Is Bush Delusional?

[luke warm]

I don't see many massive protests directed against these countries...

give it time

 

Oh wait.  There were some.  There were massive protests against Denmark when some rightwing Danish newspapers decided that it would be a good idea to kick the hornet's nest.

this is the kind of attitude i find so disturbing... if by kick the hornets nest you mean they exercised free speech/press, so what? you act as if this is reason enough for what happened...

 

We're hated for two reasons

 

1.  The US is on top of the world so we're a natural target

2.  For better or worse, the US decided that it wanted to be a "player" in the Middle East.

maybe we should just withdraw from the world stage... a majority thought so at the beginning of wwII... who knows, maybe they were right then, also

[hrothgar]

maybe we should just withdraw from the world stage... a majority thought so at the beginning of wwII... who knows, maybe they were right then, also

I'm am by no means an isolationist. For the record, historically US isolationists are typically conservatives in the Taft wing of the Republican party. My own political views are very far removed from this tradition...

 

I favor very active involvement US involvement with the rest of the world. However, I am most interested in exercising so-called "soft" power, leveraging our economic and social position rather than our military. Equally significant, whenever possible, I am a multilateralist. I prefer working within the context of established international bodies like the UN.

[keylime]

The UN is in itself delusional along with the argument that it can enace positive change (with maybe the exception of UNICEF) for the people they are overseeing.

[mikeh]

 

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s. ....

This is amazing. Bush uses this line, but I never actually thought that even he believed it!

 

Use of this bullshit is a handy way of 'framing' the issue. Of course, we like to view ourselves as 'free' and as thus being better than others and if we can tell ourselves that we are hated for this reason, well, then, there is nothing we can do about it. After all, we can't make ourselves 'not free' just to appease the terrorists, can we?

 

In fact, the US is doing just that... in the name of freedom, it is giving up its freedoms. But the point is that this loss of freedom is being sold by techniques that were preaged by George Orwell.... including doublespeak.. the Patriot Act... what a howler of a name... an abdication of power by frightened politicians, almost none of whom read the Bill.

 

Back to the 'frame': if the government can get people to believe that the reason for all that hatred is 'freedom', then the people can and will stop thinking. Forget the cheap political spin and look at actual history... read what others say about it... and apply the one thing that has made us the dominant animal species.. the ability to THINK! An ability that, unfortunately, most of us appear not to like to use.. it can make us uncomfortable, and we sure like our comfort.

[luke warm]

 

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s. ....

This is amazing. Bush uses this line, but I never actually thought that even he believed it!

 

it must be nice to have all the answers, mike... to be privy to all the intelligence available to western gov't agencies, to have such clear insight into the minds of those who hate us

 

you need to understand that when i say "free" i don't mean *just* that, i mean all the things that a free society stands for, and all the things a free society gains as a result of that freedom

 

in newsweek, fareed zakaria said, "To the question "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Americans could be pardoned for answering, "Why should we care?" The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true."

 

so now there's bush, me, and zakaria who believe this "bullshit," at least in part, that we are hated because we are free... there are many who "think" and are comfortable doing so who come up with the same reasons... yes there are more reasons, but to deny that part of the equation is naive

 

besides, that isn't all i stated in the post from which you quote me... i also said, "there are some who think that the terrorists want nothing less than a complete conversion to their way of thinking... do you believe that's the case? if it is, does that mean it doesn't really matter what we do?" ... you ignored that part

 

who is this "we" you speak of who likes to view ourselves as better because of our freedom? separate opinions of forms of gov't from those of people... i personally think this form of gov't is better, but i also know that not everyone in the world is likely to share this belief

 

Forget the cheap political spin and look at actual history... read what others say about it... and apply the one thing that has made us the dominant animal species.. the ability to THINK!  An ability that, unfortunately, most of us appear not to like to use.. it can make us uncomfortable, and we sure like our comfort.

yes, it seems that the only reason a person can have for disagreeing with you is that he doesn't think... while it might be nice if everyone thought your thoughts (or mine), they don't... but not sharing your thoughts doesn't mean there are no thoughts...

 

i'll say a little more, while i'm not thinking... i don't honestly think (and i obviously use that word loosely) the terrorists (islamic fundamentalists) are true muslims (or at least they have perverted their own teachings)... for example, islam forbids the kidnapping of prisoners, it forbids the killing of unarmed soldiers, and it definitely forbids the killing of innocent civilians... to be fair, i feel the same about most fundamentalist christians... for mcvey or koresh to use christianity as any part of their justification for actions taken sickens me... for the kkk to speak of Jesus at their meetings is a perversion... but that's just me

 

I am most interested in exercising so-called "soft" power, leveraging our economic and social position rather than our military.

me too

 

Equally significant, whenever possible, I am a multilateralist. I prefer working within the context of established international bodies like the UN.

as long as such multilateral cooperation is not itself a violation of this country's sovreignty and constitution, me too

[Winstonm]

What is the one ultimate power of a government? It is the legal right to withdraw liberty from the individual. The U.S. was a land governed by law, with rights inherent to the accused. The Detainee Bill allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfield the power to declare anyone whom they chose, domestic or foreign, a enemy combattant, have them locked up with no proof, no habeus corpus, no search and seizure protections....actions taken also by Lenin and Mao of which we so loudly howlded.

 

We have done this under the guise of "fighting terrorism". I submit the terror is within our own government, with people of power who can corrupt elections and thus perpetualte the deceit, tyranny, and imperialistic goals.

[mikeh]

To Lukewarm

 

I apologize for suggesting that you do not 'think': it was not intended to be personal, altho I can see how it read that way. I am sure that if we were having this discussion ftf, it would be heated but not personal :P I respect you as sincere, even when I disagree with you.

 

As for the parts of your post I did not comment on, you make some valid points, and my lack of response was not a silent rejection....nor tacit approval, for that matter. I responded to the part I quoted because, yes, I do feel that Bush has skilfully created a 'frame' within which to discuss the motivation of terrorists in a manner that constrains critical thought.

 

Large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people believe that Bush is the major threat to world peace. Blair, one of Bush's staunchest allies is paying the political price for that alliance, and he explicitly recognized this wide-spread fear in his recent farewell address to the TUC.. the full text of which is an interesting read and readily available online.

 

Now, it may be that this attitude is misguided.... personally I am unsure of my view. But no-one would, I hope, claim that those who share that belief do so because they hate the US for being free. They themselves live in societies that approximate and may in some cases exceed the US in terms of personal freedoms.

 

I recognize (altho my postings would not usually reflect this recognition) that my thought processes are undoubtedly influenced by 'frames': by preconceptions that constrain my thinking on certain topics. I do sometimes try to think outside the 'frame', but it is difficult to do so until and unless I hear from someone who can point out those constraints to me. The truth appears to be (for me if no-one else) that the constraints are invisible from the inside.

 

Thus the power of the framing of the terrorists' motivation as being a hatred of a free nation: once in that frame, it constrains the debate. It comforts the thinker, because, as I said earlier, it tells us something good about ourselves (we are free) while eliminating any inclination to do anything to change those factors that gave rise to the hatred: after all, why on earth should we give up our freedom?

 

If the 'frame' were that the terrorists hate the US for the conduct of the US as a nation on the world stage, that would require thinking about that conduct and, more importantly, how that conduct impacts the disadvantaged in the world.

 

That is uncomfortable... whether it a Canadian having to confront the fact that we are a rich country that does very little to address global issues or an American having to confront the fact that there is a serious disconnect between the rhetoric used by US spokepeople and the reality of the use of power... the US has imposed and supported horrific dictatorships in the name of freedom for many decades, and has acted imperiously for more than a century while rejoicing in its anti-imperialist origins. I am sure that citizens of most, if not all, countries could face similar problems if they looked beyond the frame.

 

This approach is similar to the frame used immediately post 9/11 when the terrorists were called cowards.

 

Think what you will of them as individuals, and it is difficult to think any but the strongest of negative thoughts about them, but no way were they cowardly. The problem is that we associate bravery and determination as positive attributes, while cowardice is a negative. So to argue that they were not cowards runs the risk that one might be viewed as supporting or condoning their outrage. We shy away from using any 'positive' words when discussing their actions.

 

Do you remember the televison footage 9/11 of palestinians celebrating in the streets? They genuinely saw the heroism of the martyrs..... that was the frame in which they were thinking. We saw it differently: I can still recall the horror I experienced as I watched on television: my empathy was with the victims, not the terrorists, but that was my frame at work. Were I born and raised in a hope-less Gaza refugee camp, my frame would have been quite different, and so with you.

 

And unless we recognize this reality, how can we hope to persuade them to change their attitudes? Claiming that the terrorists and the populations from which they draw their recruits hate the US because the US is free prevents the US from being able to understand the root causes of terrorism.

 

Of course, this type of framing dominates many issues: the war on drugs, the illegal immigration issue, the tax cuts etc.

 

Illegal immigration: rather than build a wall, prosecute and severely punish all employers of illegal immigrants, and guess what? The jobs would disappear and the immigrants only come because of the jobs. Why not? Because too many rich americans have illegals working for them cheaply. And so on: the frame dictates the analysis. The problem is framed as illegal immigration: reframe it as illegal employment and a different answer materializes.

 

Finally, in closing, I apologize for the tone of my postings. I realize that I write as if it were all black or white, and that my way is the only way. Of course, I do not believe that, even in my most arrogant moments. I can only say that many of us on this part of the forum seem to have the same problem: I will try to be more appreciative of opposing views, no matter how irrational I may find them to be when composing my response B)

[Winstonm]

Does history repeat itself?

 

 

Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938.

 

The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could, and more importantly, could not do.

 

Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy's choir of a monastery in his youth.

 

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged.

 

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the "terrorists", the German people agreed.

 

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war.

 

Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

 

 

Of course, this is America and we are so much wiser now - this could never happen here........

[Al_U_Card]

Americans, Russians, Germans, Chinese, Romans, Phoenicians, just people.....killing, enslaving, exploiting.....in the name of power and control....some things, like human nature, do not change no matter what the language or time.

[Winstonm]

QUOTE (winston)

I do not want to fight them but I support punishing the perpetrators for their actions.

 

 

how, exactly? thru the un

 

If you could find the orchestrator and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, then the U.N. could be used - as the theatre to bring in his head on a bloody stick.

[mike777]

Come on guys has anyone actually read the bill. From what little I read today, comparing Germany's 1930's, Hitler and the USA in 2006 seems a bit desperate.

 

Is there something in the Bill you really dislike? Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action? You do realize many more rights were forsaken in the Civil War or WW11 or most of Europe's war's. If you want to fight a war and not forsake any rights ok, just say so. Do we need a warrant before we kill someone? IF you just do not want to fight a full out war say so......:)

 

I just have my doubts we can buy our way out of this with American fancy blue jeans. Many in Israel feel their war will last forever. :)

 

Heck we Americans have our hands full protecting baby Amish girls from a madman.

 

Nuanced debates are not an American strongpoint but it does seem we are getting a little better discussing the strategic approach in Iraq since most Americans think we are losing or at the very least not winning there. If we all can agree we can never win, only Iraq can, that at least is a starting point.

 

On another point maybe now that Nato's quick reaction strike force is up and running, I hope, maybe they can go into Darfur? Heck I do not know how to solve Africa long term or even for 2 years but mass killing of dark skinned Black people must be wrong in someone's morals.

Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

[mikeh]

On another point maybe now that Nato's quick reaction strike force is up and running, I hope, maybe they can go into Darfur? Heck I do not know how to solve Africa long term or even for 2 years but mass killing of dark skinned Black people must be wrong in someone's morals.

Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

Our sons, and daughters, are sort of busy right now, getting bombed and shot at in Afghanistan: where ironically the worst casualties have come from American 'friendly' fire incidents: Us pilots relatively safe in the air bombing Canadian soldiers engaged with the Taliban.

 

We also have peace-keepers in many other places and it was Canada, not the USA, that tried (inadequately and unsuccessfully) to prevent/minimize the Rwanda genocide.

[mike777]

LOl last time I checked Canada is too busy because they spend all their money on other things than the underfunded army.....all that free health care/education/legal lawyers I guess are more important than stopping 250000 dead black people in Darfur. But thanks to those few brave people in Canada who do join the armed forces. In Europe I am not sure what the heck they are spending on...not the armed forces that in some countries are just union job protection.

 

At least here in the USA we spend it on expensive wasteful weapon systems....:) or send 100 of millions to the Palestine or Egypt/Jordan etc etc.... or spending billions on defending Belgium....

 

To be fair everyone else seems too busy spending all the money on that free education and medicine too... to stop genocide. God forbid someone in their family actually joins the armed forces.

 

BTW thanks to all those who are risking their lives in Afghanistan,... Canada, Poland, etc....and the Brits in Iraq. God Bless you and your families for protecting my love ones with your young sons and daughters.

[helene_t]

Europe has abdicated, let Iran go nuclear, let Egypt, Saudi follow......so what if we lose a few cities to a few nukes? We have 10,000.

 

The important thing is that they like us and we stop doing evil bad things that makes them hate us.

I can certainly sympathise with this comment. But what kind of "evil bad things" do "we" have to stop doing in order not to make "them" hate us?

 

If adhering to the Geneva Convention in the way terrorist suspects are treated in U.S. prissons would solve all problems in the World then we might have a reasonable chance, at least after the next U.S. presidential election. But in the eyes of some very vocal people. the evil bad things include the fact that Danish press regulation is not based on a fundamentalist version of the sharia.

 

It's possible that certain aspects of the foreign policy of the Bush administration has accelerated terrorism, the fall of Kathami, insurgence on Sumatra and the general anti-Western sentiments in Arab countries and among Arab immigrants in Europe. But:

- In Afghanistan, the U.S. first supported moslems against the Soviets and later one moslem coalition against another

- In Bosnia and Kosova, the U.S. (and in a brief but crucial part of the war: Croatia) pushed for preventing cristian genocides on moslems, while Europe was only concerned with the welfare of its own soldiers and its relations with Russia.

- In Iraq, the U.S. fought a non-religious regime, originally to defend fundamentalist moslem states (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), and ultimately ending a very destructive situation in which U.N. economic sanctions were only causing humanitarian disaster without any prospect of political changes. And replaced the non-reliious government with a religious one. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was extremely stupid, as was his "cruscade" retoric and his all-too-obvious nonsense about Iraq's mass destruction weapons and links with Bin Laden. But my point is that the war is not an anti-moslem thing at all, it's just stupid.

- The U.S. keeps pushing EU to let Turkey in. This could be explained by the fact that any real or perceived problems Turkey might cause in the EU would not be American problems, but still.

- We can't blame everything on Bush since the the roots of all this mess predate Bush. Khomeni's fatwa on Rushdie, for example. It's true that European colonial rule in Northern Africa is part of the root cause for the misserable cultural and politcal state of most Arabic countries. But the centralist Otoman government that prevented an Arabic political culture from evolving may be more significant, as may ecological conditions in the Middle East and certain aspects of Arabic culture, such as with respect to the role of women in society.

- I'm not so sure that appeasement would make "them" hate "us" any less. I know little about mass psychology and less about specific Arab mass psychology but my intuition says that appeasement is more likely just to make "them" despise "us" rather than like us.

 

If you want to know why Arabs hate Americans, it may be easier, as a Westerner with limited knowledge of Arab culture, first to ask why Europeans hate Americans. We hate Americans because we're jealous at their big cars and more succesfull businesses. Now it's easy to imagine that Arabs are even more jealous at Americans than we are.

[Gerben42]

If you want to know why Arabs hate Americans, it may be easier, as a Westerner with limited knowledge of Arab culture, first to ask why Europeans hate Americans. We hate Americans because we're jealous at their big cars and more succesfull businesses. Now it's easy to imagine that Arabs are even more jealous at Americans than we are.

 

Europeans don't hate "Americans", they hate the American government that acts first and thinks later, that is torturing people who are not proven guilty. And that same government that polices the world in their self-proclaimed "War" on terror.

 

Is there something in the Bill you really dislike? Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action?

 

HELLO? There is no WAR on terror! You cannot beat terrorism by invading countries. The USA invaded Afghanistan, yet Al Qaeda moves on. The USA invaded Iraq, and the Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting 3 years after "victory" was proclaimed. Israel invaded Lebanon, and yet Hezbollah still exists.

 

It sounds like you want to fight American neo-fascism more than you want to fight terrorists? Or do you simply not want to fight them at all? Or do you believe that it is mostly the USA at fault and we need to change and if so how?

 

The USA should start looking at the principles on which is what founded, especially:

* Untangle church and state.

* Respect human rights.

 

Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

 

You'd need a court order to get me to one of these dangerous regions.

 

LOl last time I checked Canada is too busy because they spend all their money on other things than the underfunded army

 

On the other hand Canada does not seem to have much problems with terrorism. Maybe they are on to something!

[mike777]

Well as I said before if you do not think there is a full blown war, then what the USA is doing must seem insane or worse than Mao, Stalin and Hitler combined. If you do not think there is a real and current threat to your country then what the USA is doing does seem like genocide.

 

As you can see many here in the USA either do not believe in a real and present danger or those that do believe it may believe that it is better to fight it through a police action or through free trade.

 

We do have elections in this country and I do believe countries get the government they deserve. Whether it be a muderous Mao, Stalin, Hitler or a delusional Bush the people of the country need to take full responsibility. Congress could stop the funding for this war with one vote. College students and unions could shut down the country with strikes and marches.

 

No wait the students are too busy watching American Idol and tv and playing videos, the Unions are too busy making sure felons are exempt from losing jobs and can work at our ports(I guess Arab felons are banned but everyone else is ok) and Congress is too busy passing antigambling laws in the middle of the night with hidden bills or picking up teenage boys with emails. :)

[Al_U_Card]

In WWII the US stood up to Hitler and on the conventional field of battle, bested the worst that humanity could provide as opposition. Since then, they fail to understand that most fights are not about good vs evil but evil vs evil. They also stick mistakenly to their last favorable strategy (like underleading an ace that sets the contract.....a bad practice that usually doesn't work).

 

Conventional vs guerilla ie Vietnam.....didn't work

Conventional vs. ethnic cleansing ie Yugoslavia.......didn't work

Conventional vs. religious fanatics ie Iraq......isn't working

 

You cannot change people, you can only change yourself.

 

Elsewhere in the world, centuries of bloody regional, tribal and religious struggles transcend reason.

 

The US only has its history with slavery and discrimination as reference. How are they doing with that? Maybe once they change themselves they will better understand the world.

[luke warm]

To Lukewarm

 

I apologize for suggesting that you do not 'think': it was not intended to be personal, altho I can see how it read that way. I am sure that if we were having this discussion ftf, it would be heated but not personal :)  I respect you as sincere, even when I disagree with you.

i doubt it would even be all that heated... i don't know if it comes across in my posts, but i rarely get heated, i much prefer to try to remain calm and logical ("rarely" isn't the same as "never" though)... i know you're sincere in your beliefs also, and respect your right to have and share them

 

I responded to the part I quoted because, yes, I do feel that Bush has skilfully created a 'frame' within which to discuss the motivation of terrorists in a manner that constrains critical thought.

it's true that politicians of all stripes use 'frames', not just bush, and most frames are built on emotion... i distrust emotional arguments (not that i haven't fallen into the trap of making them, but i do try not to)... we all enter into discussion based on our own preconceptions, our own worldviews... as long as people are intellectually honest enough to admit that, i don't have a problem with it....

 

Large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people believe that Bush is the major threat to world peace.

i'm sure that's true, but i'm also sure the converse is true - there are also large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people who honestly believe that fundamentalist islam truly wants the world at war... many believe they want either conversion or death for others, and those who don't convert are by definition their enemies... and you have to admit that if some of them are taken at their word, one could build a good case that this is one of their motives

 

I recognize (altho my postings would not usually reflect this recognition) that my thought processes are undoubtedly influenced by 'frames': by preconceptions that constrain my thinking on certain topics. I do sometimes try to think outside the 'frame', but it is difficult to do so until and unless I hear from someone who can point out those constraints to me. The truth appears to be (for me if no-one else) that the constraints are invisible from the inside.

excellent points... i believe you've said you are a trial lawyer (sorry if my memory is faulty here, or if that offends you :)), which means to me that you have been trained in debate, in philosophy, in critical thinking... it's my view that any person unable to take both sides of a debate, and do them justice, can't actually win a debate from either side... i can tell from your posts and understanding of the issues that you could take either side of this issue and be persuasive... so i don't hold it against you that you write from your own 'frame' as long as you don't hold it against me when i do the same

 

Thus the power of the framing of the terrorists' motivation as being a hatred of a free nation: once in that frame, it constrains the debate. It comforts the thinker, because, as I said earlier, it tells us something good about ourselves (we are free) while eliminating any inclination to do anything to change those factors that gave rise to the hatred: after all, why on earth should we give up our freedom?

in a sense, this is true... however, when i use our freedom as a reason for their hatred, i don't mean that to be the only reason... in any case, i think that if a person listed as premises those things required of the u.s. for cessation of terrorist attacks, we'd find that relatively few of them could be met (practically or politically or even morally)... for example, when you say

If the 'frame' were that the terrorists hate the US for the conduct of the US as a nation on the world stage, that would require thinking about that conduct and, more importantly, how that conduct impacts the disadvantaged in the world.

i can sincerely ask why the u.s. conduct towards the world's disadvantaged is cause or justification for terrorism...

 

I can only say that many of us on this part of the forum seem to have the same problem: I will try to be more appreciative of opposing views, no matter how irrational I may find them to be when composing my response B)

heheh... it's true that posters from both sides can sometimes seem arrogant or irrational... one of my rules of life (never turn down a breath mint is #1) is, a man's gotta know his limitations... i might not always come across as if that's a rule of mine, but i try to - and it is

 

HELLO? There is no WAR on terror! You cannot beat terrorism by invading countries.

i agree there is no war, just as i think vietnam wasn't a war and korea wasn't a war... the primary goal of a war is to win it, and the strategy and tactics necessary for victory must be employed... that doesn't appear to be the case here

[Winstonm]

Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action?

 

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

 

To declare War,

 

 

Did I miss this headline somewhere? I don't remember Congress declaring war.

 

Come on guys has anyone actually read the bill.

 

Yes. I believe the thought processes capable of this work unpatriotic at best. The U.S.A. was established to preserve freedom and rights. I have no disagreement with the wish to establish a military tribunal for the trial of real terrorists - those caught in the act of carrying out an act or terrorissm or in the active planning phase of such actions - this has precedent with German agents. But to rush through a bill that allows presidential descretion in proclaiming anyone it so choses an "enemy combattant" and then having them locked up without a trial is beyond unpatriotic and into tryrannical behavior.

 

If you do read the act, and many legal experts have voiced this concern, it actually allows the president to determine without proof an enemy combattant and does not stipulate whether foreign or domestic.

 

The closest this country ever came to a coup was with Richard Nixon - he reached the point in his presidency where it was resign or use the military to stay in power.

 

You may think it farfetched, but with this bill anyone who has evidence of criminal actions by this administration could be deemed an "enemy combattant" and locked up. If Nixon would have had this, Daniel Ellsberg could have disappeared and we would never have learned of Cambodia. What other secrets are hidden? Would you blow the whistle now?

 

At best this bill is sloppy to the point of unpassable by intelligent men; at worst it is a beginning of a nightmare.

 

comparing Germany's 1930's, Hitler and the USA in 2006 seems a bit desperate.

 

Do you think the American people of today are smarter, braver, and wiser than the Germans of the 1930s? Human nature does not change. Fear drove Germany in Hitler's hands; fear has driven power in the U.S.A. into the president's hands. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. History may not repeat itself; but to say it cannot happen here is to deny human nature.

[Impact]

Let us examine sme of the alleged "causes" of hatred from a realist's perspective instead of utopian or doctrinaire viewpoints (and I don't care which doctrine it is).

 

 

US foreign polcy has usually been an extension of domestic policy - as with most nations.

 

In the later part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century, strong isolationism (and protectionism) fought with the occasional foreign adventure and imperialism.

 

Post WWII, US foreign policy was pretty much "hold the fort against communism" - which meant in practice supporting anything which was anti-communist.

 

Rid yourself of a prism of idealism and the rhetoric showered on the public, the alleged volte faces of US policy make some sort of sense (whether or not you agree with the justification adn vlidity of the underlying tenet).

 

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA was effectively without a direct rival both economically and militarily: it is THE superpower.

 

Historically when any dramatic dominance by one nation has occurred previously, either a further period of conquest has been embarked upon or (and frequently almost seamlessly) a determination for maintenance of the status quo in order to avoid a meaningful challenge to dominance, has been the motivating force.

 

Metternich's balance of power doctrine, and England's switching sides/allies in continental Europe for at least 250 years in order to prevent an hegemony to challenge her incipient - and then real- empire spring to mind.

 

I suggest that the latter has been the order of the day for the US - and it is only events of direct threat which have motivated foreign adventures.

The US did not want a too powerful Japan to dominate Asia, a powerful theocratic Iran to dominate the Middle East (hence the decision in 1991 to cease hostilities against Saddam's Iraq which could act as some form of balance to Iran) - and some balance in both South America and Europe. By and large Africa to date has been largely irrelevant (save for periods of active communist infiltration of states which led to propping up and supplying some of the strangest regimes - making Vietnam or Saddam appear almost normal).

 

So much for the hstorical perspective of the US actions.

 

For 500 years at least Europe has been the centre of Western thought and power. It is never pleasant to realise that rather than being the mjor player(s), you are a now a bit player. There is a resentment at the swing in economic, military and poltical power. The EU which consists of nations with historical enmity is an attempt to redress the balance.

 

At the same time the nations in the EU are delighted that they can spend (in real terms) far less on defence than previously as there is no direct national threat to them - and no need for the umbrella of US defence offered by NATO during the cold war.

 

At one and the same time the US is accused of massive conspiracies and Macchiavellian machinations, it is blighted with seeming incompetence in those machinations and overriding all is a touching naivete: you actually seem to expect to be loved, and to live up to the rhetoric uttered by its leaders.

 

That schizophrenia is apparent in an inherently secular society which insists on paying lipservice to notions of God and playing to a "moral majority".

 

It also makes Americans and US politicians almost uniquely vulnerable to outbursts of sanctimonious pap from politicians of other nations (who have no qualms in maintaining their countries' own economic interests and no hesitations in making pronouncements of utopianism without the slightest intention of furthering such).

 

On an individual basis do YOU you give to every charity or group which masquerades as a charity?

 

Do you feel a need to explain to each such group why you are giving an amount to them or justifying why you are giving more to another?

 

Foreign aid is part of diplomacy - and as such is pursued for the real perceived interests of the donor country (which incidentally might include all sorts of altrusitic notions which are important to domestic voters).

 

It is sheer nonsense that aid must be given equally or come with no strings - after all it is your tax dollars and you are entitled to demand some return either real or maybe just sickly warm feelings for it.

 

However, anecdotal observation of human nature is such that gratitude is rarely received. Rather envy of someone (anyone) who is better off appears to be the norm, and expectation that they should be placed in that position is a given.

 

Victimisation is standard with pleas/demands for more without actually offering anything in return or performing oneself. The modern object is to make the donor feel guilt about not doing enough as opposed to what the donee could do for himself.

 

Hence a whole range of groups and nations line up for largesse as of right - but then resent any suggestion that there may be a quid pro quo.

 

For a not inconsiderable period the US was the largest single donor to "the Palestinians" but of course that would not lead to gratitude: how dare the US give more to Israel?

 

No culture or people copes well with inferiority. All like to believe they are (at least) as good as the next group - and usually better.

 

Of course, occasionally when faced with stark reality, the issue becomes how do you cope? Various methods have been tried: the rarest is to actually try to absolutely improve your own level of well-being but that pales if your neighbour too improves his own level (look at the relative well-being of the poor in OECD countries and compare the criteria of poverty in those countries over the last century); the most popular is a declaration of war: if you cannot improve in direct comparison of your own doing, the least you can do is drag the opposition down. The modern form is one of begging without humility: the demand as of right to charity, but is not called charity!

 

Regardless of economic and military dominance which you may lack, you know that you at least have moral/theological superiority - but perhaps - like suffering stoically, there is no point to it unless everyone knows that that is what you are doing!

 

Hence the last refuge to justify all else can be used as a weapon - and is being so.

 

As usual our own freedoms are turned against us: freedom of religion is fine but it doesn't give you a right to active intolerance of others.

 

If you are a taxi-driver presumably it is within your rights to deny access to an intoxicated passenger (on the grounds of safety, cleanliness etc). However, the mere fact that someone is "armed with the means of intoxication" (alcohol) is no more reason to refuse them carriage than refusing a woman "because she is equipped with the means to be a prostitute".

 

That should be a term of the licence.

 

No one compells someone to work on his religious holiday but you cannot seek employment at an abattoir and then object to the killing of animals for meat, refuse to participate and expect to be paid by the abattoir!

 

If someone hates you already and you are paying them for nought - perhaps rather than reconsider your other policies, you should first reconsider whether you should be paying them!!

 

Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline.

 

We hear all about Islamic solidity but where were the funds from various Islamic states loaded with oil revenue when their brethren were suffering from tsunami: the expectation was that the heathen West would supply funds - and we did.

 

It is time to stand up for our own self-interest before it is too late: that is not taking an antagonistic posture it is simply being open and admitting self-interest instead of pretending otherwise.

 

Self-interest includes feelings of gratification for helping someone: after all it makes you feel good, but don't pretend that they have a RIGHT to more!

[pbleighton]

"Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline."

 

So I guess it was a non-Western dictatorship which invaded a country which had less than 10% of its population and far less than .1% of its GDP on the pretext that the invaded country was developing weapons similar to those the invading country already had in great abundance.

 

Peter

[Impact]

Peter,

 

For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist).

 

Getting it just plain wrong happens: there were all sorts of justifications which some will find acceptable for going into Iraq.

 

What is and was even then clearly wrong to me was the absence of a viable plan for Iraq following the initial military victory: a disaprate tribal country with no history of democracy was always going to take a generation of "occupation" if there was to be any hope for the installation of western democratic practice on a lasting basis.

 

I said as much before they went in, and continued to make the same statement: does USA really have the will to stay the course for 25 years both economically and in terms of the lives lost (with no guarantees)? If not - don't go in because all you do is disturb the fragile balance that exists (albeit sending some sort of message to those who defy teh might of US).

 

There were lots of alternatives to invasion - including just wiping out Saddam - but all left serious questionmarks about the vacuum, even if they might have left less direct responsibility. The same sanctimony about assassination of leaders appears to be maintained by many on the grounds of personal interest.

 

 

In an age of instant gratification by pressing buttons, it did not seem likely - and with the exception of the US Civil War there have few occasions where the US has had to buckle down for the long haul (which is fortunate on the one hand but gives no real experience and an increasing unwillingness to embark on such a course).

 

What the effect of departure by the coalition from Iraq in the short term, would be is interesting conjecture.

 

It is hard to doubt that it would be hailed as a victory in much of the Arab and Islamic world.

 

Victories do little to discourage those groups, but the cost of a "draw" much less victory for the coalition is looking high.

 

My reaction is "at least another 20 years" now that you are there - for better or worse. You can't set the clock back - but I truly doubt the intestinal fortitude for the task.

 

If perseverance ensues for the longer term there are a lot of potential benefits (not least amongst them the concern of other nations, the soaking up of "terrorists" in one place, and the potential for more widespread favourable regime change in a strategically important part of the world - but don't hold your breath).

 

As I said the "crime" was to go in with a bizarre belief in a short-term goal.

[pbleighton]

"For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist)."

 

Do you consider that "perceived self-interest" is an adequate justification for a war which will wind up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

 

The U.S. has LOTS of WMD, and I certainly wouldn't consider that fact to be a justification for invasion of us.

 

As to your "20 more years" theory, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year we have been there. What make you think it will get better as long as the U.S. is there?

 

For all your trumpeted realpolitik, you seem to be a very trusting, idealistic soul ;)

 

First Rule Of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

 

The natives have AK-47s and plastic explosive. Colonialism (or whatever historical parallel you choose) will never be the same.

 

Peter

[Impact]

20 more years (at least) because it requires an education system to inculcate values and traditions which do not grow up overnight.....it took almost that long in relatively homogeneous civilizations (Germany & Japan - of which at least Germany had had some embryonic experiences in the Weimar).

 

It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all!

 

Cry over the spilt milk but and agonise over the options foregone as is the want of historians and journalists, but also face a present reality and let us see if there is some advantage to be obtained...

 

Your Rule of Holes neglects the concept that you may have had a goal in digging and perhaps you wish to reach it (OTOH if you meant to suggest that getting out of quicksand has something to recommend it, that would be a difficult proposition to resist - albeit not accepting the analogy).

[luke warm]

although i don't accept the philosophy of objectivism totally, a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective... impact has pretty much summed it up - when a person, group, city, state, country works in their/its own best interest, the best interest of the majority is served... of course this assumes that one is able to logically deduce what is in one's best interest... be that as it may, i agree with most of his posts - there is a sense of entitlement from many of those who receive charity