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 2/12
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Susan Murray, USA
Michael from France writes:
"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."I have to disagree with
you on that statement because the citizens of our red-states debate our
policies and discuss our problems, take sides on talk radio, write millions
of letters to the editor, blog about them, send screeds to our congressmen,
propose moderate and well as hair-brained reform schemes for every problem
under the sun.The red-state newspaper Nashville Tennesseean questions
the death penalty:http://tennessean.com/opinion/archives/04/11/62062047.shtmlI
could cite thousands of red-state citizen authored newspaper articles,
essays, books and other writings debating our problems and issues, but
I shall refrain from a fancypancian list mania. Your aurgument seems to
boil down to economic socialism vs. capitalism as the "right"
choice. I'm sure it does sound arrogant to hear Americans speaking of
their economy as "the best." However, I believe that when we
say that we are really saying that the American economy is the best economy
for the United States, that the United States does not want to adapt a
European economy of social welfare.
It would be easier to agree to disagree if Europeans ceased to publicize
the arrogant viewpoint that everyone who voted for George W. Bush is stupid
and everyone who is a freemarketer is morally bankrupt and wishes to see
the poor become poorer and succumb to the laws of Darwin.
I could easily make the case that Jacques Chirac is a Strange Ranger in
that he takes a worldview inconceivable to red-state citizens and acts
as though his worldview is normal and reasonable. These differences in
worldviews and economic policies should be respected by both sides without
resorting the puerility of name calling and oneupmanship.Note to the forum
administrator: It would be helpful if your form kept the original carriage
returns of our posts.
Susan Murray, USA
David from the UK wrote:
"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."
James Madison, the Karl Rove of the Constitution, made it very clear on
his position on the state and religion:
"Is the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution
of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national
religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship
for the national representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion,
elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national
taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment,
applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the constituent,
as well as of the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted
by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily
noticeable] violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles.
The tenants of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship against
the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that
of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with
that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one
or both of the legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope
to be appointed a chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious
or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in
its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested
by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor."
You can find the entire text here:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/estaorel.html
On the other hand, he was equally clear on how he felt about the very
idea of state social welfare (which did not exist):
The Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser in January of
1794 reported:
"Mr. Madison...was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent,
which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very
different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that
he could not undertake to lay his finger on that Article in the Federal
Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects
of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke
the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it
was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities
this practice might be carried."
The Social Democrats, cannot without hyprocrisy, wave the pennant of the
Founders' enlightenment as their cause while supporting massive social
welfare spending. The religious conservative, cannot without hyprocisy,
embrace the founding fathers' precepts of the rights of the individual
while ignoring constiutional seperation of state and church and attempting
to justify it with selected quotes of the Founders' personal beliefs expressed
in letters and other writings.
The issues of school vouchers which may be used in religious schools and
faith based initiatives are contemporary issues which did not exist at
the time the constitution was written. Is George W. Bush's views on these
two quasi-religious issues at odds with the intent of the Consitution?
Should we not leave these issues to the Supremes to decide -- as sureley
the Founders intent in establishing the Supreme Court was to decide such
issues.
Democratic Republicans who endeavor to vote as strict constitutionalists
are in a quandry and can only ask themselves which policy can do the least
harm?
I see socialism as diametically opposed to Democratic Republicanism and
the choice for me is obvious. George W. Bush and the Republican party
best express the ideas of the Founders, despite the religious overtones
of his campaign.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil:
> 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.
We are in some instances (like Afghanistan). We´re just not commited
to dumb lemmingdom, which is something the kind of americans you´re
talking about obviously are incapable or unwilling to understand.
> 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).
We have demanded nothing, and nobody asked the US to sign away their sovereignty.
In all these instances, the US would have had a major say in any decisions
(including Kyoto and the ICC). Actually I have a hunch that one of the
reasons behind the american refusal of joining these agreements, indeed
behind the whole unilateralism doctrine, was the fact that they didn´t
have 100% control over everything, only about 60 to 70%. And that´s
where OUR sovereignty comes in. We don´t like the US lording it
over on us either, you know, especially with someone like Bush in power.
>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.
No, it hasn´t become apparent, Bush purposefully played on the american
population´s prejudice that the europeans might have such sinister
designs. In fact, these agreements were multilateral, not bilateral between
the US and Europe. There where quite a number of other parties involved,
like China, Russia and what have you. There wasn´t the slightest
chance of Europe imposing their "lifestyle" and "values"
at any time. The americans knew this as did the europeans and the rest
of the world. No, the reason for the american refusal was the Bush administration´s
"America first, and the rest be damned"-attitude.
> 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.
Well, neither will we. Incidentally, they weren´t contrary to your
national interests, but it´d take a better president than Bush to
understand that.
>We understand quite clearly what you want.
No, you obviously don´t, not in the least.
> 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.
Nope, multilateralism is just a form of democracy with everybody having
a say. If the US keep insisting that they´re the only ones qualified
to make all the choices for the rest of the world, that´s antidemocratic
and we (as most of the rest of the world) won´t stand for it, sorry
folks.
> France's commercial interests in Iraq were linked to keeping Saddam
Hussein in power.
Sorry, but that´s yet another myth. France`s commercial interests
in Iraq where all but nonexistent (about 0.3% of french foreign business
in 2000).
> 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,
No, France, as you very well know, wasn´t in charge of that program.
The UN security council was, including the US. I´m not going to
repeat myself endlessly on this subject since obviously you´re not
interested in facts. If you change your mind, read my other posts.
> (2) By repeatedly opposing the imposition of sanctions against the
Saddam Hussein regime in the UNSC.
Oh, we opposed the imposition of sanctions, did we? How did they get imposed
then? Truth is we only opposed the Iraq war (ok, I guess you might call
that a sanction) and it turns out we were actually right.
> (3) By obstruction and sabotage of the allies attempts to enforce
the will of the internaitonal community in regards to disarmament.
Sabotage? What sabotage? Specify please.
(4) By providing diplomatic cover for regime members by the issuing of
French visas, not passports, from the French embassy in Syria.
Eh, what? What visas and to whom?
> This is how history will record France's cowardice during 1992-2003,
including Chirac's personal involvement with Hussein and his family.
Right, we´re all cowards and the americans are all uncultured dumbasses.
Please, cut the stupid stereotypes, will you. You´re much too smart
for that. As for Chirac´s personal involvment: again, specify. What
personal involvment and when exactly? Speaking of personal involvment,
what about the personal involvment of the Bush family with the Bin Ladens?
>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."
No, that´s not proof, that´s not even an allegation. Essentially,
the Duelfer report states that Saddam TRIED to divide the UN security
council with diplomatic and economic means. And Duelfer can´t even
prove that.
> 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."
Oh, so now we´re down from actually exploiting oil fields on the
backs of the starving Iraqi population to negotiating contracts with Iraq.
Even according to your version, the French didn´t actually get them,
then, did they? And I bet if I look close enough Halliburton and all the
other US firms were negotiating as hell, too.
> 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).
You´re right, the story´s nothing new. Actually, it was based
on a list which was alledgedly leaked from the Iraqui oil ministry after
Bremer had taken over (says a lot for american security, now, doesn´t
it?). And it features, among others, two american oil firms as well.
> 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,
Oh, ok, I didn´t know that. Care to give me any hard evidence for
this corruption? Or is it just "viewed" as corrupt by you because
a. you want to prove your point, b. it fits in with the current administration´s
view and c. never mind any inconvenient facts, you think the french are
all a bunch of corrupt cowards. Talk about an argument! The only hard
fact is you know nothing about french or any european politics. Incidentally,
you wouldn´t think it, but I´m personally not a huge fan of
Chirac´s administration, for political reasons that have nothing
to do with Iraq or the US. But I won´t stand for idiotic France
or Europe bashing just as you won´t stand for stupid America bashing.
> 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.
Yes and no. The SPD (german social democrat party; Schröder´s
party) and the Greens aren´t at the height of popularity at the
moment, I´ll give you that. However, the main opposition parties
(CDU/CSU; christian democrats) aren´t very brilliant either. I won´t
go into details (that´s a whole new topic) but I wouldn´t
say Schröder´s with his back against the wall by a long shot.
> 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".
What are "corrupt ties"? What exactly do you mean? Smokescreening
again, aren´t you Phil? And no, I didn´t say everyone else
was "just as bad", I said everyone else was just as involved.
Unlike you, I tend to reserve my judgment on who´s done what until
I know all the facts.
>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.
Not if your posts are anything to judge by, you don´t.
>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.
Well, even if that were true (which I very much doubt, though I´ll
have to look it up) how come the dollar´s on a devaluation spree
(btw, I notice you didn´t respond to that assessment either)?
>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.
Fair enough. So what does that tell you about America´s glorious
economy?
>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.
Oh, I was completely aware of that fact. The cars built there are for
the american market, not for the european one, so it does make sense to
build them there, just like american firms build for the european markets
in Europe. But I wasn´t talking about that. I was talking about
GM and Opel. The Opel jobs are not going to America. From what I read
in the press, they´ll probably be going to Trollhättan (Volvo
plant) in Sweden. The german Ford jobs are already there.
>"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,
Another misconception. It´s not about "irrational" labor
laws. No, the problem over here is not labor law, it´s basically
the fact that firms pay half the social benefits of their employees (thereby
increasing overall labor cost) and also a tendency of the german IRS to
overregulate when it comes to accountancy etc..
>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.
Phew, what else can I say but: untrue. Completely untrue. Europe has its
problems, but it´s not "in decline", and it certainly
hasn´t been in decline "for 20+ years". There wouldn´t
be a european economy if that were true.
>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.
Another smokescreen fake issue: you´re inferring that the US invaded
Iraq only because Saddam was a murderous dictator. I very much doubt that.
If that was true, they´d have to invade half the countries on this
globe. The US and the UK invaded Iraq because they alledged a. he had
weapons of mass destruction that could reach Britain within 48 minutes
b. he had ties to Al Quaeda and 9/11 and c. he alledgedly broke the last
UN resolutions that ordered him to disarm. All three of these allegations
were contested by the French, the Russians, the Germans, the UN inspectors
(including a few knowledgeable americans) and god knows how many other
countries. And that´s the reason they refused to help the US. Especially
France knew how the whole thing would blow up in the American´s
faces, since we had mostly the same situation in Algeria in the late fifties/early
sixties, so you can´t say we didn´t warn you. Sure enough,
as it turned out, all these states were right. No WMD, no 9/11 ties, no
broken UN resolution. So what´s the bottom line of the Iraq invasion?
America has lost credibility in the world on a massive scale, it alienated
many important allies (including Germany, which is quite a feat by itself,
given the german adoration for America before the Iraq war), it´s
left having to occupy a country in uproar which already cost them more
than a thousand casualties and the Iraqi people a few hundred thousand,
it will have to station troops there for the next few years, thereby wasting
valuable resources and it also provided every nutcase muslim terrorist
on the face of the earth with a huge great big target and a reason to
rally around bin Laden.
>Therefore, simple logic
Simple indeed ....
> dictates that, had it been up to you and to France, Saddam wouldn't
have had to go. He'd still be in power.
Possible. Ask Bush senior why he didn´t invade Iraq in `91. Could
it be he had a reason for that?
>We "made" him go. And I for one am glad that wedeh, did.
Oh you can bet I´m glad of that too, because that´s the only
good news in this whole godawfull mess.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Dear Toby in Berlin,
You asked:
>>"Oh, and why shouldn't Palestinians insist on the right of
return?"The simple reason that Palestinians should not insist on
any "right of return", is because while the Palestinians may
be entitled to "return" to a future Palestinian state (once
said state is established), that apparently is not enough for them. What
the Palestinians plainly want, is to come back to exactly the same houses
they fled in 1948 when the State of Israel was established. That land
is now the rightful property of the State of Israel, as the Palestinians
know full well. Therefore, what the Palestinians clearly want is not at
all "their own state"; rather, what they want is to establish
their own state on land that is owned by and is the property of Israel.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why this would be clearly
and utterly unacceptable to the Israelis. What the Palestinians want,
in effect, is not a separate state of their own, but rather to kick out
the Israelis and to nullify the results of the 1948 U.N. Partition. That's
unacceptable. It ain't gonna happen -- not in this lifetime, or any other
lifetime, either. It's totally unacceptable.
>>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.
No, the State of Israel regards all Jews on the planet as being ELIGIBLE
for Israeli citizenship. If Israel as a nation wants to allow any Jew
to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen, that's Israel's right
as a nation to make that decision. >>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? Jews had the right to establish the State of Israel because (a)
the British, who occupied and controlled and had rightful possession of
the land, stated as far back as 1917 (31 years before Israel's birth)
in the Balfour Declaration that they intended to provide for separate
Jewish and Palestinian states, and because (b) the United Nations (which
Yurupeans regard as being "The Voice of the Almighty") officially
declared and ratified Israel's establishment in 1948. >>And where
is it written that the victor of a war can seize enemy territory in perpetuity?
I suggest that you take that argument to your Chancellor. Mr. Schroeder
recently went on record as assuring Poland that Germany had no plans or
intentions to ask for the return of Polish lands that were seized in WW2
from ethnic German families who had lived on Polish soil for hundreds
of years. I haven't exactly noticed Britain expressing any eagerness to
improve relations with Spain by returning Gibraltar, or to improve relations
with Argentina by returning the Falkland Islands.
>>How much of Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan do America, Britain
and France own?
Zero.
Toby in Berlin,
>>Intelligent and reasonable sanctions are effective, if they are
not why then was Saddam wriggling so hard to get out of them?
It depends on what ones' definition of "intelligent" and "reasonable"
are. I personally felt that the existing sanctions were reasonable and
intelligent, while the Yurupeans were increasingly proclaiming that the
sanctions were "murdering" Iraqis. Saddam was attempting to
wriggle out of the sanctions so that he could resume building WMDs. >>Why
did he have no weapons of mass destruction?
I presume because his scientists (knowing the fate that lay in store for
them if they reported anything less than total success) lied to him and
told him that Iraq really did have WMDs when in fact they didn't.
>>Could there have been another way to get rid of Saddam?
I suppose that one could holler "Lock onto Saddam's coordinates,
Scotty, and beam him straight to the brig", but I personally doubt
the effectiveness of this.>>Velvet revolutions have happened in
Europe, why not elsewhere? Probably because Saddam and his family and
cronies were holding most of the guns and heavy weaponry and had no intention
of ending up like Erich Honecker.>>With sufficient will and application
surely some less harmful alternative could have been dreamed up.
I am open to alternatives. However, in the 13 years since 1991, I have
yet to see any other, less harmful alternative suggested or dreamed up,
other than spending another twenty years patiently waiting and hoping
for Saddam to die in his sleep.
Michel Bastian, France
To Charles Warren:
>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.
Hey. you´re actually right for once! The EFA project is really a
catastrophe, which is why France pulled out of it early and built its
own aircraft :-). However, this is one european high tech project that
didn´t work (well, it did work out in the end, but I agree with
you: it was way past due and much too expensive, it´s not inadequate
though, it can function as a ground strike bomber and it´s capabilities
as an air superiority fighter are pretty much ok), how about the others
that did? How about the Tiger Helicopter, the airbus transport airplane,
numerous cooperation projects in the naval sector (latest news: I hear
the Brits have a plan to build a carrier, possibly in cooperation with
the French naval yards at Nantes) and in the army sector (german, british
and french tanks, for example; ever heard of the "Fuchs" anti-ABC
tank of the Bundeswehr? No? Well you should, the american army in Iraq
actually considered using them in the war because they don´t have
anything like it).
> Which goes to the basic problem. European mandarin elites
Please enlighten me: what are "mandarin elites"? I might be
wrong but I was under the impressions that mandarins were actually chinese,
not european....
> 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.).
Errm, no, not quite Charles. SAAB, BAC, FIAT, Marcel Dassault (Mirage
is a type of aircraft, not a company) CASA, and all the other european
firms would not mind european projects, since they wouldn´t take
away jobs, they´d create them. Actually, all these firms you mentioned
already have their running productions, and many of those are running
out. Most of the new projects wouldn´t change that since long term
planning is the norm in aircraft development. Indeed, all these firms
are used to working in a european context, since that´s the only
way they´ll get anything done nowadays. It´s a question of
cost: few european nations or single firms have sufficient resources to
develop new projects on their own. The Rafale project in France was one
of the last, and it´s common wisdom in french industrial circles
that they wouldn´t go it alone again on a similar project nowadays.
It would simply be too expensive. So in the long run, most of these firms
have two options: close shop or work with other european firms for a conglomerate
of european armies.
> And no European politician or union will let that happen just so
France can feel important.
Not worth a comment, really.
Well, that having been said, there is still a lot of work to do in the
military sector and in that I might actually agree with you, Charles.
Jan Paul, USA
Toby, Berlin
Your comments about Jesus are frequently an argument used for a lot of
things. Forgiveness was what Jesus was here for. He was "on a mission"
and that was to provide the ultimate sacrafice for sin. Also, your point
about turning the other cheek is well taken for the context it was meant
to taken in which is in "one to one" relationships. Since we
work together, live together, and socialize together, the teachings of
Jesus are very important regarding those relationships. This is also the
type of attitude you should have if you are going to "win" people
over to your faith as the early disciples and apostles did. However, the
entire Bible needs to be read with three things in mind.
1. The role of nations regarding God's wishes
2. The role of mankind in general regarding God's will
3. The role of the individual and God's purpose for that individual as
he carries out God's will for his own life.
Each has a role. For example, in Deut. Chpt 9 we find God sending Israel
in to conquer a land. God, however, tells them it is not because Israel
is so good, but becasue the people they are to conquer are so evil. He
then went on to call Israel as stiff-necked people.
The teaching os Jesus, if you recall, were not to do away with the "law"
but to fullfil the "law." By your premise of appeasement, negotiation,
and submission to keep peace we would find ourselves in the situation
leading up to WW II more often than not. Evil people consider people who
are willing to negotiate or offer appeasement as weak people undeserving
of respect. They consider your giving of an inch their chance to demand
a mile. It is not because you are wrong, it is because there are just
some people who are so evil that they don't care how many thousands of
people they torture, kill, oppresss or rule as long as they get their
way. Look around and you will see that many of these people who have taken
power drive their people into such poverty that they eventually have to
start taking over other countries to get more resouces and as soon as
they destroy that economy, they seek another place to take over.
You mentioned the deaths in Iraq as being 100,000 which has been widely
reported and which was based on a small survey that was then projected
to estimate the total. Here is what is probably closer.
"Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq have been
far lower, never exceeding 16,000, and other experts immediately challenged
the new estimate, saying the small number of actual documented deaths
upon which it was based made the conclusions suspect."
However, say the 100,000 is correct. Then, are you saying the 300,000
Saddam Hussein killed deliberately were better than 100,000 accidently
killed in bombings so that we could say we "turned the other cheek?"
The loss of any innocent life is regretable. Yet, I offered my life in
service to my country during Viet Nam just as I am sure you would offer
your life to protect your country. I didn't want to lose my life, but
knew it was possible. However, as a "Child of God," I also knew
that this life is but a temporary piece of eternity. (I do not try to
guess, however, who else will be in eternity with me. I leave that up
to God.)
The U.S. is one of the few "war mongers" that doesn't keep what
it "conquers." (Take WW II for example) In other words the U.S.
seeks to let people choose their own destiny once they have the opportunity
to have elections and establish their own government because they know
that free and prosperous nations are less likely to commit acts of terrorism.
Like the Bible says, though, it is not because the U.S. is so good, but
rather, because nations that have torture and rape rooms, and steal the
money for food, and develop WMD that they use to kill thousands of their
own people, etc. are so evil.
It is also because nations have historically turned to the U.S. and asked
for help because it is powerfull. The Iraqi people in exile made this
request regarding Saddam Hussein for many years but, the U.S. didn't go
into Iraq until the U.N. and major intelligence agencies agreed Iraq was
a threat or at least violating sanctions and rules for inspections. (Right
or wrong, this was the belief of the U.N. including your country. Which,
I might add, was aware of some of Iraq's illegal weapons trades and thus
probably felt they were doing other more sinister things with other nations.)
The Bible didn't say nations don't have the right to preserve their nation
through military means. But, it does say nations have an obligation to
provide for the needs of their people and for "rulers" to conduct
themselves ethically in office. It does says people have an obilgation
to both the nation they live in and God, with God being the higer priority.
Keep in mind, God never said he was a "fair" God. He did say
he was a "just" God. This simply means that his laws are applied
to all people equally whether they like them or not and whether they think
they are fair or not. Your comments lead me to believe you are a kind,
caring, and loving person who doesn't want to see innocent people hurt,
don't want to see people killed, and would like all people to "get
along."
That is the wish of all people who love life. The difference in how we
deal with reality is where we rub each other the wrong way. Some people
beleive we can negotiate and others believe that "war" is the
only way some evil people will listen. History shows that when the "bad"
side isn't truly evil, negotiation can work. I beleive Lybia's recent
actions demonstrate this. However, when the "bad" are truly
evil, history has shown that negotiation to them is just another step
to their victory.
We can debate whether or not the war in Iraq was a war against a "bad"
but not "evil" regime and probably never reach agreement. However,
once the "war" began it would have been wrong to abandon the
people back to terrorism, oppression and mass murders by the returning
Saddam Hussein or his minions that would have taken power after we retreated.
You can even argue this may still happen and only history will tell. Hindsight
is so good for evaluation, but the foresight it takes to make decisions
is less clear and frequently distorted by mis-information such as Saddam's
desire to convince his own people he still had WMD so they would be afraid
to attempt another revolt. It was his fault that he did such a good job
of fooling his own people that he also fooled the major intelligence agencies
and the U.N. to the point that they unanimously passed the resolution
the U.S. used to enter Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Toby, continue to speak about the feelings you have because free societies
need the debate like you offer to act as a check and balance system in
the actions of societies. However, it is also important to realize that
some of these issues are so complex and filled with so many agendas both
open and hidden that sometimes negotiation and appeasement are a waste
of time because we don't alway know what we are truly dealing with. And
don't make the mistake some do of using the teachings of Jesus as being
all inclusive of the Will of God for nations. Also, just because you can't
reach agreement with others doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right.
It could be that since perceptions are the driving force behind so many
decisions that you can't reach agreement becasue the inherent way you
view things is different.
You mentioned the struggle between Israel and Palestine. How do you negotiate
when Hamas says the only solution is the death of all Jews. That doesn't
sound like very acceptable negotiation if you are a Jew. Hopefully the
new Palestian government will not include Hamas but Hamas certainly is
trying to be a part of the new government. That struggle has actually
been going on for thousands of years ever since the Philistines came down
the coast conquering and were stopped by Egypt and settled in the Gaza
strip and immediately started wars with the hill country of Israel. That
nation eventually became the nation of Palestine, but the animosity never
stopped. So how do you negotiate something where one side believes the
only solution is the elemination of the other side? And, if you do reach
agreement, how do you enforce it? With the U.N.? Since that hasn't been
very successful in the past it probably wouldn't be in the future. I do
beleive that Israel and Palestine can reach agreement but not if Hamas
is allowed to continue their activities.
Your comparison of capitalism to Islam is interesting since capitalists
are made up of people of Islamic, Jewish, Christan, Buda, and other faiths.
Capitalsim would be better compared to Socialsim and Communism. I find
it intersting that many of the "new" European nations are using
captialism rather than socialism to provide the tax revenues needed for
social programs. After all, the various types of government and economic
programs are simply different ways of providing tax revenues to pay for
social programs that a society wants. History, so far, has shown that
capitalism has done a better job of providing the tax revenues in the
long run. Most countries using socialism and communism have had problems
in the long run providing the incentives to keep and grow business which
in turn hires the people who in turn actually provide tax revenues since
all tax on business is passed on to the consumer anyway. Look at Slovakia
that is starting Social Security using private savings accounts because
history has shown other systems fail in the long run. Why have these countries
that had classless societies where everyone was equal decided capitalism
is better? It certainly isn't because capitalism is more "fair."
It is because as unfair as captialism is, it provides more tax revenues
in the long run than other systems. Tax revenues in turn can pay for social
programs, defense, transportation systems, etc. Capitalist countries want
social programs just as much as socialist countries. History again will
come into play as we see whether the system Germany uses works better
than the systems Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, etc are adopting. But it is
interesting that people, once given the chance for choice, have chosen
so many elements of capitalism. Percetptions? Perceptions are reality
to those who have those perceptions and only the success or failure revealed
by history will change their minds in most cases.
Good intentions don't often translate into success. Over a 40 year period
the U.S. poured 5 trillion dollars into a war on poverty. The number in
poverty at the beginning was 18% and after 40 years and that 5 trillion
dollars the number was still 18%. France and Germany have both done much
to reduce unemployement. They have spent billions and still have high
unemployment. Their intentions are the best in the world. Ireland had
an unemployment rate of 15% and about 15 years ago started using some
of the things capitalism proposes. One is to encourage business and the
wealthy who invest in business. They lowered their corporate tax rate
from 50% to 12.5% and now have an unemployment rate of 4.3% and have cut
their national debt in half. Now, most of "new" Europe have
cut their rates to half that of the U.S., France, and Germany and business
from all three are going to "new" Europe and Ireland as well
as other countries around the world that are offering varying types of
capitalism with better business environments and more encouragement for
wealthy to live and invest in their countries. Fair? Probably not, but
it is reality.
Fair that we have to compete as nations for business and tax revenues
that pay for social programs. Fair, that so many nations are choosing
to leave socialism and communism for capitalism? Probably not, but it
is a reality. Fair that classless, equal treating societies are being
pushed into economic distress? Probably not, but it is reality at least
in some cases. Is it fair that capitalism caters to greed and ego and
power by providing the incentives so many people want in order to feel
they are being rewarded for inventing, innovating, and increasing the
productivity of businesses. Probably not, but it is reality. However,
remember since no government can be "fair" since there will
always be groups who feel they are being subjected to the will of others,
then the next best thing is for a government to be just and let people
move to where they feel the government best meets their needs. This movement
will determine which government is the best suited for meeting the needs
of the most people. Unfortunately we still have places around the world
where people aren't free to move to another country and another form of
government. You are and I am. I chose capitalism and the U.S. You have
chosen Germany. We may both be right based on our perceptons.
Michel Bastian, France
To Charles Warren:
Oops, one little correction in my last post:
>A pooled European aviation industry would mean workers in SAAB, BAC,
Nope, BAC doesn´t exist anymore. They´re called BAe (British
Aerospace) nowadays. Sorry, forgot about that.
Dr Mark, USA
Well, look at it this way, at least we only have four more
years and then, thank God, he's gone. Of course, by that time, he may
have ruined planet Earth as we know it. As for you Bible-thumping rednecks
out there, hate to burst your bubble, but evolution continues to march
on, like it (or deny it) or not. Remember the Animal Planet channel and
other nature shows where the crocodile grabs the slowest wildebeest and
devours him as they rush across the river? Well, guess what? That's evolution
in action! That's right, it's not some satanic concept that we educated
"liberals" thought up to torture your little brains...it really
exists. I know it's easier to belive in the tooth fairy or the easter
bunny, but when you accept reality as it is, life is really much easier.
As for my fellow Democrats, just remember, never, never underestimate
the absolute stupidity of the American electorate. Hopefully, next time,
assuming the Republikans don't rig the election, we might just be able
to repair the damage Bush and his band of thugs have caused. For you Red
state Rednecks, just keep those rose-colored glasses on as you go your
smug, atavistic, sanctimonious way.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Toby in Berlin:
RE: your post in which you commented:
>> 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).....
We knew then, and know even more certainly now, that the entire Japanese
nation was ready to fight quite literally to the death in 1945. We knew
this (or believed it with a very high degree of certainty) at the time,
in 1945, because the pattern of Japanese behavior had already become known
during the course of the war. Japanese soldiers fought literally to the
last man and the last bullet and were rarely, if ever, taken prisoner,
because they committed suicide or preferred to be killed in battle rather
than surrender. This was not an isolated occurrence, it was a common pattern
during the war in the Pacific. On Saipan, even Japanese civilian noncombatants
committed mass suicide, including women with children. We know even more
emphatically now that the Japanese people were preparing for a bloody
fight to the death, because of the postwar discovery of the Japanese government's
extensive plans for using the Japanese civilian population to fight American
troops to the death.>>how would the killing of a tiny fraction of
their population stop them?Apparently it did indeed stop them, because
the Japanese would not and did not surrender until after two atomic bombs
had already been dropped. The killing of a tiny fraction of their population
stopped the Japanese because it made clear to the Japanese people, and
especially to their military government and their Emperor, that all their
suicidal insane bravery and code of "Bushido" could not prevent
their being defeated by an opponent possessing a weapon against which
they had no defense. i How can you put a people off their intended aim,
if they are willing to die, by killing them? It's an illogical argument.You
put a people off their intended aim by making it brutally clear to them
that despite their insane fanaticism, despite their suicidal and homicidal
fervor, their willingness and eagerness to die in their cause won't change
the outcome -- you brutally demonstrate that all their fanaticism will
be for nothing, that they still will not win, that they will lose anyway
and that their deaths will be meaningless and for nothing. That's how
the US defeated Japan. All of the Japanese kamikazes, all of their suicidal
"banzai" charges, couldn't change the outcome. When the Emperor
realized that his countrymen would die for nothing, he overruled his military
and ordered them to surrender.
Robert, NY
What can the world expect from a second bush term? More
of the same.
What should the EU demand of the US? To start out, ask them to remove
their troops from your countries. NATO has no purpose. Without their European
bases the US will find foreign military adventures much more expensive.
I see no reason for Europe to become more militaristic. I'm not a pacifist
in an absolute sense but right now it seems to be the direction that most
people should be headed. Europe should work harder to become less dependent
upon Middle Eastern oil. I know its difficult but you drive to much and
are starting to allow the best public transportation system in the world
deteriorate. Let the US bankrupt itself trying to dominate the Middle
East. Just make certain that everybody knows that you don't support it.
Nash Ribas, Spain
To Eddie:
I am so proud of kicking out a liar government. Spaniards just do not
like liars politicians. Former government not just supported a war against
90% of public opinion but they tried to cheat people a few hours before
a national election. I don`t think much people changed his vote because
of the terrorist attack. Some people who usually do not vote decided to
do it because Aznar government hide the truth. Actually, Aznar party (PP)
did not lost many votes...
In Spain, after a terrotist attack people give strong support to the government
in office. Unfortunately we have experience about it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Yes, that first post was the best retort I've
seen in quite a while.
Dr Mark, USA
Gee, was my message THAT inflammatory?? Guess the truth
hurts too much.
Dan LKauffman, USA
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.
********************************************************
Yeah I guessed you noticed that the Soviet Union is no longer around.
Wonder how that came about? Poland drove them to their knees? ;-)
J David L, USA
President Bush is an honorable man, doing a difficult job,
extrodinarily well.
The world ought to get on board with what he is doing rather than demand
from him.
A liberal becon once said
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for
your country"
It is time now to state
"Ask not what the USA can do for you, ask what you can do for the
USA"
In terms of contributions to freedom, security, economic development,
scientific advancement... the USA has contributed more the the world's
benefit than anyother nation.
Jay, France
Hi,
Perhaps we can look at this in a radically different way. We can start
by suspending wishful thinking.
We can talk about liberalism, neo-liberalism, neo-con, Democrat, conservative
left, right, "finding the middle ground" "being a moderate"
and all manner of platitudes and denials to the albeit painful but objective
reality of the situation. And in my opinion, the basic reality of the
situation is this:
America has had a loooong history of invading other countries under the
pretext of introducing democracy (which is a contradiction from the start)and
it has done so brutally and for no other reason but to reinforce it's
economic power base. Read one book among many called "Killing Hope:
US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. by William Blum
and the facts speak for themselves. The difference now is you have an
incredibly dangerous set of individuals who believe that God is talking
to them and that they have a divine role to steer America into ever greater
forms of "globalisation" or as Bush senior called it: A New
World Order. Mix this in with a powerful lobby base for the needs of Israel
then it is clear that NOTHING anyone says is going to make a blind bit
of difference to their view of reality. I don't want to change their view
- they have a right to it. But I sure as hell want to defend my own view
which I am endeavouring to align towards freedom and truth. Therefore
I must reject lies and not participate in those who lie with impunity
and on my behalf.
But there will be many who will simply explain away such invasive foreign
policy as "defending freedom" or fighting communsim or the latest
spectre of the "war against terrorism" which is entirely fabricated
tool to achieve particular economic goals for the US hawks. It is no conspiracy
theory - it is simply the way geo-politics has always worked - read The
Prince by Machiavelli or the Art of War by Sun Tzu, Bush's organ grinder
Karl Rove certainly has.
This is not new and of course, Europe isn't lilly-white in this respect
either. The appalling deceptions taking place may indeed be sourced from
Europe. Nevertheless, it just so happens that the US is taking on the
mantle of adolescent dictator at this time, through an historical imperative
which was formed during the Second World War. As then, Pearl Harbour was
not a surprise attack. There is conclusive evidence for all to see that
it was engineered by the US exactly as it was with the tragedy of the
September 11 twin Tower attacks. It is largely about covert manipulation
and a very real fascism that was always there working through the auspices
of the intelligence services and the National Security Agency, but which
is now becoming considerably overt thanks to the extremely handy event
of the demise of the WTC.
Those even mildly interested in looking behinf the BS fed to us by the
t.v. may like to read the website newamericancentury.org from the PNAC
publication: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources For a New Century" which is the most blatent piece of imperialism
I have ever read. It is these guys who are in control, where an invasion
for Iraq was on the cards back in 1998 for God's sake. The plan is all
there in black and white. Iran will be next then Syria. It is all there
to research and to understand if we are willing to pull away the illusion
of McDonalds and Disneyland which says more about America's innate predeliction
for subjectivity and the consequent ease in which the majority of the
public believes in authority than any notion of freedom. Is the lab rat
free when he has no idea that behind his warm bedding and daily dose of
chemicals he is in a carefully constructed cage?
Meanwhile, we have more than 100,000 Iraqis dead (a large percentage children
I might add)under a breath-takingly arrogant propaganda label: "Enduring
freedom" while the US military, if not busy having fun with torture
are trying their luck with napalm and comitting atrocities left, right
and centre. What kind of God would ask for such horrible carnage to be
repeated on innocent children? Have we learned nothing? It would appear
not. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a lesson that is not being
learned.
Americans are being duped through a social system that is continually
dumbing sown it's citizens and thus they are willingly giving away ever
tightening controls on their freedoms under the guise of "protection."
(Osma under your bed routine..) Visit the department of defense and look
at the recent executive laws and the powers ready and waiting for FEMA.
Basically, America's so-called freedoms don't exist anymore just like
the pantomime of an election process.
So,what can we do? I've asked myself this a few times.
I think in order to see the situation objectively we MUST be prepared
to give up our precious notions and subjective knee-jerk beliefs that
the US is a bringer of freedom and apple-pie altruism with a dinky cherry
on top. So, while some will prefer to cling to decades of propaganda others
may decide to do a little research in the age of information and decide
for themselves. Once we have begun to see the most blatent lies which
form the foundation of the invasion of Iraq, 9/11 and almost every other
foreign event in the last century we may come to the conclusion that you
and I are merely pawns on a chessboard to be used as cannon fodder or
manipulated through subtle and not so subtle propaganda which is on display
in the most objectional way in most of the US media, Fox news being the
worst. Then it may lead us to into understanding exactly WHY we are in
the situation we are now. If we truly understand the situation we are
facing then we may decide to make some choices that are not based on fantasy
but on fact.
And one fact, for starters, is that the Bush Admnistration and different
factions within lied continuously and blatently about the events of 9/11
which is the greatest deception since Pearl Harbour.
Read University Professor David Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbour for
one reference.
Who knows, when we are able to face the awful truth that the US and many
within European governments have absolutely no interest whatsoever in
peace or the "public good" we may then to begin to SEE the situation
as it is, not as we would like it to be. Then maybe we can apply the concept
of a free-world to ourselves and let it radiate. Until that time, we can
bang on about a freeworld till hell freezes over and Bush and his despots
will thank you for it.
Thanks for the opportunity to give my two cents worth.
Robert, NY
What should the rest of the world expect of the 2nd bush
administration? More of the same. He has "political capital"
remember?
What should they demand of it? Please remove your troops from our countries.
NATO is an anachronism. Dissolve it.
Michel Bastian, France
> I have to disagree with you on that statement because
the citizens of our red-states debate our policies and discuss our problems,
take sides on talk radio, write millions of letters to the editor, blog
about them, send screeds to our congressmen, propose moderate and well
as hair-brained reform schemes for every problem under the sun.The red-state
newspaper Nashville Tennesseean questions the death penalty:http://tennessean.com/opinion/archives/04/11/62062047.shtmlI
could cite thousands of red-state citizen authored newspaper articles,
essays, books and other writings debating our problems and issues, but
I shall refrain from a fancypancian list mania.
It seems I used a wrong word to describe the neo-con americans (well,
those that voted for Bush, anyway). "Red state american" is
a bit misleading because there are of course dissenters even in the red
states. Also, I wrote this as a retort to Phil who seemingly can´t
stop enthusing about the american economy being the greatest and most
powerful etc. etc. in the world, which is a view I can´t share.
> Your aurgument seems to boil down to economic socialism vs. capitalism
as the "right" choice. I'm sure it does sound arrogant to hear
Americans speaking of their economy as "the best." However,
I believe that when we say that we are really saying that the American
economy is the best economy for the United States, that the United States
does not want to adapt a European economy of social welfare.
Nobody´s asking them to, and they´re welcome to it if it works
for them. However, I as a european prefer my social market economy for
Europe. BTW, don´t confuse "social" with "socialist",
many americans tend to do this. We´re not commies, don´t worry.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian:
You stated that "We´re just not commited to dumb lemmingdom,
which is something the kind of americans you´re talking about obviously
are incapable or unwilling to understand." it appears to me that
the hysterical screaming by Europeans against George Bush for Bush's having
(rightfully, in my opinion) terminated US involvement in the Kyoto Treaty
and ICC Treaty, is the pure lemmingdom that you speak of. You also stated
that "We have demanded nothing, and nobody asked the US to sign away
their sovereignty." If you spend time on the Kyoto Board (as I believe
you do) or on other Internet forums where the subject comes up, you should
realize that the Kyoto Agreement would have mandated huge fines upon the
US if we were unable to meet unrealizable and unrealistic emissions targets.
Kyoto is not an environmental treaty, Kyoto is a wealth-transference agreement.
Europeans have demanded that the US sign the Kyoto Accord in order that
they may impose their lifestyle choices upon America. Spend any time on
most any bulletin board and you will see this European attitude blatantly
displayed, with Europeans and other non-Americans hurling ridiculous demands
-- "You must force your automakers to stop producing SUVs, you must
cancel the vehicle registrations of SUVs, you must force citizens out
of their cars and onto public transit, you must raise your gas prices
to $5 a gallon like we do, you must raise taxes and spend billions of
dollars on mass transit", yada yada yada. It's a blatant attempt
to force a non-American lifestyle onto Americans, masquerading as a supposed
"environmental solution". The ICC would have imposed even more
drastically upon American sovereignty by subjecting defendants to trial
in a court under rules that fail to guarantee American defandants the
rights that they would have automatically had, had they been tried in
an American court. Americans being tried for any such crimes, must be
tried in an American court, under American rules of evidence and cross-examination.
The ICC Treaty further would have required that, should American courts
fail to bring a US citizen to trial, the ICC would have superimposed its
authority upon the US to forcibly bring to trial an American citizen whom
US courts had declined to prosecute. The Internet is already full of shrieking
European voices demanding that the ICC "try" Tony Blair for
his having helped liberate Iraq, and demanding that the US "hand
over" people such as Henry Kissinger (one of the greatest Secretaries
of State that the US has ever had). I am dis-inclined to agree to the
creation of an unelected, unaccountable "Uber-court" that could
run roughshod over American defenadants' rights and which could be manipulated
by European Socialists into potentially declaring every US action in every
conflict since 1945 to be a "war crime".
In all these instances, the US would have had a major say in any decisions
(including Kyoto and the ICC). Actually I have a hunch that one of the
reasons behind the american refusal of joining these agreements, indeed
behind the whole unilateralism doctrine, was the fact that they didn´t
have 100% control over everything, only about 60 to 70%. And that´s
where OUR sovereignty comes in. We don´t like the US lording it
over on us either, you know, especially with someone like Bush in power.
You asked "Fair enough. So what does that tell you
about America´s glorious economy?" It tells me that America's
economy is far more efficient than those of Europe, which is one reason
why European unemployment in places like Germany and France is still stubbornly
stuck at levels that are far higher than that of America. Europeans have
been fretting over their "Eurosclerotic" economy for 20+ years.
It's nothing new. The problems in European economies are well-known, and
irrational labor laws are one of the biggest reasons for those problems.
Europeans stubbornly refuse to grasp the fact that if you make it sufficiently
frustrating, time-consuming and expensive for businesses to operate and
create jobs, the business community will throw up its hands, take its
money and the jobs it creates, and go somewhere else more hospitable.
The only way to genuinely create jobs is not by legislating 35-hour work
weeks, or by piling tons of oppressive legislation onto the backs of business,
but rather by making it easier to permanently fire people. If businesses
are going to be stuck with paying enormous wages and benefits to people
who turn out not to be as productive as was hoped, then businesses will
be tremendously reluctant to hire anyone unless they absolutely have to.
European labor is outrageously expensive, virtually immobile, resistant
to change, and almost impossible to fire. Hence, businesses are heading
to other parts of the world to conduct their business. GM did not "mismanage"
Opel, either, in my view; the costs of doing business are enormous, and
GM needs to reduce their costs. Incidentally even Volkswagen warned labor
unions that if costs were not reduced, Volkswagen could move its factories
elsewhere.
I previously stated that..."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."
You replied that...."No, it hasn´t become apparent, Bush purposefully
played on the american population´s prejudice that the europeans
might have such sinister designs." Actually, it has indeed become
apparent to me. And it was not "prejudice" on my part, because
Europeans do indeed have such "sinister designs". Many Europeans
do not even bother to conceal their intentions, least of all on the many
bulletin boards of the Internet. They want to impose the Kyoto Accord
on the US so that they can "force" us out of our SUVs, "force"
us to drive lilliputian little death-trap vehicles, "force"
us to hand over millions of dollars as "punishment" for driving
the vehicles of our choice. They want to impose the ICC on the US so that
they can "force" us to hand over Bill Clinton to the Hague for
"punishment" for Clinton's having bombed the Serbs without first
getting "The Official Okey-Dokey" from the U.N., they want to
"force" us to hand over George Bush for "punishment"
for Bush's having liberated Iraq from Sadly Insane Hussein. And if the
US declines to meekly hand over these men, why, then, the Yurupeans plan
to use the ICC to "override" the US justice system.
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Debate - Page 2/12
|