedented inventions in technology and
contribution to culture, why not cut Americans some slack when they elect
somone you may not agree with.
Fallacy 1 -Europe hates America because it invaded Iraq.
My gut feel is that the chattering class of Europe is upset with America,
not because of anything the U.S. has done, but because of a sense of European
powerlessness when faced with the Iraq question. If Europe is so against
the Iraq war, why not send European troops to aid the insurgents in Fallujah?
Fallacy 2 -The U.S. is being run by religious fanatics.
It would be inspiring if more Frenchman/Europeans actually travelled beyond
their borders and tried to experience life in the U.S. They will be allowed
to wear a hijab, a turban, or a cross if they like, unlike Paris. Spend
some time there, get to know an American, you'll be impressed. How a country
can considered the 'Great Satan' and 'A Christian Theocracy' is a little
absurd.
Fallacy 3 -Americans love Goerge Bush
The real reason George W. Bush won the election was not because he is
beloved by Americans. He was elected because all those who can't stand
him were considered much worse. That would include Saddam, Osama, Chirac,
Shroeder, and Michael Moore.
Javier, Spain
i would like to know what american people think about spanish irak's war withdrawal.Some spanish conservative politicians accuse the new spanish gobernment for his position in this affair because our president have not received a bush's telephone answer after his congratulations . they remind him the importance of america . However i believe american people must understand our behavior .I AM VERY SORRY FOR MY TERRIBLE ENGLISH and i hope you understand my comment
Jan Paul, USA
One comment on conservatives (generalizing). Many want
the same types of things liberals do but believe the Federal Government
shouldn't be in charge, states should. The form of government founded
in this country was designed with "States Rights" in mind. This
way one state could solve its welfare problems in a manner that was designed
to meet the unique needs of that state, while another state could come
up with a different plan for its own unique needs. Some states could ban
alcohol, or gambling, or "Sunday" sales, etc. People then had
a chance to live wherever they felt the most commonality to their own
needs and desires. Also, many "religious" issues are not really
founded in religion as they are founded in history of what allows societies
to survive, grow, and meet the needs of their people. For example, which
came first regarding outlawing sex outside of marriage? The attempt to
control the spread of ST diseases or to please God. Under "God(s)"
many societies have had wild sexual practices and outside of "God"
some pagan societies were very strict about sexual practicies. Marriage,
even in some pagan societies was simply a license to procreate and keep
the society supplied with a new source of leaders, military, and workers
and those societies wanted to control that process. God didn't really
enter into the picture in some cases. Murder, theft, and "false testamony"
laws are present in both religious and non religous nations. George Bush
can't do anything without either the permission of Congress or running
the risk of impeachment for the things he can do without their permission
that is detrimental to the nation. "Old" Europe is being challenged
by "new" Europe for business and economic power. Virtually all
of "new" Europe is cutting busines taxes, privatizing things
like social security and cutting tax on the "wealthy." France
is complaining that Ireland's tax cuts aren't fair because Ireland is
luring business away from France. Well, it is also luring business away
from the U.S. 25% of all U.S. money invested in Europe recently for a
year went to Ireland. T
he Coalition that did support the U.S.?
Armed alliance preparing for invasion:
United States 2.45 (116) (permanent member of UN Security Council): 235,000
troops; United Kingdom 1.60 (147): (permanent member of Security Council)
45,000 military personnel; Australia 3.60 (79): 2,000 troops; Poland 1.30
(154): 200 troops.
Unarmed support in the Gulf:
Bulgaria (elected member of Security Council) - 150 chemical warfare experts;
Czech Republic 1.50 (149)- chemical and biological warfare specialists;
Romania 4.50 (49) - non-combat personnel; Slovakia/Ukraine 4.0/ 4.10 (71/62)-
chemical experts.
Permission for use of military bases/airspace:
Bahrain 3.80 (73); Kuwait -2.0 (200); Qatar 3.80 (74); Croatia 5.30 (31);
Spain (Security Council) 2.0 (130); Jordan3.5 (84) ; Italy.40 (177); Portugal
.80 (169); United Arab Emirates; Ireland 5.20 (32); Turkey 7.80 (13).
Other supporters of war:
Israel -1.10 (195); Canada 3.4 (87); Japan (post-conflict support)-3.0
(189); South Korea 6.20 (19); Denmark 1.80 (140); Netherlands .30 (180);
Afghanistan ; Albania 5.0 (36); Azerbaijan 6.10 (20); Colombia 2.0 (135);
El Salvador 1.90 (138); Eritrea 2.0 (134); Estonia 4.40 (53); Ethiopia
5.50 (26); Georgia 4.0 (70); Hungary 3.20 (94); Latvia 4.50 (46); Lithuania
6.70 (17); Macedonia .30 (179); Nicaragua 2.40 (119); Philippines 4.60
(45); Uzbekistan 3.0 (98).
Count the "new" European countries in that list.
Friends, the real struggle in the U.S. and between the U.S. and Europe
isn't what it appears. It is a struggle between people who view socialism
as the best way to govern and capitalists who view capitalism as the best
way to govern and fund social programs. Who's right? At this point, it
appears capitalism is ahead, but that doesn't mean socialism is bad, it
just hasn't been successful. The intentions of both sides is to find the
system that can get the tax revenues that can fund societies needs the
best. One looks to an utopian system where people will willingly surrender
their desire for wealth or power for the good of all. Capitalism says
we will always have greed and that if we can contol it well enough we
can motivate people to work smarter, invent, and innovate to increase
productivity because they will be rewarded with wealth or limited power
as when they start their own business, hire people and contribute more
to society in the way of products, services and tax revenues derived from
those things. Doesn't mean it is a better system, just a more efficient
system at this time until more people are willing to work smarter, invent
more, and increase productivity without concern for being rewarded for
doing more than their neighbor. Even many socialists I know, at this time,
have an idea of self worth and won't work at some things but will work
at others. Will work more for more pay or will work less when they think
they are being paid less than what they are worth. Many, not socialists
but, people who want socialism, believe it is ok to take all they can
without doing anything for it if they can get away with it. This is what
really hurts socialism and social programs the most, dishonesty of the
people the program was meant to help. And, this problem isn't unique to
capitalism or socialism. Why, because it puts such a cost on the people
trying to help that they eventually give up and join the "system,"
which in their mind justifies their declining contribution to society.
Christians, true Christians, and Jews, I might add, and probably some
other religions don't think they are better than others, though hypocrites
do. They think they are humans who know what they should do, but fail
and fail often. However, just because they fail and let's say they break
their marriage vows of sexual fidelity, they don't try to change the law,
they just try to do better.
However, by millions of people accepting an authority, whether God exists
or not, they have a common source for their laws that each one can accept
as not being a "person" making the law and thus appearing superior.
This is probably one reason religion has had so much popularity. I am
not obeying YOUR laws and you don't have to obey MY laws. We obey "The"
law set down thousands of years ago whether in a Bible, Koran, Teaching
of Buda. Confucious, or an acient Guru. Here in the U.S. we set down laws
common to virtually all the major religions that are dominant or were
when the country was founded. No one religion has its say, but the overwhelming
vast majority of people involving Muslim, Jew, Christian, and others share
many common beliefs and accept many laws that people without a religious
foundation find "unfair." The question in this last election
wasn't religion so much as it was the majority of people from all kinds
of background that have "common" ideas of what society should
do. Some WAS based on religion but not all and most of the people would
probably say they aren't that religious. Religion is the scapegoat for
people who are in the minority on some issues. So, should we allow "rule"
by the minority whether "fair" or not?
We can't because any country that attempts rule by minority either leads
to chaos as one group competes against another, or we end up with a dictatorship
where finally one group gains enough power to quash the other competing
groups. History bears this out. By the way, business is a group. If we
penalize them enough with regulations, taxes, and profit limitations,
they do what any other free group does. They move. Right now they are
moving to China, Ireland, "new" Europe, New Zealand, So. Korea,
etc. Check out the Bureau of Labor Statistic's site and look under Business
Costs Foreign to see what dynamics are going on. Since 1975 the cost of
labor has gone up 335% in the U.S. while in So. Korea it has gone up 2,800%
as wages went up 2,300% and other costs also increased as a third world
nation created positive business environments and now their workers are
beginning to see a chance to beome "middle" class. China now
has a "middle" class population as large as the U.S entire population.
Cheaper Labor? You bet, in both of those places. But, guess what? They
can buy a lot more with their little dollars than we can with our big
dollars because they are buying their own or neighbors' products which
are cheap but quality made now.
We are more in a clash of Ideologies than we are one nation against another
although that is how it usually manifests itself based on the majority
in those countries. I am a socialist, but I don't want socialism as imperfect
as capitalism is because capitalism currently stands a better chance of
paying for the social programs I want and stands a better chance of providing
the stong economy a nation needs to compete in the world. Look at the
countries with declining economies and see what is happening to their
ability to fund social programs.
The numbers behind each nation in the coalition had to do with GDP and world ranking. Sorry should noted that or left it out.
Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea
All the Blue state liberals and Europeans here seem to
get their knickers in a knot over the thought that religion might be used
for political decisions. That really is too bad! As long as the American,
particularly in the red states, have a strong religious element.
The concept of "Freedom of Religion" in the US consititution
is real. The concept that many liberals and strict secularists seem to
have is "freedom from religion". As long as a free people have
strong religious beliefs and use them in making their decisions you will
not be free from religion.
Get over it! Get used to it!
As to the demands of Europeans on American. Perhaps America should make
a few demands on Europe. Perhaps the French could say thank you for the
Americans lives spend in saving France's sorry butt three times in the
20th century. Before Germany gets too testy I think another century of
good behavior after Hitler's excesses may be in order.
Jakub:
Before you accuse the US of killing all those children try to think of
Auschwitz, Sobibor and other plaaces where the Polish people were at least
complicit in the holocaust. How many children there?
I will take issue with all those who say religious believers are stupid,
unintelligent, misguided or superstitious. That may be the case or it
may not. I once taught (for a few years) an adult class in my conservative
Christian church. There were 18 people in that class and together they
had 44 University degrees. There were three PhD's (Economics, History
and Library Science), 2 medical degrees, 2 dentistry degrees, 4 engineering
degrees (including one Masters) and 4 Law Degrees among others.
Do these people vote their religious beliefs. They sure do. Do these people
campaign for those politicians that have the same ideals? Yes!
Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea
Pam M., USA
No,as far as I'm aware, embryonic stem cells are not harvested from life
murdered in the womb. I believe they have never come close to a womb.
Rather, they have been produced in a petri dish, stored frozen in suspended
animation and ultimately are simply thrown out. As for Buddhist beliefs,
while of course there is nothing in Buddhist doctrine that deals with
stem-cell research, I have given a great deal of thought about this as
a Buddhist. I think it's moral to preserve the "life" of the
undifferentiated stem-cells by making them part of the life of a living,
differentiated human rather than discarding them. Immorality consists
of destroying those cells and thereby denying their contribution to the
lessing of suffering in the world. I don't see christians objecting to
throwing them out when they go unused, which is a contradiction in the
opposition to stem-cell research. And, contrary to the belief by many
people, adult stem-cells have not been used to cure ANY diseases. We don't
yet know if there is a difference between the value of adult stem-cells
versus embronic stem-cells. Regardless, however, even if there proves
to be no difference, I believe simply discarding embryonic stem cells
is an immoral act. I recently read a quote by Christopher Reeve stating
that Nancy Reagan supported stem-cell research when she realized that
Ronnie no longer recognized her. In other words, she only supported it
when it hurt her. I find this fairly consistent with Republicans in general.
James Brady was opposed to gun control until he was wounded. I think we
should ask of George Bush on this issue that he have empathy for the strangers
among us who are suffering. I have no doubt if he or his wife or daughters
were to be stricken with what is now an incurable, debilitating disease
such as Parkinson's or MS he would whistle a different tune on stem-cell
research. We can only hope, that for the greater good, he is given the
opportunity to change his mind.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
B Powelson!!! HOWDY!!!!!! Greetings from another Net-izen from the old and now-abolished CBC boards.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian, France:>The problem with his administration
(and the likes of you) is that they only respect one thing: strength,
preferably military strength. There´s no use trying to talk reason
to them unless we can back it up with strength. I think that the Bush
Administration (as well as millions and millions of Americans) might respect
you and the rest of Europe a bit more, if Europe were actually committed
to solutions that America and Americans could live with. However, over
the course of the last decade (including during the Clinton Administration),
Europeans (in general) and France and Germany (in particular) have been
increasingly demanding that the US sign away its sovereignty in a plethora
of ill-conceived, ill-advised so-called "international agreements"
(the Kyoto Accord and the International Criminal Court being prime examples).
And it has become apparent to us in America that the primary factor motivating
Europeans to make these unacceptable and intolerable demands upon the
US, is a desire by Europeans to use these "agreements" in order
to impose their own "lifestyle" and "value" choices
upon us. And we will not be imposed on -- Period. We will not cede our
sovereignty, to anyone. We will not sign agreements that are clearly contrary
to our national interests. We understand quite clearly what you want.
We simply, completely, utterly disagree. The intent of Europe, with its
incessant demands for "multilateralism", is to tie the economic
and military giant that is America up in knots with "binding agreements"
until we resemble Gulliver tied to the beach at Lilliput. No, we won't
accept this.
>>Yeah, right, I forgot, nowadays you don´t have to prove
accusations, it´s enough just to put them into print often enough.
BTW, american firms alledgedly got vouchers too, as did the russians,
the Saudis, the Brits and quite a lot of other people. Also, before you
start pounding BNP Paribas again for mismanaging the oil for food program
funds, guess who administered the other half of the program (well 48%
of the program is near enough, I think): Morgan Stanley (yes, they´re
under investigation too, but the Duelfer report, besides refusing to name
the american companies involved, conveniently forgot that as well; surprise,
surprise). So do me a favour and get off your high moral horse for a while.France's
commercial interests in Iraq were linked to keeping Saddam Hussein in
power. They protected Hussein in at least the folowing ways: (1) By turning
a blind eye to the Hussein regime's contraventions of the oil-for food
program, while Iraqi people starved and were murdered. (2) By repeatedly
opposing the imposition of sanctions against the Saddam Hussein regime
in the UNSC.
(3) By obstruction and sabotage of the allies attempts to enforce the
will of the internaitonal community in regards to disarmament. (4) By
providing diplomatic cover for regime members by the issuing of French
visas, not passports, from the French embassy in Syria.
This is how history will record France's cowardice during 1992-2003, including
Chirac's personal involvement with Hussein and his family.
The Duelfer report proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein
had influenced the votes of three permanent members of the Security Council
-- France, Russia and China. "One aspect of Saddam‚s strategy
of unhinging the UN‚s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam‚s
efforts to influence certain UNSC permanent members, such as Russia, France,
and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions.
Under Saddam‚s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated
and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international
public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining
its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum,
Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international
public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public
relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort." The three
countries were promised lucrative oil deals giving them rights to rich
oil fields in return for causing the sanctions to be removed. MSNBC reported,
"In 1997, Russia‚s LUKOIL signed contracts to develop Iraq‚s
West Qurna oil field. The same year, the China National Petroleum Corporation
bought a 50 percent stake in the al-Ahdab oil field. (Both have been barred
from developing those reserves by U.N. sanctions.) More recently, France‚s
TotalFinaElf has reportedly negotiated agreements to develop the much
larger Majnoon field, but has not yet signed firm contracts to do so.
Over the years, those deals complicated U.S. efforts to win support for
tough action against Baghdad in the U.N. Security Council, where France,
Russia and China are permanent members." Powerful and influential
people in those countries and many more were bought with vouchers for
profits on the sale of Iraqi oil. In France alone, individuals named were
Charles Pascua, a former French Interior Minister, Patrick Maugein, whom
the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac, and Michel Grimard, founder
of the French-Iraqi Export Club. The oil voucher story is nothing new,
having been broken by an independent Iraqi newspaper called al-Mada in
January 2004, which is mentioned in a Februaryedition (Oil for Blood:
Saddam Bought the Anti-War Movement).
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-10_cy-2004_m-02_d-01_y-2004_o-0.html
>Well, you´d better pray you´re right, because if we ever
get into the position to demand things, people like Chirac or Schröder
or Zapatero will remember how Dubbyah spit´em in the face, and it´s
going to cost him. Again, before you start flaming me, I personally wouldn´t
do it that way, but believe me, you have no idea how resentful especially
our dear Jacques can be.Oh, we have quite an accurate understanding of
how resentful your dear Jacques can be. It's easy for him to be resentful,
after all. He's presiding over a government that's increasingly (and correctly)
viewed as corrupt, and an economy that has been "circling the bowl"
for years. Schroeder is not in much better shape; his party has backed
itself against the wall.
BTW.... I noticed that in your comments concerning the infamous UN "Oil
For Food" program and France's corrupt ties with Saddam, you didn't
deny French involvement... you merely tried to claim that everyone else
was "just as bad".>Oh dear, another American who knows it
all about Yurup. Man, do yourself a favour: read up on your economy facts
a little...
Perhaps you should do the same. We in America appear to know quite a lot
more about Yurup than you do.
>EU GDP (per capita, all member states) is way above US GDP, we don´t
have near as high a national deficit as the US, the dollar is going down
fast, largely due to the Bush administration´s trade and taxation
policies (if indeed you can call that mess a "policy"), Snow
has to promise the other G8 members he´ll work on the deficit because
otherwise the US economy is going to go into instant recession
The US's deficit per capita is far below that of Europe, and the economic
growth rate in the US far outstrips that of the EU countries. >there´s
a massive outsourcing of american jobs to Asia and nearly two million
jobs lost in the last few years
The job losses actually started under Clinton when his fake "dot-com"
economic boom started collapsing as investors realized that Internet "growth
businesses" were all smoke and mirrors and unsupported by profits.
But so what if jobs get outsourced? Whoever can do the work better and
cheaper, should be the ones to get the work. >BTW, the jobs wouldn´t
have gone to Alabama or South Carolina anyway. Too expensive. They´d
have gone to Poland and the Czech Republic, or else to Brazil or India.
Perhaps you were unaware that BMW is building cars in South Carolina,
that Mercedes is building vehicles in Alabama, and that European supporting
businesses (like Michelin) are hiring thousands of people in the Southern
and Southeastern United States.
"When the presidential candidates were recently in South Carolina,
histrionically lamenting the loss of textile jobs, they surely noticed
the huge BMW presence. It is the "offshoring" of German jobs,
because Germany's irrational labor laws, among other things, give America
a comparative advantage. Such economic calculation explains the manufacture
of Mercedes' in Alabama, Hondas in Ohio, Toyotas in California."
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/10472.php
>So much for the almighty american economy. Don´t kid yourself:
it´s not that tough to beat the US economy anymore nowadays.If that
were true, Europe's economic growth rate would outstrip that of the US.
But it doesn't; the US beats the EU for economic growth handily. The US
jobless rate is half that of most EU countries, and US productivity is
rising instead of falling the way it is in Europe. The EU's economy is
not a rising 'superstar', it's a steadily collapsing monolith. It's an
economy in decline, as it's been in decline for 20+ years. >I hate
to repeat it again, but guns don´t solve all the problems. Actually
they tend to create more problems than they solve; see Iraq for that.Sorry
but guns do solve many problems. One especially intractable problem that
guns and violence solved, was the question of how to get Saddam Hussein
to give up power. As I have previously stated, any so-called "solution"
that left Saddam Hussein still firmly in control of the levers of power
in Iraq was and is unacceptable to me. He had to go, period. He had to
go, He didn't want to go, He wouldn't go voluntarily or peacefully, and
your country was unwilling to "make" him go. Therefore, simple
logic dictates that, had it been up to you and to France, Saddam wouldn't
have had to go. He'd still be in power. We "made" him go. And
I for one am glad that we did.
Charles Warren, USA
To Michael Bastian...
Europe pooling military resources. Right. As the sad, sad, saga of the
hopelessly over budget, past due and now colossally expensive Eurofighter
(and now militarily inadequate since it can only function as an air superiority
fighter instead of a ground strike bomber) shows , the European arms budget
is seen as a bloated make-work jobs program for the high tech sector.
Which goes to the basic problem. European mandarin elites say they want
unity but the European man in the street will not sacrifice for it. A
pooled European aviation industry would mean workers in SAAB, BAC, and
Fiat being let go because that is what consolidation means (I doubt France
would tolerate any dismissals at Dassault-Mirage and the workers at SAAB,
BAC, and Fiat would suspect that.). And no European politician or union
will let that happen just so France can feel important.
Michel Bastian, France
This board seems to be exploding, so I´ll try to
be brief in my replies:
To Warren:
I´d really like to respond to all the prejudice and misconceptions
you obviously have about Europe in detail, but it´d take me about
a week to do it so here´s the short version: yes, there are problems
with demographics in Europe, yes, we have economical problems, mainly
with the taxation systems (too complicated and expensive) and with a general
overregulation. What we´re not is stupid or lazy. No german or french
worker I know actually works the 35 hours a week you mentioned. Most of
them work 40 or more, it´s just not officially counted because this
is technically "paid overtime". They don´t retire at 50,
they retire at 65 (same as in the US, I gather). There was a time where
some workers retired at 60 (in the seventies and eighties), but that was
to make way for the baby boom generation who needed the jobs.
One of the differences between most europeans and most of the red state
americans is that we acknowledge we have problems and try to solve them,
whereas you keep on dreaming of a "superior" US economy that´s
just not there anymore and give a mandate to a president who´s only
going to make things worse.
Also, I´m not going to respond any more to dumb insults (like the
one about the free sex channels). I don´t want to completely submerge
our poor board administrator.
Nash Ribas, Spain
3 comments:1.- I respect and understand that for most american
voters moral values are important. But I think that 100.000 iraquies civilians
killed just for some oil is also a question of "moral values"
in order to kick out Bush Administration from office. What do they learn
in Church?. Is it not clear yet that Bush lied about Irak war?
2.- I have heard that George W. Bush is "the silly brother",
been Jeb Bush "the good one". If americans have voted again
the first one after all, and if the world survive 4 more years of Bush
Administration, just get ready for 8 years of Jeb Bush!!!
3.- Unfortunately I think Hillary Clinton have lost all chances to run
for office in 2008. Democrats need a candidate from south or mid-west.
Red states will never vote a New Yorker democrat candidate -and woman-.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Dear Michel Bastian:
You seem to be a trifle unaware of what some of the Yurupean businesses
have been up to. They seem to like America's business environment as a
place to invest and create jobs. Below are a couple of cases in point.
See http://www.sb-d.com/issues/winter2003/topdeals/top10deals.asp
Eric, CA, USA
Michel,
It is good to hear some rational thought coming from a European regarding
America. Of course the only views I am privy to are those the media promotes
and fairly radical anti-US sentiment that appears on some message boards.
I realize it is the voice of passion, and not reason, that yells the loudest,
but I was begining to become concerned.
As a moderate both the very liberal and very conservative in this country
scare me greatly. Our choice is to balance one against the other every
four years. Bush is on a fairly short leash here. Public opinion will
rapidly go against him if he does not find a workable solution in Iraq
soon. You can also be certain that he will not get the benefit of the
doubt in any future hostilities as he did in Iraq.
Europeans and Americans will always disagree on many issues, but I believe
there is much more on which we can agree.
Charles Warren, USA
Yakub from Poland, are you watching events in the Ukraine
? If Putin wins and the Russian empire is restored what do you think Poland's
future will be ? I know that you have learned to talk like a European
about how "uncivilized" America is but your folly is based upon
the European delusion that the age of warring, imperial nation states
is a thing of the past (Concert of Europe, Spirit of Locarno,... we tend
to have such sentimental delusions that force no longer matters in the
intervals between the end of a major war and the emergence of major revisionist
powers). Can any nation that has Russia as a neighbor afford such naivete
?
That is why your government has shown more wisdom than you in supporting
America over the delusion of a pacifist, united Europe. The average Pole
understands that only an American security guarantee, only the physical
presence of American troops in Poland will be any guarantee of your independence
ten years from now. The patterns of Polish history are what they always
were and will not change.
David, UK
You don't have to be stupid to have strong religious beliefs.
But apparently you do have to think that there are more important questions
than those of what will actually happen on the planet you leave behind
when you die. At this present juncture there are many good reasons for
supposing that such a position comes close to insanity.
Religion can be a great catalyst for humanitarianism, or for intolerance,
bigotry and blind inattention to material reality. The same negatives
go for any unquestioned ideology. Given that so many people in the world
are possessors of unquestioned ideologies of one kind or another, we seem
to be in a position where rational debate is futile. The Founding Fathers
of the USA would be sick to their stomachs to see what is being perpetrated
in the name of their ideals. But then they were men of the Enlightenment,
perhaps the only time in history when reason was thought to actually answer
social and political problems.
Toby, Berlin
I want to preface this by saying how limiting the internet
debate forum is. These issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed in a
few paragraphs, and only amateurs like me tend to frequent these sites
anyway. My post, as are the others, is limited by those factors.
To those of you who are Christian and believe in the death penalty and/or
that pre-emptive war is a good thing, or even that war is sometimes necessary,
I would be interested to hear your response to these famous words of Jesus‚
(which to me are unequivocal in their meaning, unlike much of religions'
wisdoms): „Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also‰; and "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Can't we reasonably argue that the secular strivings of Europe are more
akin to the sentiments contained in these passages, than are the retributional
actions of the Christian US? To those of you whose position is that might
makes right ˆ which human history seems to confirm in that the victors
write the history books ˆ is it not true that such a position renders
all argument redundant?
What is the point of argument, or indeed of bringing reason to a negotiation
at all, if only the threat of force can win the day? To suggest that it
is only might that can get things done, that only the threat of force
can bring about good in human affairs, is to simplify things to the point
of banality. That such a doctrine inspires others to behave in the same
way, and to mistrust the dominant partner, is an obvious and important
aspect of the might makes right doctrine, which is to say, it leads inexorably
to conflict ˆ with our destructive capacity nowadays this is surely
a dangerous path to tread. Also, to cast all political negotiations and
international dealings in the form of parent-child exchanges, whereby
one‚s authority rests on the threat of a Œsmack‚, and
where one party is reasonable and wise while the other is irrational and
immature, is an oversimplification which has the weakness of also assuming
that only via unbalanced adversarial processes do we accomplish anything
of value. Surely it is possible to imagine there can always be solutions
to problems where all sides, on balance, benefit, i.e., that agreements
which fairly serve the interests of all involved parties are reachable?
Put crudely, solutions in which there are no clear winners and losers.
Let‚s apply that airy-fairy, hippy notion to international terrorism.
How can you negotiate with people who are simply hell bent on your annihilation?
What is the point of talking to people who only understand violence and
destruction? Obviously terrorists have no agenda and exist simply because
some humans are evil and twisted. In the interests of security such people
must be exterminated. Any attempt to rationalise their actions is heretical
and/or cowardly, any attempt to understand why some human beings are driven
to such methods is inspired by weakness, naivety and a lack of moral fibre.
It is profoundly immature to polarise the world to the extent that Œwe‚
do good, and Œthey‚ do evil. ŒWe‚ the holy and the
pure, the vanguard of history, the guardians and creators of western capitalism
ˆ which is the final and best possible expression of humanity ˆ
are engaged in an epic struggle with those who disagree with us, who fear
and hate us. From what I have read on this site it seems there are many
who more or less hold this view. What is worrying about this is that it
is exactly the belief held by Islamic extremists (replace capitalism with
Islam), who believe they are engaged in a cosmic struggle against evil,
which may last millennia (see Jason Burke‚s book ŒAl Qaeda‚).
If might makes right, if the only solution is to kill thine enemy, and
if one is justified in killing because one has the might to do so and
has been, or might be, Œattacked‚, then terrorism is also justified.
War kills innocents (in Iraq at least 100,000 innocent humans have been
killed because of the Œthreat‚ of terrorism ˆ where is
the outrage about that, how will those lives be honoured?), terrorists
are engaged in a war, terrorists are therefore justified by right wing
philosophy and doctrine in their actions. The might makes right position
actually legitimises terrorism. Negotiation, with humility and compassion,
is the only way to stop the cycle. But this is not to say that punishment
is not sometimes necessary. Intelligent and reasonable sanctions are effective,
if they are not why then was Saddam wriggling so hard to get out of them?
Why did he have no weapons of mass destruction? Could there have been
another way to get rid of Saddam? Velvet revolutions have happened in
Europe, why not elsewhere? With sufficient will and application surely
some less harmful alternative could have been dreamed up.
Terrorism has always been with us. To get the British out of the Palestinian
mandate, Jewish extremists bombed a hotel there (I forget the name) killing
something like 45 people (correct me if I‚m wrong).
Menachin Begin made a rather eloquent speech justifying terrorism, which
I‚m sure you can find if you look hard enough. In 'Hegemony or Survival',
Noam Chomsky cites evidence of American terrorism in Latin America, quoting
orders to attack Œsoft targets‚. I am sure if I look I can
find evidence that every state on earth has been involved in or has sponsored
terrorism in one form or another, simply because humans are capable of
it, not because this religion or that philosophy or that nation is evil,
but because humans can be. It is that simple. Richard the Lionheart on
crusade in the Holy Lands instructed his men to behead many thousands
of Muslim prisoners (including women and children) simply because he did
not want the inconvenience of having to deal with them. We still honour
that bastard today, and G. W. Bush was sensitive enough to use the word
Œcrusade‚ to describe the opening actions of the ŒWar
on Terror‚.
Considering we have toys that can wipe us all out, we had better start
learning, as a matter of urgency, that we are all human and all in this
together. This ridiculous mud slinging and competition to prove America
is better than Europe and vice versa, or that this religion is better
than that, is a tad immature, don‚t you think?
Oh, and why shouldn‚t Palestinians insist on the right of return?
What is the Zionist project if it is not about the right of return for
Jews forever more? The state of Israel regards all Jews on the planet
as citizens of Israel, wherever they are and whether they agree with Israel
or not. If Palestinians have forfeited their right to their homes by fleeing
them decades ago, what right did Jews have to establish Israel? Because
it is written in a book that they wrote? And where is it written that
the victor of a war can seize enemy territory in perpetuity? How much
of Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan do America, Britain and France own?
And don't be so sure that the atomic bombs were not dropped for cynical
reasons. If the entire Japanese nation was ready 'to fight to the death'
(how could one possibly know that anyway? - smacks of racism to me) how
would the killing of a tiny fraction of their population stop them? How
can you put a people off their intended aim, if they are willing to die,
by killing them? It's an illogical argument.
Igor, Ukrain
I DON'T like his politic... PEACE. What else do we need? Money?.. NO!!!
Eddie, Tennessee, USA
Javier, Spain wrote
"i would like to know what american people think about spanish irak's
war withdrawal."
I think that most people see your departure from Iraq as a win for the
terorist. I do not know if this is acurate or not. It seemed like your
incombant government was going to win and then March 11th happened and
your current government was elected. If March 11th had never happened
do you think the current government would be in office? Do you think you
would still be in Iraq without March 11th?
I know that you current government ran on a plank of leaving Iraq far
before march 11th, and so from a Democracy standpoint if that is what
most of the people in Spain suport then it is good that they kept their
word.
But I for one expected to see a terorist attack in the US close to the
election to try to make us elect Kerry instead of Bush. I am glad I was
wrong.
J Cutler, United States
Man, ain't that first comment the best retort I've seen in a while.
Ross Toivonen, USA
President George W. Bush how much is enough?
