Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Do American and European values differ?
| Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference? |  |
Debate - Page 6/13
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Sue, USA
To Mike Booth:
Terrorists attack civilians without warning, believe in the concept of
collective guilt, and don't follow any rules of war engagement.
Michel Bastian, France
To Mike Booth:
> The word/concept we see most these days, the subject of articles,
programs, discussions at all levels, from coffee shops to international
political forums is: terrorism.
But I have never seen anybody even try to define the word in today's complex
and truculent context.
Could someone please tell me: What is terrorism? Who are the terrorists?
Is it just desperate Arab kids who tape explosives to their bodies?
We must clear up these issues before we we can start discussing what to
do about them, I submit.
Good point. Obviously, you understand what the war on terror is all about.
Tell the Bush administration. They obviously didn´t.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike Booth in Spain wrote: "The word/concept we see
most these days, the subject of articles, programs, discussions at all
levels, from coffee shops to international political forums is: terrorism.
But I have never seen anybody even try to define the word in today's complex
and truculent context.
Could someone please tell me: What is terrorism?"
Sure thing, Mike. I am happy to help.
Here is what Webster-Miriam's Online Dictionary has to say about the definition
of terrorism:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
And here is what Webster-Miriam's Online Dictionary has to say about the
definition of terror. Please pay special attention to comment #4:
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror,
from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein
to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the
terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling
person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a
population or government into granting their demands <insurrection
and revolutionary terror>
I would go even further and stipulate that terrorism is the DELIBERATE,
INTENTIONAL, KNOWING and SYSTEMATIC use of terror, directed KNOWINGLY,
SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY against civilian and other non-military
targets, for the explicit purpose of sowing terror among the civilian
populace.
Mike asks: "Who are the terrorists?". I reply: Terrorists are
people who deliberately, knowingly, intentionally slaughter civilians
in acts of terror and horrific violence. People who deliberately crash
civilian airliners into civilian office buiildings are terrorists. People
who deliberately set off bombs in civilian marketplaces, knowing that
the result will be horrific civilian casualties, are Terrorists. People
who cut off the heads of civilians whose political views they disagree
with are Terrorists. People who deliberately slaughter elderly and defenseless
people at prayer, who deliberately murder families at Bar Mitzvahs, who
plant bombs on school buses, who machine-gun people in thier beds, are
Terrorists.
Please note that the fact that the people dying are civilians, does not
automatically make their killers Terrorists. The key determinant is Intent.
As is often said on the TV show "Law And Order", Intent follows
the Bullet. If civilians were deliberately and intentionally targeted
for death, by people who knew full well that the victims were civilians
and who killed them anyway, then that's Terrorism. Civilians die in wartime,
and that's tragic and unfortunate, but it's not necessarily terrorism,
not unless they were deliberately and knowingly targeted for death. If
their deaths were unintentional and accidental, then that's not Terrorism.
Accidental Death is not the same as Deliberate Homicide. And soldiers
die in wartime, but their deaths are not necessarily the result of terrorism,
because soldiers in uniform are considered in wartime are considered to
be legitimate targets. Mike also asked: "Who are the terrorists?
Is it just desperate Arab kids who tape explosives to their bodies?"
Well, first of all, in my opinion, Arab kids who tape explosives to their
bodies are not "desperate". Homicidal, yes. Suicidal, definitely.
But "desperate"? No. Not at all. An act of "Desperation"
would be a peaceful hijacking committed to draw attention to ones' cause.
An act of "Desperation" would be to stage a sit-in at a politician's
office. A homicide/suicide bombing is not, in my opinion, an act of "desperation".
It's an Act of Mass Murder.
As for the question of who the terrorists are, Arab terrorism certainly
springs to the forefront of my mind, but there are certainly others. The
Tamil Tigers. The Sikh terrorists who blew an Air Canada jet with 300+
people on it out of the sky. The IRA. The Red Brigades. The Baader-Meinhoff
group. The Chechnyans who killed Russian schoolkids. The Indonesian Muslim
terrorists who slaughtered Australian tourists.
Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain
I only want to say that I've been feeling like an orphan since 9/11. What about the Europeans that don't agree, for instance, with the Irak War because we deeply believe in the American values? For me, George W. Bush is not America. For me, the real Americans are personalities like Washington,Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Martin Luther King and all the things and ideas they still represent... During General Franco's dictatorship, when I was a child, my parents taught me the history of the United States, its values. In the late sixties and the first seventies, too many Spaniards like my parents, and of course, my whole family, dreamt with a country ruled by "liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness". And now, we've been betrayed!!! Who represent us? Why we have to choose between America and Europe? I will not ever do it, I think it is nonsense!!!
antti vainio, finland
to Bill Irving:
some weird Scottish, German, Swiss and other middle-Europeans started
the industrialism in Finland but instead of making us slaves they imported
new ideas, get wealthy and - this is important - took care of the people
who worked for them. Compared to some other parts of the Europe and the
world, we got very decent imperiolists. American companies are not decent,
they don't give a flying fudge about people who work for them. at least
in Europe some of them try to be decent. working for that kind of employer
is, as far as I can see, all right. Americans demand asslicking and that's
very un-European
When Donald Rumsfeld made his famous quip about the old and new Europe
he didn't know how much he united Europe (thank's, Rummy). in Europe we
who live in up north are peaceful people and considered as pacifists but
be called wimps by an American slob is a bit heavy. in Finland and Iceland
we are proud to be old Europeans. in Finland we stopped Stalin (that's
couple of years of total war and constant bombing instead of two tall
buildings which were apparently not so well built), the Icelandic didn't
have to because they don't have a common border but they never stopped
been vikings, actually.
we can't really show our wimpness mano a mano because nowadays only Americans
who travel are marines. they don't need a passport or have to be able
to communicate in foreign languages. I'm glad we have those only around
US embassies.
it's kind of meaningless to let steam out here because only nice Americans
read what mr. Garton Ash writes
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "American companies
are not decent, they don't give a flying fudge about people who work for
them." Just out of curiousity, how many American companies have you
ever worked for, and what were their names? What is the basis in fact
for your claim that American companies "don't give a flying fudge
about people who work for them"?
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Americans demand asslicking and that's
very un-European". Personally I very much doubt that Americans or
American businesses demand 'ass-licking' of any kind.
However, they DO expect and demand that employees of American companies
(a) actually show up for work (b) on time (c) properly dressed (d) with
a proper work ethic (e) and sober (f) more than one day in a row. I've
been told that this is very "un-European", too.
Antti Vainion in Finland wrote: "In Europe we who live in up north
are peaceful people and considered as pacifists....." Sure, if you
don't count all the Northern Europeans who are in jail for domestic violence
and drunk-and-disorderly charges.
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "....but (to) be called wimps by an
American slob is a bit heavy". I don't think Rumsfeld was referring
to you folks in Northern Europe when he made his "Olde Europe"
comment. I think he was intending to refer to Germany and France. And
I don't think Rumsfeld ever used the term "wimps". And if he
was indeed referring to Northern Europe/Scandinavia, I don't think he
would have used the term "wimps". It's not the most-accurate
term for Northern Europeans that he could have used. How about we substitute
the word "drunks", in place of the word "wimps"? What
do you think? Does "drunks" work better than "wimps"
for you?
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "In Finland we stopped Stalin (that's
couple of years of total war and constant bombing...". Yeah, well,
it wasn't all that difficult to stop Stalin's troops at the time, was
it? The Red Army wasn't much of a fighting force back then, were they?
This was right after Stalin's purges of the Soviet military, and before
Hitler's armies invaded the USSR and spent the first year or so clobbering
the Soviets.
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "...they" (U.S. Marines) "don't
need a passport or have to be able to communicate in foreign languages".
Well, I believe that's not totally accurate. I believe they do need a
passport in order to travel (although I could be wrong). As for communicating
in foreign languages, that isn't really a strong requirement. This is
because we pay taxes in America to send our U.S. Marines to travel to
different countries, see interesting new places, meet "interesting"
new people (like the Taliban) AND KILL THEM. Makes the conversation kind
of awkward, you see.
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "we can't really show our wimpness
mano a mano because nowadays only Americans who travel are marines."
Well, Antti, I'd personally be willing to travel to Finland. But no one
has really given me a compelling reason why I should do so, or told me
what I should hope to see there that's different from what I've seen before.
I've seen snow, I've seen ice, and I've seen drunks.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Americans demand asslicking
and that's very un-European". Personally I very much doubt that Americans
or American businesses demand 'ass-licking' of any kind.
However, they DO expect and demand that employees of American companies
(a) actually show up for work (b) on time (c) properly dressed (d) with
a proper work ethic (e) and sober (f) more than one day in a row. I've
been told that this is very "un-European", too.
Told by whom? Perhaps you should find out things for yourself instead
of listening to other people´s uninformed rants. Also, you should
remember you´re talking to a finn here. Does the name "Nokia"
ring a bell (no pun intended)? Do you know who leads the market in communication
hardware? No, it´s not the US, it´s Finnland. And did you
know that they have the best educational system in the whole darned world,
better by lightyears than the american one? No, of course you didn´t,
as usual.
> Sure, if you don't count all the Northern Europeans who are in jail
for domestic violence and drunk-and-disorderly charges.
You know, Phil, you´re quite remarkable. I bet that if I gave you
the name of any one country in the world, you could immediately name an
assorted prejudice.
> Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "....but (to) be called wimps
by an American slob is a bit heavy". I don't think Rumsfeld was referring
to you folks in Northern Europe when he made his "Olde Europe"
comment. I think he was intending to refer to Germany and France. And
I don't think Rumsfeld ever used the term "wimps". And if he
was indeed referring to Northern Europe/Scandinavia, I don't think he
would have used the term "wimps". It's not the most-accurate
term for Northern Europeans that he could have used. How about we substitute
the word "drunks", in place of the word "wimps"? What
do you think? Does "drunks" work better than "wimps"
for you?
To Antti: Do you want to revise that statement about "only good americans"
posting on this site ;-)?
> Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "In Finland we stopped Stalin
(that's couple of years of total war and constant bombing...". Yeah,
well, it wasn't all that difficult to stop Stalin's troops at the time,
was it? The Red Army wasn't much of a fighting force back then, were they?
This was right after Stalin's purges of the Soviet military, and before
Hitler's armies invaded the USSR and spent the first year or so clobbering
the Soviets.
Heh, interesting "view" of history. The finnish army handed
their behinds to a soviet force ten times stronger, the soviets lost 400.000
of their 600.000 men while the finns lost a bit more than 30.000. And
that wasn´t the first time they kicked the russians out of Finland.
"Drunkards" indeed. I wouldn´t want to cross those "drunkards"
on their own terrain, and neither should you if you had any sense.
> Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "...they" (U.S. Marines)
"don't need a passport or have to be able to communicate in foreign
languages". Well, I believe that's not totally accurate. I believe
they do need a passport in order to travel (although I could be wrong).
As for communicating in foreign languages, that isn't really a strong
requirement. This is because we pay taxes in America to send our U.S.
Marines to travel to different countries, see interesting new places,
meet "interesting" new people (like the Taliban) AND KILL THEM.
Makes the conversation kind of awkward, you see.
Indeed, it does.
> Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "we can't really show our wimpness
mano a mano because nowadays only Americans who travel are marines."
Well, Antti, I'd personally be willing to travel to Finland. But no one
has really given me a compelling reason why I should do so, or told me
what I should hope to see there that's different from what I've seen before.
I've seen snow, I've seen ice, and I've seen drunks.
Interesting company you seem to be keeping.
Claire, London, England, UK
Im From London England and to be honest no one likes americans, all u hear is people slagging them off and by Golly i LOVE IT ! cause i h8 em tooo.!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Well, Claire in London England, that's wonderful, because
the feeling's certainly mutual. I h8 you guys, too. As an American who
wrote in to "The Guardian" commented, "I HAVE VISITED YOUR
COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT".
However, I ought to be thanking and congratulating you. After all, had
it not been for "The Guardian's" wonderful little experiment
in trying to tell Americans who we're "supposed" to vote for,
George W. Bush might have easily lost Ohio -- and, with it, the race for
the Presidency.
"The Guardian" bought a voters' list of people in Ohio and encouraged
Brit socialists to write whining letters to U.S. voters telling us they
don't like Dubya and that therefore we "should" vote for the
"Euro-friendly" John Kerry. The experiment backfired, infuriated
Ohio voters (do the letters "MYOFB" mean anything to you?) and
probably boosted voter turnout for George W. Bush. Good job, Claire!!!
Mike Morrall, Birmingham, UK
To Phil Karasick
I read with interest your exchange with Mike Booth, but you don't seem
to appreciate where he and us other europeans are 'coming from'. Someone
with a name like Mike ( a Brit probably - you have mentioned the IRA )
living in Spain ( Google ETA to see what I mean ) has about 70 years experience
of terrorism to draw on. Personally last November was the 30th anniversary
of a terrorist attack on my city, and since 9/11 2 bombs ( thankfully
duds ) have been planted within a mile of where I live. We don't need
to look in a book to recognise terrorism. And we don't have to be US haters
to recognise the same old mistakes of the 1970's being played out again
Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
Jan Paul, USA
I happen to like Scandanavia
However, I notice the 2005 unemployment rate according to "Statistics
Finland" is 9.2% and this is worse than the last report for 2004
although most of the reason is an increase in the size of the labor force.
http://www.stat.fi/tup/tiedotteet/v2005/tiedote_017_2005-03-22_en.html
Norway has a 3.8% unemployment rate.
I would be interested in why Norway seems to be doing so much better with
employment. Don't they also have higher cost of labor?
Also, what is the trade situation with China for Scandanavian countries,
surplus of deficit. I see the EU is running a deficit with China with
companies leaving Germany, for example to move to China.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian:
Michel Bastian wrote: (a) "Does the name "Nokia" ring a
bell (no pun intended)?" Do you know who leads the market in communication
hardware? (b) "No, it´s not the US, it´s Finnland."
(c) "And did you know that they have the best educational system
in the whole darned world, better by lightyears than the american one?
No, of course you didn´t, as usual". (d) "You know, Phil,
you´re quite remarkable." (e) "I bet that if I gave you
the name of any one country in the world, you could immediately name an
assorted prejudice". (f) "Heh, interesting "view"
of history. The Finnish army handed their behinds to a Soviet force ten
times stronger, the Soviets lost 400.000 of their 600.000 men while the
Finns lost a bit more than 30.000." (g) "And that wasn´t
the first time they kicked the Russians out of Finland." (h) "Interesting
company you seem to be keeping."My responses:
(a) Yes, Nokia rings a bell. They're the cell-phone company that finally
got their act together after previously getting creamed by Ericsson of
Sweden. And they're successful in large part because the U.S. market is
the most open and competitive marketplace in the world. (b) It's spelled
"Finland", Michel. (c) 'Best educational system in the whole
darned world' according to who? I haven't noticed many Finns being awarded
Nobel Prizes. How about you? (d) Awww that's very sweet of you, Michel.
You must have been listening to the marketing slogan of the French Tourism
campaign to lure American tourists back to France - "Let's Fall In
Love Again". (e) What can I say, it's a gift! (f) Yes, and I already
explained why that was so. The Red Army was a disastrously disorganized
rabble at the time the Soviets fought the Finns, and the battlefield results
reflected that. Small wonder that the Finns kicked the Soviets' butts.
Stalin's purges of the Red Army's officer corps during the 1930s had turned
the Soviet armies into incompetent, poorly-led, poorly-equipped mobs led
by ideological hacks. The Soviets didn't begin to transform the Red Army
into a well-trained, disciplined fighting force until after they'd suffered
staggering defeats and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting
Hitler. (g) Nope, but it 'was' the LAST time. (h) I TOLD you I used to
live in Canada, right?
Jacob, Sweden
So let's summarize some of the main points of the debate
so far.
According to some of the less enlightened American people here:
* We're all irrational, self-indulgent America haters over here in Europe
* Europe will be transformed to a theocratic Muslim state any day now
* Pacifism, respect for human rights, and diplomacy are for weak European
sissies only
* America needs to obey no stinkin' international law since they have
more marines and bombs than anyone else
* European countries are all nanny states with so much damn welfare that
people have no motivation to work hard whatsoever
* Europeans need to grow up and learn about the harsh reality of war from
Americans who apparently knows more about it
* If the rest of the world doesn't adopt American values then there will
be nothing but a huge mess that America eventually has to clean up
* Saddam Hussein is FrenchSome European people here aren't better:
* Americans are all irrational and full of moral hypocrisy
* United States is about to become isolated and obsolete
* There worldn't be any nuclear weapons in the world if it wasn't for
the US
* The US government is about to become theocratic
* No one likes American peopleWe're really working hard on both sides
of the pond to rebuild the alliance. Creds to the few moderate and thoughtful
people here, both American and European, who actually try to debate.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
(a) Yes, Nokia rings a bell. They're the cell-phone company that finally
got their act together after previously getting creamed by Ericsson of
Sweden. And they're successful in large part because the U.S. market is
the most open and competitive marketplace in the world.
... where they compete successfully with all the american brands.
> (b) It's spelled "Finland", Michel.
Sorry, typo.
> (c) 'Best educational system in the whole darned world' according
to who?
OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Believe me,
I wouldn´t be mentioning this if I didn´t have to, since the
germans and french didn´t do so well either.
> I haven't noticed many Finns being awarded Nobel Prizes. How about
you?
A.I. Virtanen, nobel prize for biochemistry, F.E. Sillanpää,
nobel prize for literature.... not that it matters for the assessment
of a country´s educational system, of course.
> (d) Awww that's very sweet of you, Michel. You must have been listening
to the marketing slogan of the French Tourism campaign to lure American
tourists back to France - "Let's Fall In Love Again".
Get off me ;-)!
> (e) What can I say, it's a gift!
Or a curse, depending on how you want to see it.
> (f) Yes, and I already explained why that was so. The Red Army was
a disastrously disorganized rabble at the time the Soviets fought the
Finns, and the battlefield results reflected that. Small wonder that the
Finns kicked the Soviets' butts. Stalin's purges of the Red Army's officer
corps during the 1930s had turned the Soviet armies into incompetent,
poorly-led, poorly-equipped mobs led by ideological hacks. The Soviets
didn't begin to transform the Red Army into a well-trained, disciplined
fighting force until after they'd suffered staggering defeats and lost
hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting Hitler.
They weren´t as poorly led as you say, but they were underequipped
and they had no idea of guerilla and regular tactics in an arctic environment
(at that time; afterwards they learned and defeated the germans, though
they still lost an enormous number of people in the process). I grant
you that.
(g) Nope, but it 'was' the LAST time.
So?
> (h) I TOLD you I used to live in Canada, right?
Are you looking for a fight with everybody north of the 50th parallel?
Have fun.
Michel Bastian, France
> I happen to like Scandanavia
> However, I notice the 2005 unemployment rate according to "Statistics
Finland" is 9.2% and this is worse than the last report for 2004
although most of the reason is an increase in the size of the labor force.
http://www.stat.fi/tup/tiedotteet/v2005/tiedote_017_2005-03-22_en.html
Norway has a 3.8% unemployment rate.
I would be interested in why Norway seems to be doing so much better with
employment. Don't they also have higher cost of labor?
No idea. Interesting question. Perhaps there are some scanidinavians on
this board who might enlighten us. And I agree that not everything in
Scandinavia is better than elsewhere. But that´s no reason to insult
the finns, like Phil did.
> Also, what is the trade situation with China for Scandanavian countries,
surplus of deficit. I see the EU is running a deficit with China with
companies leaving Germany, for example to move to China.
Welcome to the club. Same problem as in the US. Though I wouldn´t
say the deficit is due only to companies leaving for China.
Jan Paul, USA
"ELSINKI, Finland (AP) - Nokia Corp., the world's
biggest mobile phone maker, said Tuesday it plans to lay off ``a few hundred''
research and development workers globally, including up to 250 in Finland,
in a move to cut costs."
"China is also an important part of Nokia's global manufacturing
and R&D networks. Nokia has five R&D units, four manufacturing
sites and widespread operations in China. The total number of Nokia employees
in China is over 4,300"
"Nokia announced last week that it will begin negotiations with employee
representatives with the aim of cutting jobs in the multimedia business
group. The negotiations will affect 250 employees in Finland, and hundreds
in Germany. The possible job cuts will be carried out during 2005."
"In a bid to restore its lead, Nokia has increasingly turned from
Europe, where the mobile phone market is reaching saturation levels, to
the growing market in Asia.
Last month, it announced plans to invest some $150 million in a new plant
in India -- with a work force of up to 2,000 -- to manufacture handsets
and mobile appliances to meet growing regional demand.
Tuutti denied the layoffs announced Tuesday signaled a change in policy
to move operations abroad where employment costs are cheaper."
I am glad you mentioned Nokia. I like the company and have owned stock
in it in the past. I see it is expanding in China and doing more research
there and less in Finland. What is going on with Nokia? Is China becoming
that much of a threat to them that they have to move operations there?
Finland has very good tax rates for business. Why is unemployment so high.
I see where that is an important political issue. They have good growth
with a real GDP Growth rate of about 3%. So, I don't understand the unemployment
rate being high.
antti vainio, finland
to Phil:
Just out of curiousity, how many American companies have you ever worked
for, and what were their names?
the current one. they would probably fire me if they found out I'm writing
this
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Americans demand asslicking and that's
very un-European". Personally I very much doubt that Americans or
American businesses demand 'ass-licking' of any kind.
sorry about that , it's not especially American. all the bosses in the
world like ass-licking
However, they DO expect and demand that employees of American companies
(a) actually show up for work (b) on time (c) properly dressed (d) with
a proper work ethic (e) and sober (f) more than one day in a row. I've
been told that this is very "un-European", too.we are quite
boring especially considering our reputation. generally all the Scandinavians
and Baltic people as well are like you described above when we are talking
about the working life.
Antti Vainion in Finland wrote: "In Europe we who live in up north
are peaceful people and considered as pacifists....." Sure, if you
don't count all the Northern Europeans who are in jail for domestic violence
and drunk-and-disorderly charges.
in fact those numbers are quite modest but I'm glad that even you've heard
about us. all publicity is good publicity
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "....but (to) be called wimps by an
American slob is a bit heavy". I don't think Rumsfeld was referring
to you folks in Northern Europe when he made his "Olde Europe"
comment. I think he was intending to refer to Germany and France.
I understood everybody who didn't support Iraq war was an Olde
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "In Finland we stopped Stalin (that's
couple of years of total war and constant bombing...". Yeah, well,
it wasn't all that difficult to stop Stalin's troops at the time, was
it? The Red Army wasn't much of a fighting force back then, were they?
yes, they were. we were few and didn't have much weapons to talk about.
in any case, we made our point but 30 arabs armed with Stanley knives
put your country on it's knees. I'm not impressed
This is because we pay taxes in America to send our U.S. Marines to travel
to different countries, see interesting new places, meet "interesting"
new people (like the Taliban) AND KILL THEM. Makes the conversation kind
of awkward, you see.
nobody misses the Taliban but killing innocent people on wholesale is
naughty Well, Antti, I'd personally be willing to travel to Finland. But
no one has really given me a compelling reason why I should do so, or
told me what I should hope to see there that's different from what I've
seen before. I've seen snow, I've seen ice, and I've seen drunks.
I can't point you any compelling reason but we have better snow and ice
and a huge variety of colourful drunks. if you come, you're invited to
my home. you see, I'm an average European who basicly likes americans.
I just happen to think that your president and his cronies are a bunch
of asshole bullies and bigots. I'm afraid that's an average European way
of thinking, too
Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain
Let me ask you, to all of you, a pair of questions:
1) What do we, the Europeans, know about the US?
2) What do you, the Americans, know about Europe?
Since 9/11, since Irak, we've been talking, and talking, and talking but...
are we hearing? are we listening? Excepting a handful of opinions, of
writers, or even simple citizens, I've have been only hearing clichés
and prejudices. So, I'm afraid there's a value we share: mutual ignorance.
antti vainio, finland
to Emiliano Fernandez Castro
interesting you are asking this. After Atocha bombing in Madrid you Spanish
people showed the stylish way to the rest of
us in Europe. no outbursts of hate but dignity and compassion.
antti vainio, finland
'Best educational system in the whole darned world' according
to who? I haven't noticed many Finns being awarded Nobel Prizes.
yeah, we are only five million but all our kids can read which beats you.
out of your 350 million probably half are literate and you buy your Nobel
people from Asia
Michael Bastian, France
To Emilio Fernández Castro:
> Let me ask you, to all of you, a pair of questions:
1) What do we, the Europeans, know about the US?
Let me answer your question: obviously more than the average american
knows about Europe. The reason is that the average american doesn´t
need to bother with Europe (or any other foreign country) in his day-to-day
life, whereas we have to deal with american politics and culture over
here all the time (especially since the Bush administration started their
"America first" crusade).
> Since 9/11, since Irak, we've been talking, and talking, and talking
but... are we hearing? are we listening? Excepting a handful of opinions,
of writers, or even simple citizens, I've have been only hearing clichés
and prejudices. So, I'm afraid there's a value we share: mutual ignorance.
I won´t deny that. So what are we going to do about it? Talk to
eachother, obviously, or even visit each other´s countries once
in a while. Does wonders for your intellectual horizon, I´ve been
told.
FatScouser, UK
Just a quick techie note for Phil Karasack:
The two bombs that Japan suffered from in Aug 1945 are commonly referred
to as atomic (or 'A') bombs. These _are_ nuclear weapons, specifically
nuclear fission devices, meaning that energy gets released as atomic nuclei
split.
The other type of nuclear weapon - far more destructive and so effective
as a deterrent against major war - is the hydrogen (or 'H') bomb. This
is a nuclear fusion device, i.e. energy is released through atomic nuclei
combining.
Phil, atomic bombs are nuclear bombs: that's all. Apart from that minor
mistake, your comments are extremely entertaining. Not necessarily informative,
but entertaining. Cheers mate!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jacob in Sweden wrote: "So let's summarize some of
the main points of the debate so far. According to some of the less enlightened
American people here:
* We're all irrational, self-indulgent America haters over here in Europe"
Well, let's review the comments of Claire in England: "Im From London
England and to be honest no one likes americans, all u hear is people
slagging them off and by Golly i LOVE IT ! cause i h8 em tooo.!"
I think that pretty much confirms the opinion of you Europeans as being
irrational self-indulgent America haters.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jacob in Sweden wrote: "According to some of the less
enlightened American people here: * Europe will be transformed to a theocratic
Muslim state any day now."
It's already happening. France, Germany and Italy are definitely showing
signs of that. The implications are horrifying. And they're not 'theoretical'
implications, either. The results are already becoming frighteningly apparent.
For those who prefer to think it's all a hysterical exaggeration by us
supposedly "less-enlightened American people here", here are
some sobering matters to ponder......
HOW FRANCE HAS FALLEN
Muslim immigration has overwhelmed permissive French institutions.
France is probably the worst affected of all western nations by immigration,
since it is on the brink of losing its European identity to the insistent
Muslims increasing in numbers within French borders. As they grow in population,
they come to believe they can impose the will of Islam on the French people,
who seem rather unconcerned with the transformation.
With a population of five million Muslims, France is holding a tiger by
the ears. The threat of violence from radical Islamic elements cannot
be far from politicians' minds. Wherever there are large numbers of Arabs,
there is crime and violence, particularly against women.
France should be seen as a cautionary tale of immigration run amok, and
how quickly things get out of control. Muslim immigration to France is
a post-war phenomenon for the most part: just of few decades of high immigration
of a group with high fertility has put France in the unenviable position
of being the European nation thought most likely to be the first to introduce
sharia (Islamic) law.
See also
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/france-immigration.html
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/black-october.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1905360.stmJ
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/30/wanti130.xml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0417/p06s01-woeu.html
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/450
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/problem.html
http://www.meforum.org/article/337
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/198
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6976
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7195A
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7758
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/10/160934.shtml
http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=794
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13715
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0412190554dec19,1,2079730.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Mark Robert, USA
Phil,
Please take the time to read a couple of books that will help to
> illustrate the truth about our policies and, I think ultimately our
reason
> for being attacked. The books are: "In Search of Enemies"
and "the
> Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell.
> John, a former marine, is the highest ranking CIA official to come
> clean and tell the truth about what our government has been doing
around the
> world, in our good name. They have changed the law since then, to
jail
> anyone from those ranks who dares tell the real story of our history.
This
> is not the stuff of spy novels or conspiracy theories. It is a sickening
> tale of how United States government has practiced a campaign know
as
> "Destabilization", which means ripping up the moral, social,
and economic
> fabric of a country. This helps to perpetuate a state of war, to
keep whom
> ever doesn't "play ball" with us down, and to gain easy
access to resources
> that we need to consume. At the time he wrote the book(late 70's/early
> 80's), the US was doing this to some 30% of the worlds countries!!
> It is hard for the sheltered American to grasp let alone believe
that
> their government endorses such things as torture, widespread killing
of
> innocent civilians, terrorist training, propaganda, and the overthrow
of
> democratically elected leaders.
> John is not some liberal siren spouting off about what he thinks
is
> going on. He helped do these things....he has first hand knowledge.....he
> came from a profoundly conservative background. He says covert wars
> orchestrated by the US have caused some SIX MILLION or so deaths(most
of
> these were civilians). He has little reason to lie: he gave up his
career
> and friends in the intelligence community of many years, and the
CIA sued
> him and took all the proceeds from his books. Now he must submit
anything he
> writes to government censors before it may be published.(read the
Pike and Church reports if you are intelligent enough, STUPID! The gove
tells what it did to even AMERICAN citizens in those)
> Now, let me pose a question to all Americans : WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH
> GOVERNMENTS THAT SUPPLY NATIONS LIKE IRAQ WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
> AND THE TECHNOLOGY AND MONEY TO BUILD THEM?? What kind of a nation
would do
> such things? How should the international community view them or
deal with
> them?
> Another bit of truth. I have copies of documents released from the
> National Archives in Washington D.C. , made available from Senator
Robert Byrd, that shows shipments of biological agents(germ stocks like
Anthrax,
> along with the most virulent ones known to man) being sent directly
from
> the United States government to Iraqi scientists. This was done during
the
> Reagan/Bush administration. Reagan's government helped simultaneously
> sideline chemical/biological weapons treaties to allow Iraq to obtain
the
> very types of things we purport to rid them of.
> Even now, the US will not sign a ban on chemical weapons..........
> These weapons of mass destruction were sent to Iraq to use on their
> neighbor Iran, our previous "friend". I say previous because
in 1949 we
> installed a ruthless dictator(LOOK IT UP, STUPID. EVERYBODY SEEMS
TO KNOW BUT YOU) there, like Saddam. He was the Shaw of Iran
> and the people finally overthrew him during the Iranian Revolution.
When
> that happened, Uncle Sam rushed to Hussein's side with vast monies
and
> military aid. Eventually, he would use some of that "aid"
on the Kurds "his
> own people". Those were American built helicopters that sprayed
Saran gas
> on the Kurdish people.
> In my community of Pueblo Colorado, the Pueblo Army Depot houses
some
> 750,000 chemical weapons, one of eight such sites around the
> country...........What kind of a nation does such things?
> What kind of a nation supports dictators like Saddam Hussein and
his
> gruesome practices when there is something in it for them, only to
turn the
> tides and attack their population when it suites them politically?
What
> sort of nation squanders it's soldiers bodies and minds, and then
leaves
> them sick and debilitated only to be treated like street people when
they go to
> get their V.A. benefits?
> Yes, we must make horrible dictators like Saddam stand down. We OWE
it
> to the people of Iraq and the world. We also owe them some PEACE
for a
> change, something our tax dollars have denied them for decades. We
must
> stand for the continued peaceful disarming and monitoring of Iraq,
NO MATER
> HOW LONG IT TAKES.
> What sort of Government would prefer to slaughter 2 or 3 hundred
> thousand innocent people because they are too impatient or incompetent
to
> remove ONE MAN?
> What sort of decent American, Democrat or Republican, liberal or
> conservative, stands by and cheers a government that would do such
things?
> -Not this American
And sorry, "Phil" or whatever your name is, You are basically
a nobody who is full of shit and rationalizations. Filth like yourself
are the breeding ground for the conservative infection raging in the body
of America. -The acute condition of which is known as FASCISM. It is unreal
that so many people are going for this... well it happened in Germany
in the late 30's...Hard to believe our collective immune system is so
weak!
Oh, FYI: the people in the experiments didn't know they were being injected
with syphillis. The Gov has aknowledged this already years ago. LOOK IT
UP, STUPID!
AND, the Shaw robbed the Iranian people of untold millions of $. I get
around in the collector car circuits and seen the near priceless "one
off" Bugattis and other cars he squandered his peoples as well as
our tax dollars on, Stupid!
So what country are you working for? It surely can't be for the good of
our's.
Kristin, Bethlehem, USA
The following is addressed to all:
I am a junior college student hoping to pursue a career in international
politics, and I was rather intrigued when I stumbled upon this site. "Do
Americans and Europeans have different value?"- a real oppurtunity
to discuss some real issues. However, I am deeply saddened to discover
that what is the essance of democracy (open debate) has degraded into
nothing more than mudslinging and slander. Do I think that Americans and
Europeans hold fundamentally different ideals? No. I think that we are
acting from two different places right now.
September 11th was awful and it affected us all. Not one american woke
up the next day knowing what was going to happen: the seat of our military
was attacked, the financial hub of our country paralysized, and our government
sent undercover. America literally shut down. Unfortunately, however many
Americans allowed that fear to cloud out logic. What else can explain
the lihgtspeed passing of the Patriot Act, the bizarre linkage of Saddam
and Al-queda, and the ever evasive WMDs?
As a poltically aware citizen I can certainly say that America has swung
to the right--but it will come back. However, trying to alienate right-wing
America will only drive them further away not get your point across.
And to my fellow angry Americans, I say this: Who are you fighting? Who
caused this problem? Our government did. Now is the time to be asking
the truly important questions. Why did the Bush administration ignore
the National Sercurity warnings about rising Al-queda activity prior to
9/11? Why did and does the US continue to support corrupt and archaic
regimes such as the Taliban and Saudi Arabia which have both been condemned
by Amnesty International? Finally, why are still engaged in a conflict
that has cost 1500 american lives and counting without any basis or plan
for withdraw?
If you really want to effect what is happening in the world and the United
States currently then speak out intelligently and with an intent to debate.
My generation and those who are now serving their country in Iraq, do
not have the luxury of merely slandering one another.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Jacob in Sweden wrote: "According to some of the less enlightened
American people here: * Europe will be transformed to a theocratic Muslim
state any day now."
It's already happening. France, Germany and Italy are definitely showing
signs of that. The implications are horrifying. And they're not 'theoretical'
implications, either. The results are already becoming frighteningly apparent.
For those who prefer to think it's all a hysterical exaggeration by us
supposedly "less-enlightened American people here", here are
some sobering matters to ponder......
> HOW FRANCE HAS FALLEN
> Muslim immigration has overwhelmed permissive French >> >
institutions.
> France is probably the worst affected of all western > > nations
by immigration, since it is on the brink of > > > losing its
European identity to the insistent Muslims > > increasing in numbers
within French borders. As they > > grow in population, they come
to believe they can > > > > impose the will of Islam on the
French people, who seem > rather unconcerned with the transformation.
> With a population of five million Muslims, France is > > holding
a tiger by the ears. The threat of violence > > > from radical
Islamic elements cannot be far from > > > > politicians' minds.
Wherever there are large numbers of > Arabs, there is crime and violence,
particularly > > > > against women.
> France should be seen as a cautionary tale of > > > >
> > immigration run amok, and how quickly things get out of >
control. Muslim immigration to France is a post-war > > > phenomenon
for the most part: just of few decades of > > high immigration of
a group with high fertility has put > France in the unenviable position
of being the European > nation thought most likely to be the first
to introduce > sharia (Islamic) law.
Old news, Phil. I know we have a muslim population of about 10%. Not all
of them are radicals, not all of them are even practicising. Yes, there
are a few traditionalist and even fewer radical "arabs" (mostly
of northern african origin in southern France and the suburbs of the big
cities like Paris), and yes, there are anti-semites among them. All the
rest are perfectly peaceful, normal french citizens. I´ll tell you
again since you don´t seem to understand: "muslim" is
not the same as "terrorist". Also, anybody who says we´re
going to be the first european nation to introduce Sharia only demonstrates
one thing: zero knowledge. Don´t bother flaming me for that because
you don´t know France or the french, you´ve never been there,
you can´t know even the basics of our society or our history because
nobody ever taught you, and you only bother to read biased opinions by
people who most likely are just as clueless as you are. All you have are
the old american prejudices against the french. I can´t even blame
you for that, since the Bush administration has been deliberately stoking
that kind of attitude and has obviously killed any interest of neo-con
americans to get objective information. Essentially, you have been brought
into Bush´s line: blame France, always and for everything. There
is a german word for these kinds of politics: "Gleichschaltung".
If you´ve never heard of it, I´ll let you figure out for yourself
what it means and who invented the concept. You´ll be surprised,
and, hopefully, sobered a little bit.
Incidentally, this insistence on immigration being the root of all evil
is typical of xenophobes all around the globe. Look to your own back yard:
already there are activists trying to stop immigration from Mexico. Ever
heard of the "Minutemen Project"? Private, armed militia who
patrol the border near Tombstone in an effort to "stem the tide",
as they say. Are the "poor and huddled masses" still welcome
to these people? I doubt it. It´s xenophobia in the most literal
sense of the term: fear of everything that is unusual or foreign. Is that
the "american way" you seem to be so proud of? No, I happen
to know for a fact that it´s not. It´s Bush´s way.
Michel Bastian, France
To Kristin:
> The following is addressed to all:
I am a junior college student hoping to pursue a career in international
politics, and I was rather intrigued when I stumbled upon this site. "Do
Americans and Europeans have different value?"- a real oppurtunity
to discuss some real issues. However, I am deeply saddened to discover
that what is the essance of democracy (open debate) has degraded into
nothing more than mudslinging and slander.
Unsurprising, really. Debate, especially about such controversial subjects
as these is rarely a nice, polite, sterile affair, even in professional
circles. Watch any political debate on tv and you´ll see what I
mean. Debate shouldn´t be "easy". It should be passionate,
and it will often involve mudslinging and ad hominem argument to a certain
degree. That´s the essence of democracy. Also, debating with someone
who always agrees with you or who painfully stays polite all the time
is no fun at all :-). Oh, and a point of good humor now and then won´t
hurt either. Don´t take yourself too seriously and you´ll
be on the right track ;-). However, I agree with you that there shouldn´t
be any outright insults or name-calling. It´s a question of showing
basic respect to the person you´re debating with.
Emilio Fernandez Castro, Albacete, Spain
To Michel Bastian (France)
Maybe you're right. Maybe the average American doesn't feel the necessity
of knowing anything about another cultures or another countries. But I
don't think it is a fault, a specific fault, of the Americans. I'm convinced
it is a question of power. Five-hundred years ago, Spain ruled the world
like America does today. And the Spaniards, at that time, committed the
same mistake they're commiting now. We ignored everybody. What were the
consequences? A big chain of wars, two centuries of intolerance, religious
conflicts... that's why I try to understand the Americans. That's why
I'm concerned not only about speaking, but also about listening them.
When my ancestors ruled the world, they were full of good intentions and
they, sincerely, believed they were doing the best for the whole world...
but History teach us the terrible consequences of their acts. That's why
I'm very concerned about that "mutual ignorance" and I believe
that we have to fight against it. It is a question of mutual survival.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Yes, they (the Red
Army) were (a fighting force). We were few and didn't have much weapons
to talk about. In any case, we made our point but 30 Arabs armed with
Stanley knives put your country on it's knees. I'm not impressed."
Well, I'm personally sure that you have the gift of premonition and could
have magically predicted that 19 fanatics would turn unarmed civilian
airliners filled with civilians into human bombs to crash into an unarmed
civilian office building filled with civilians. Unfortunately you forgot
to share your premonition or else you aren't really as clever as you seem
to presume. And for a country that's supposedly "on our knees"
(what a bunch of bull) we seem to have a remarkably successful job of
dismantling two dictatorships in two different countries, Afghanistan
and Iraq. Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Nobody misses the Taliban
but killing innocent people on wholesale is naughty". We're not killing
innocent people on wholesale. We ARE killing lots of GUILTY people on
wholesale. I like that. I hope we keep doing it.
Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "You see, I'm an average European
who basically likes Americans. I just happen to think that your President
and his cronies are a bunch of asshole bullies and bigots. I'm afraid
that's an average European way of thinking, too." Well, I'm afraid
I have no interest in visiting Europe. You see, I'm an average American
who happens to think that my President (whom I helped to elect) is doing
a great job. So great a job, in fact, that I along with about 65 million
other Americans voted to give him four more years in office to continue
his work. And if you have a problem with my country's President, then
I think I have a problem with you.Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "Yeah,
we are only five million but all our kids can read which beats you. Out
of your 350 million probably half are literate and you buy your Nobel
people from Asia." Actually it would help if you had a clue what
you were talking about. Out of 300 million or so people only a small minority
in America are illiterate, and most of those are people for whom English
is a second language because they came to America from other countries.
It's easy for everyone to be literate in Finland when you have a homogenous
population of only 5 million and all of them are basically related to
each other through interbreeding. Improving literacy gets more interesting
when life in America is so desirable that people risk their lives to come
here from every country on Earth and speak over 100 native languages.
Also we have no need to "buy" our Nobel people from Asia or
anywhere else and we don't "buy" them at all, they come to America
of their own free will and on their dime to study at some of the best
universities in the world. Nobody "gives" them anything to come
to America, they choose to come here on their own and they pay their own
way. You see, unlike the situation in Finland, people from around the
world actually want to come here to America to live, work and study. I
haven't noticed kazillions of people eagerly emigrating to Finland, have
you?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark Robert wrote: "Phil, Please take the time to
read a couple of books that will help to illustrate the truth about our
policies and, I think ultimately our reason for being attacked. The books
are: 'In Search of Enemies' and 'The Praetorian Guard' by John Stockwell".
I am quite familiar with Mr. John Stockwell, thank you. He, like Philip
Agee and Ralph McGehee, is a liar, a traitor and a betrayer of the agency
which nurtured him and gave him a once-promising future. Distilled down
to its murderous essence, the crux of Mr. Stockwell's twisted illogical
arguments is that life would have been simpler, easier and less bloody
during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s if, rather than trying nobly to preserve
and defend freedom, democracy, political pluralism and Capitalism in the
Third World, we had simply rolled over and calmly allowed the Communists
to seize power and take over in Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador
and other places. What a wonderful idea for ending the Cold War -- let's
just let the Communists WIN!! *derisive snort*
Of course, Mr. Stockwell never seems to have much to say about the resulting
consequences to Humanity from the victory of Communists in countries throughout
the world -- the FACT that the Domino Theory DID, IN FACT HAPPEN; that
Vietnam went Communist (hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese killed,
tortured, exiled or imprisoned in Stalinist so-called "re-education
centers" -- which were actually concentration camps); that Laos went
Communist (and is still ruled by a brutally repressive regime that permits
no dissent); that Cambodia went Communist (one-million-plus Cambodians
genocidally murdered by a psychotic Khmer Rouge Communist regime, while
a lying, hypocrisy-laden Western so-called "peace movement"
calmly averted its eyes, stuck its fingers in its collective ears and
did nothing whatsoever to stop the slaughter -- MURDERER-LOVERS).
I THANK GOD that we had leaders in the White House and in the CIA who
recognized the utter absurdity of Mr. Stockwell's views and who fought
the good fight in the Cold War against Communism's supporters and fellow-travellers
throughout the world.
Mark, please take the time to read about a gentleman who served the USA
heroically and who was just as highly regarded within the CIA as the notorious
traitor Mr. Stockwell, except that unlike Mr. Stockwell, he himself never
betrayed or turned on his agency, his country or his cause.
"After more than three decades of down-and-dirty operations for the
CIA, San Antonio resident Kenneth Michael Absher has come in from the
cold."
"Sitting in the sun-drenched living room of his house in the upscale
Alamo Heights district, Absher, 59, seems glad to be back in friendly,
patriotic South Texas, glad to reminisce about the many Cold War crises
he saw close up. The Cuban missile crisis. Vietnam. Running agents in
foreign countries he's not even allowed to name."
"Spies in John le Carre novels often doubt themselves, and their
side. Absher, apparently, does neither. He's Texas-friendly and seemingly
quite at ease in his own skin. In a low-key way, he's also quite eloquent,
the kind of natural explainer and storyteller one is glad to encounter
at the front of a classroom."
"Retired as of last year from the CIA's Operations Directorate, Absher
has introduced a historically-oriented course at a local university on
the enduring value of "espionage," the covert stuff -- apparently
the only declassified college-level course on this subject in the United
States."
"More than a hundred colleges and universities nationwide offer courses
on national security or intelligence. For example, the University of Texas
at San Antonio (UTSA), where Absher now teaches, also offers a "big
picture" course on "the intelligence community" taught
by James Calder, a UTSA criminal justice professor with a background in
military intelligence."
"But Absher's course, uniquely, concentrates on the potential value
to policymakers of intelligence obtained through covert means like spying."
"It's a declassified version of a course Absher once taught at the
Defense Intelligence College at Bolling Air Force Base. At Bolling, Absher's
students were military personnel with at least "top secret"
clearances. At UTSA, they're South Texas representatives of Generation
X -- most of them politically a notch or two to the right-of-center, but
without being diehard ideological conservatives. Nor are many of them
overburdened with historical knowledge."
"Absher's students swear by his course. "He's a gifted instructor
and a wonderful, enthusiastic man," says Elaine Coronado, a Washington-savvy
UTSA senior working on a second UTSA degree in political science. Her
first is in history."
"The last thing I want to do," Absher says, "is to be intellectually
dishonest in any way. I've pulled no punches in this course. I've talked
about intelligence failures, policy failures, everything. I've encouraged
my students to make arguments against the continued existence of the CIA."
"Nevertheless, Absher remains, at bottom, a believer: someone who
looks back on his almost thirty-two years in the CIA without regrets.
He has no doubts that the right side won the Cold War, nor that CIA espionage
helped."
His resume acknowledges that Absher served in "Europe" and in
the "Caribbean," that he was CIA "Chief of Station"
in two different countries, and that he was awarded numerous medals, including
the Intelligence Medal of Merit (twice). Between overseas postings, Absher
also spent "four tours" in CIA headquarters, where he supervised
U.S. intelligence operations going on in (unnamed) foreign countries.
Given these gaps, it seems odd that Absher feels free to talk, as he apparently
does, about 1972-73 in Vietnam. Once again, Absher has his own line on
the subject.
"There were many wars in Vietnam," Absher acknowledges. The
one Absher fought was "a conventional war" against battle-hardened
North Vietnamese regulars operating at battalion strength. Absher zipped
around his province in a helicopter, and when necessary called in B-52
strikes against suspected NVA troop concentrations.
"In the interrogations he supervised, Absher says, "I never
saw any brutality." It was the Viet Cong, Absher says, who went in
for wholesale assassinations of South Vietnamese teachers, officials,
and others. Or rather, Absher says, the competent and honest were assassinated.
The incompetent and corrupt were left in place."
http://www.cia-on-campus.org/utsa.edu/news06.html
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jacob in Sweden wrote:
"So let's summarize some of the main points of the debate so far.
According to some of the less enlightened American people here:
* Pacifism, respect for human rights, and diplomacy are for weak European
sissies only"
Pacifism in my opinion is a wonderfully idiotic and naive belief that
the use of force and violence to resolve situations is "always"
unnecessary as a practical matter and morally wrong. In my opinion, Pacifism
pre-supposes and assumes, quite totally unrealistically and wrongly, (a)
that any conflict whatsoever can be resolved through "negotiation";
(b) that the use of force to resolve conflicts, no matter how effective
or necessary, is always "morally wrong", even if it ends the
conflict and thereby saves lives; (c) that conflicts are never the result
of Evil and Malevolent Intent, but only "misunderstandings";
and (d) that "negotiation" and "diplomacy" are not
merely Means to an End, but rather an End In And Of Themselves.
Pacifism, and Pacifists, have often preposterously presumed and pretended
to exist in a self-contained Imaginary Universe in which the consequences
of Pacifism are supposedly "limited" solely to the Pacifists
themselves. The real-world and potential consequences of such misguided
naivety have often been horrific. During times of great moral crisis,
the practical consequences of Pacifism have sometimes been horrifying
de facto collaboration with Pure Evil. Case in point: the entry of Great
Britain into World War II. British left-wing Socialists and Pacifists
wished Great Britain not to fight in World War II. Nazi Germany also wished
Great Britain not to fight in World War II. Regardless of having vastly
different reasons for their respective positions, the British Pacifists
and the Nazis had the same de facto goal: an England that stayed on the
sidelines during World War II and played no part in the conflict. The
British Pacifists wanted an England that would not fight, because they
believed that actively militarily taking any side in the unfolding conflict
was "morally wrong". The Nazi Germans also wanted an England
that would not fight, because they reasoned that an England that would
not fight, an England that could be convinced to abandon its French and
Polish allies, was an England that would not interfere with Nazi plans
for total military domination of Europe. Regardless of the motive, the
results of an England that would not fightwould have been quite simply
a Europe totally conquered by the Nazis; the British Pacifists' aims therefore
dovetailed with the Nazi Germans' aims. The practical results of the British
Pacifists' achieving their goal, therefore would have aided the Nazis'
conquest of Europe. Objectively, therefore, British Pacifists were, in
fact, pro-Nazi.
The lofty ideals of Pacifism have also been the facetious "shield"
used to conceal cynicism, self-centredness and outright cowardice. Both
the Swedes and the Swiss declared themselves to be "neutral"
during World War II. Supposedly, they were too "civilized" and
"principled" to fight against the greatest Moral Evil that has
ever confronted the world; at any rate, whether from principled Pacifism,
cynical self-interest, or pure and simple cowardice, they did not fight.
The practical consequences of both countries' actions were acquiescence
in the horrifying deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The Swiss,
supposedly too "principled" to oppose the Nazis, had no moral
qualms about helping the Nazis launder the stolen assets of millions of
Jews who died in the Holocaust, as History would later prove. And the
Swedes, also supposedly too "principled" to oppose the Nazis,
had no "conflict of principles" about allowing the Nazis to
use Swedish rail lines to transport Nazi troops to the invasion of Sweden's
own neighbor Norway, an action that would cost thousands of Norwegians
their lives. The Swedes also were not too "principled" to do
a lucrative business selling raw materials to Nazi Germany; at the start
of the war, Germany imported about 10 million tons of iron ore from Sweden.
Not for nothing was coined the saying, "The hottest fires in Hell
are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, remain Neutral."
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jacob in Sweden wrote: "So let's summarize some of
the main points of the debate so far. According to some of the less enlightened
American people here:
* European countries are all nanny states with so much damn welfare that
people have no motivation to work hard whatsoever."
Please direct your attention to the following:
BUSINESS SECTION http://www.time.com
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark Robert (FancyPants?) wrote: "It is hard for the
sheltered American to grasp let alone believe that their government endorses
such things as torture, widespread killing of innocent civilians, terrorist
training, propaganda, and the overthrow of democratically elected leaders."
That's because our American government does not endorse such things, although
there are reasons to argue that there might be some wisdom and benefit
to endorsing dome of those things. I would quite cheerfully interrogate
captured Al-Qaeda members with an acetylene blowtorch if I thought that
by doing so, I could obtain information that would prevent another 9/11-style
atrocity.
Mark Robert wrote: "John is not some liberal siren spouting off about
what he thinks is going on. He helped do these things....he has first
hand knowledge.....he came from a profoundly conservative background.
He says covert wars orchestrated by the US have caused some SIX MILLION
or so deaths(most of these were civilians). He has little reason to lie:
he gave up his career and friends in the intelligence community of many
years, and the CIA sued him and took all the proceeds from his books."
On the contrary, John Stockwell is indeed a liberal siren, and a traitor.
Regardless of whatever 'conservative' background he came from, he turned
his back on it when he slandered and lied about the actions of his employer.
His "covert war death estimates" are rubbish; he has a built-in
and obviiuys reason to Lie, since he's forsaken his country and its cause
for the rubber-chicken lecture circuit.
Mark Robert wrote: "Another bit of truth. I have copies of documents
released from the National Archives in Washington D.C. , made available
from Senator Robert Byrd, that shows shipments of biological agents(germ
stocks like Anthrax, along with the most virulent ones known to man) being
sent directly from the United States government to Iraqi scientists. This
was done during the Reagan/Bush administration. Reagan's government helped
simultaneously sideline chemical/biological weapons treaties to allow
Iraq to obtain the very types of things we purport to rid them of."
Kindly 'prove' it or else accept being called a Liar. The U.S. was hardly
the "only" source of biological agents to Sadly Insane Hussein's
regime, or even the largest such supplier. Kindly examine the following:
So much for the "Oh, you Americans gave Saddam Hussein the chemical
weapons , so it's 'your' fault for what he did with them" rubbish.....
DUTCHMAN TRIED FOR SELLING SADDAM CHEMICALS
PROSECUTOR ARGUES HE KNEW THEY'D BE USED AGAINST PEOPLE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7230658/
In case you were not aware of it, Saddam Hussein's regime spent years
creating an elaborate sham network of dummy 'front' companies whose job
it was to surreptitiously and fraudulently obtain materials that Iraq
was prohibited by UN sanctions from purchasing. We didn't 'give' prohibited
materials to Saddam, HE STOLE THEM.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark Robert wrote: "These weapons of mass destruction
were sent to Iraq to use on their neighbor Iran, our previous "friend".
I say previous because in 1949 we
installed a ruthless dictator(LOOK IT UP, STUPID. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO KNOW
BUT YOU) there, like Saddam. He was the Shaw of Iran and the people finally
overthrew him during the Iranian Revolution. When that happened, Uncle
Sam rushed to Hussein's side with vast monies and
military aid. AND, the Shaw robbed the Iranian people of untold millions
of $. I get around in the collector car circuits and seen the near priceless
"one off" Bugattis and other cars he squandered his peoples
as well as our tax dollars on, Stupid!"
First of all, the Shaw of Iran was a GREAT AND NOBLE LEADER AND HIS DOWNFALL
WAS A TRAGEDY FOR THE WORLD AND FOR IRAN. We in the US SHOULD HAVE SENT
TROOPS TO KEEP HIM IN POWER AND TO KILL THE AYATOLLUH KHOMEINI. If ever
there was a time when we should have declared War, that was it. Instead,
that pathetic puke Carter spent eight months wringing his hands and moralizing,
so we the American People nuked Carter at the ballot box and threw his
azz out on the pavement where it belonged. The Shaw of Iran was a GREAT
man and the Iranian people today know it. The Shaw of Iran was a wise
and noble leader who should have remained in power in Iran for the rest
of his life. Under his leadership, Iran was a prosperous, politically
moderate, Western-oriented, peaceful country. Under his leadership, Iran
was strongly anti-Communist; it maintained peaceful diplomatic relations
with Israe and sold Israel oil; it never once made war on its neighbors;
it never once tried to overthrow other countries' governments in the Persian
Gulf; it never tried to export a violent, fanatical and insane version
of Islamic Revolution. In all of his years on the throne, the Shaw of
Iran never once sent hundreds of thousands of brainwashed Iranian fanatics
to their deaths in battle "armed" only with plastic "Keys
to Heaven" and copies of the Qu'uran. And the Reagan Administration
(one of America's greatest Presdencies) never "insured" that
Saddam would receive "illegal chemical weapons". It is a well-documented
Fact and a matter of public record that Saddam set up an elaborate network
of sham "front" companies to purchase prohibited goods. LOOK
IT UP, STUPID! ~ And Saddam was never the US's "puppet", either.
We in the West were "his" puppets. He skillfully played the
US off against the USSR, just as many other Third World thugs did. And
we and the US were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to help defend Iraq against Iran's
lunatic mullahs. We didn't do ENOUGH to stop Iran's Islamic fanatic takeover;
we should have NUKED IRAN THEN WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE.
And so bleeping WHAT if "those were American-built helicopters that
sprayed Saran gas on the Kurdish people"? Are you so stupid as to
actually think Saddam couldn't have bought those helicopters from anyone
else? We only "sold" him helicopters, Saddam was the one who
USED them for his Evil purposes. Do you understand the concept of Individual
Responsibility, or should I use little words to explain it to you?We in
America and our government are not responsible for someone else's actions,
STUPID! If I sell you a handgun and give you strict instructions to only
use it legally and in self-defence, but you turn around and use it to
murder a classroom full of kids, then ALL of the blame for that massacre
will be on YOU and ABSOLUTELY NONE will be on me!!! You would be arrested,
charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and hopefully executed. I ON THE
OTHER HAND WOULD NOT SPEND SO MUCH AS AN HOUR IN JAIL, NOR SHOULD I, because
I AM COMPLETELY NOT RESPONSIBLE for "YOUR" ACTIONS.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark Robert wrote: "What kind of a nation supports
dictators like Saddam Hussein and his gruesome practices when there is
something in it for them, only to turn the tides and attack their population
when it suites them politically?"
We never "supported" Saddam Hussein, we merely "tolerated"
his existence while he suited our purposes. He was never our "friend".
His interests temporarily dovetailed with ours. It's called Global Power
Politics. Nations don't have "friends", they have National Interests.
And we never, ever "attacked Iraq's population". Kindly stop
Lying, Mr. Robert. It's becoming rather annoying.
Mark Robert wrote: "What sort of Government would prefer to slaughter
2 or 3 hundred thousand innocent people because they are too impatient
or incompetent to remove ONE MAN?"
We never, ever "slaughtered 2 or 3 hundred thousand innocent people".
That's a Crock of Shyt and a Lie on your part. And if you are actually,
seriously deranged enough to think there was somehow some "easy"
way to remove ONE MAN who had a 100 THOUSAND MAN ARMY as his personal
BODYGUARD, maybe you'd like to "explain" how it was "supposed"
to be done -- what did you have in mind, holler out "Scotty, lock
transporters on Saddam and beam him to the brig!" or something? When
that ONE MAN is a murderous dictator who was responsible directly or indirectly
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, DAMN STRAIGHT it's
worth it to get rid of him, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!
Mark Robert wrote: "What sort of decent American, Democrat or Republican,
liberal or conservative, stands by and cheers a government that would
do such things?". I DO!! I'M PROUD OF THE ACTIONS OF MY GOVERNMENT
AND I HOPE WE DO IT AGAIN SOON!!!!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark Robert wrote: "Oh, FYI: the people in the experiments
didn't know they were being injected with syphillis. The Gov has aknowledged
this already years ago. LOOK IT UP, STUPID!"
I suggest that you spend some time doing some research so that you have
some remote clue of what the Hell you are talking about, because your
comments are so utterly full of Shyt it's coming out your ears. To begin
with, Mr. Robert, NO ONE IN THE EXPERIMENT WAS EVER "INJECTED"
WITH SYPHILLIS OR DELIBERATELY INFECTED AS PART OF THE TUSKEEGEE EXPERIMENT.
The subjects of the Tuskeegee Experiment WERE ALREADY INFECTED AND IN
THE LAST STAGES OF THE DISEASE WHEN THE EXPERIMENT BEGAN. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF,
STUPID!!!
Here is something to help you get started. Please take some time to learn
what the Hell the facts are before spouting off with more mind-numbingly
ignorant BS. It'll help prevent you from looking like even more of an
ignorant ideologically blinded moron than you already do.
"In late July of 1972, Jean Heller of the Associated Press broke
the story: for forty years the United States Puiblic Health Service (PHS)
had been conducting a study of the effects of untreated syphilis on black
men in Macon County, Alabama, in and around the county seat of Tuskegee.
The Tuskegee Study, as the experiment had come to be called, involved
a substantial number of men: 399 who had syphilis and an additional 201
who were free of the disease chosen to serve as controls. ALL OF THE SYPHILITIC
MEN WERE IN THE LATE STAGE OF THE DISEASE WHEN THE STUDY BEGAN."
......
"THE FACT THAT 'ONLY' MEN WHO HAD LATE, SO-CALLED TERTIARY, SYPHILIS
WERE SELECTED FOR THE STUDY INDICATED THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WERE EAGER
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS THAT RESULT DURING THE FINAL
PHASE OF THE DISEASE."
Amazon.com: Books: Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphils Experiment, Revised
Edition
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0029166764/ref=sib_fs_bod/103-2116760-2648612?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00K&checkSum=DLInMshpzwy1GJIHWUMaul41v21qUhiKk%2Fxhof0%2B6%2B8%3D#reader-link
Now, Mr. Robert, I do realize that it's obviously very, very difficult
for you to come to terms with Facts that contradict the Lies that you
wish to keep believing and propagandizing, so I'll say this in nice little
words so that you can keep up.
Now, listen carefully and please pay attention, Mr. Robert: It takes many,
many years for someone who is infected with untreated syphilis, to progress
to the final stages of the disease. The Tuskegee Study was ONLY interested
in men who were already in the last stages of the disease. Therefore,
in order for the men to have been in the last stages of the disease when
they were studied, they would necessarily have had to have contracted
the disease as much as ten to fifteen years BEFORE they even entered the
study.
Not only have you NOT presented any "evidence" that anyone participating
in the Tuskegee Experiment was ever "injected with syphilis";
it furthermore defies logic and common sense to even suggest that the
Tuskegee Experiment "injected or infected" anyone with syphilis,
since the Tuskegee Experiment administrators were only interested in patients
with late-stage syphilis, since it takes years for someone to progress
to having late-stage syphilis, and since someone infected with syphilis
today would not even qualify as a study participant with late-stage syphilis
for between 5 and 15 years from today.
Now, Mr. Robert, is that simple enough for you to understand? Or do you
need to have it illustrated for you in Crayon?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
text: Mark Robert wrote: "And sorry, "Phil" or whatever
your name is, You are basically a nobody who is full of shit and rationalizations.
Filth like yourself are the breeding ground for the conservative infection
raging in the body of America. -The acute condition of which is known
as FASCISM. It is unreal that so many people are going for this... well
it happened in Germany in the late 30's...Hard to believe our collective
immune system is so weak!"
Well, Mark Robert or whoever you are, it's pretty obvious that you are
just another sputtering, enraged, embittered "Blame-America-First"
Lib-Left-Liar who can't stand the fact that the majority of the American
people apparently disagree with you. People like you are always quick
to Blame America First, no matter what the occasion or circumstances,
it's always "our" fault in your opinion. No matter what the
circumstances, no matter how deeply humiliated or wounded America is,
Filth like you can always be counted on to try to turn the blame for the
latest outrage or horror onto AMERICA, and to try to deflect the blame
from those who are really and rightfully responsible, OUTSIDE OF America.
When the Iranian Islamic fanatics seized our Embassy in Iran in 1979,
trash like you tried to claim that it was "our own fault" and
similar BS. Fortunately, we in America had the good sense to kick losers
like you and Jimmy Carter out of political office and out onto your asses
on the street, and to elect Ronald Reagan. And you just couldn't handle
that, could you? You couldn't stand it that America stood up loud and
proud and kicked butt and took names. You couldn't stand it that we had
the guts to take on the Communist Sandinistas and roll back the tide of
Communist revolution in Central America during the 1980s, that we had
the guts to help Capitalist El Salvador remain Capitalist and Democratic
and to defeat a Communist insurgency in El Salvador funded by the Soviets
and supplied with training and weapons by the Cubans. And then, just like
now, you were sputtering and ranting away, because that's all you were
capable of doing then, and that's all you're capable of doing now. And
I'm proud that we took down a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, and
replaced him with Iraq's first democratically chosen government in half
a century. And I'm also proud that we kicked your liberal, left-wing Blame-America-First
butt in five out of the last seven U.S. Presidential elections since 1980.
And I have little doubt that we'll kick liberal left-wing butt in the
next U.S. Presidential election, too. If you have a problem with that,
there's a real simple solution: Go live somewhere else. There are about
a million people trying to emigrate to America every year, and somehow
I don't think you'll be missed after you're gone.
Ben Hennessy-Snell, UK
That entire groups of people, covering continents, can
be lumped together and told they hold the same values is ridiculous. Within
my own tiny social circle, a small city in the North West of England,
the values people hold vary massively, from close to christian-right,
through to extreme left.
What is important, is that people can talk about these issues. We have
the freedom to hold different values and express them. Democracy is often
the only value that we have in-common, within a single household, let
alone as part of some 'nation' or 'union' of states.
Democracy is the only value we AUGHT to stand together on and lets face
it, most intelligent Americans and Europeans do!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Kristin in Bethlehem, USA wrote: "Who are you fighting?
Who caused this problem? Our government did." We are fighting the
forces and iseological fanatics of Al-Qaida. And THEY caused this problem.
Not us. Not America. Not our government. Let's put the blame rightfully
where it belongs, Kristin -- on the terrorists themselves. Not on America.
|
|
Kristin in Bethlehem wrote: "Now is the time to be asking the truly
important questions. Why did the Bush administration ignore the National
Sercurity warnings about rising Al-queda activity prior to 9/11?".
The Bush Administration DID NOT "ignore" any National Security
warnings about rising Al-Qaeda activity. The "warnings", as
you refer to them, were so vague, general and unspecific that they amounted
to little more than "we know Al-Qaeda is planning something big,
because there's a lot of increased communications 'chatter' from Al-Qaeda
members indicating 'something' is going on, but we can't determine what
it is". The "warnings" as you refer to them werenever specific
enough or detailed enough to be acted upon. They weren't "actionable"
warnings. There was never any "warning" specific enough that
it spelled out "on THIS date, at THIS airport, THESE flights belonging
to THESE airlines are going to be boarded by THESE terrorists". And
without that level of detail, it was impossible to have prevented the
9/11 atrocities. The terrorists had overstayed their visas, but they were
not originally in the U.S. illegally; they weren't on any 'watch' lists
because such lists didn't exist before 9/11; they hadn't broken any laws
up to that point and had no criminal records in the U.S.
|
|
Kristin in Bethlehem, USA wrote: "Why did and does the US continue
to support corrupt and archaic regimes such as the Taliban and Saudi Arabia
which have both been condemned by Amnesty International?".
|
Well, Kristin, if you are truly "a junior college student hoping
to pursue a career in international politics", I think it would help
if you were more knowledgable and aware of what has really happened over
the last several years.
|
To begin with, the US government never "supported" the Taliban
in any way, shape or form. The Taliban no longer exists as an organized
government in Afghanistan, having been driven out of power at gunpoint
and under a hail of bombs and rockets from U.S. military forces. Afghanistan
has been Liberated by U.S. forces and is now governed by a government
of the Afghan peoples' choosing, headed by Hamid Karzai who was elected
as the leader of Afghanistan in a traditional Afghan "loya jirga".
|
As for Saudi Arabia, Kristin, regardless of whether you personally "like"
them or agree with them or not, the Saudi royal family is the sole recognized
legitimate representative of the Saudi people. Our relationship with the
Saudis is a complex and interconnected one that dates back to the first
meeting between a Saudi leader (Ibn-Saud) and an American President...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)... a Democrat. Over the course of the
last 60 years, American technical expertise and Saudi oil revenues have
"upgraded" Saudi Arabia from a relatively primitive, tribal-based
society into a modern semi-industrial nation. Saudi Arabia has all the
trappings of a modern society. But underneath the modern technology, Saudi
Arabia is still a deeply conservative and strict fundamentalist Islamic
society.
|
I'm not clear on what you mean in saying that we "support" the
Saudis. The fact that we buy oil from the Saudis does not mean that we
"support" the Saudis, nor does it mean that we endorse their
society as a model for our own or agree with their internal policies.
We buy oil from a lot of different countries, including some (Venezuela)
that are governed by regimes that I personally detest. We buy the oil
for a simple and basic reason: we need it, and they need to sell it. Our
purchases of Saudi oil are business transactions, pure and simple. We
pay a fair market price for the oil that we need in order for our society
to continue to function, and in return the Saudis receive a fair market
price for the only thing they have available to sell on world markets
besides "sand".
|
It's also not clear to me what exactly it is that you think we should
be 'doing' vis-a-vis our relationship with the Saudis that we are not
already doing. Having diplomatic relations with other countries requires
understanding and accepting those other countries' right to have societies
that are fundamentally different from our own. What would you have us
do -- turn up our noses at the Saudis' form of government, declare them
"corrupt", flounce away, refuse to talk with them? Were we to
do so, any leverage we have over the Saudis would instantly disintegrate.
The Saudis, who are even more threatened by Al-Qaida terrorism than we
are, would have no incentive to cooperate with us. And it still wouldn't
change the fact that we still need to purchase oil, regardless of whether
the oil comes from the Saudis, the Norwegians, the Venezuelans or whoever.
And for all your complaints about the Saudis' allged corruption, who would
you prefer to see running Saudi Arabia and sitting on top of millions
of barrels of oil reserves worth billions of dollars? Who's the alternative
-- Bin-Laden? If you think the Saudi regime is archaic now, how do you
like the prospect of the Saudi Royal Family being overthrown by Islamic
extremists and the Saudi oilfields falling into the hands of bin-Laden's
sympathizers -- and the prospect of billions of dollars worth of oil revenues
falling into the hands of promoters of terrorism? The entire 9/11 atrocity
probably only cost less than $1 million. How many 9/11 atrocities could
Bin-Laden afford to commit if his sympathizers seize control of the oilfields
-- in effect, extracting (from Western countries' oil purchases) the money
to fund terrorism against those same Western countries?
If we try to bring about peaceful change in other societies through dialogue,
if we politely decline to flounce off with our noses in the air pretending
that the Saudi government doesn't exist, we're accused of coddling dictators
and tyrants. If we criticize those other countries and urge them to adopt
democracy, we're accused of trampling on other societies' moral values
and of trying to impose Americanism on unwilling populations in other
countries and re-make the world in our own image. This seems like a no-win
situation for us in America; no matter what we do, someone is going to
scream that it's "wrong". Therefore, I believe we may as well
do what we believe to be right and what is in our best interests. No one
else is going to risk their lives or safety to volunteer to protect "our"
national interests. Nobody.
Sue, NJ, US
Dear Kristin, Bethlehem, USA:
I would like to point out that the current US administration toppled,
not supported, the Taliban. Second, the Iraq war has created a climate
of reform in the Middle East, and that includes Saudi Arabia. Third, surely
you don't believe we should announce our withdrawal timetable to the suicide
bombers in Iraq. Then all they need to do is lie low until we leave, and
then terrorize the population back into tyranny. The troop losses you
allude to are indeed sad, as are the civilian losses, but it would be
worse if we withdrew prematurely and they all died for nothing.
To Mark Robert, USA:
Where are you getting the 200-300K loss figure?
Why do you suppose that Senator "Klansman" Byrd's office is
a reputable source of public information? If there were ever a reason
to be ashamed of the US government, it's him.
The point of your long post seems to be that the US is irredeemably corrupt
and evil, and that any citizen who has supported any of its democratically
elected and term-limited governments during the past 50 years is an idiot.
(Incidentally, it's the Shah, not the Shaw).
Both of you seem to believe that if the US makes mistakes in war or foreign
policy, it is never morally permitted to change course and correct them.
If we were wrong 10 years ago, 40 years ago, whatever, then we can never
be right. I'd hate to see that logic applied to most European countries.
Secondly, you both seem to assume that the US acts and the rest of the
world does nothing but react, that the US is the prime mover of the universe.
This false assumption allows other countries to adopt a virtuous-seeming
passivity and blame all of their problems, past, present, and future,
on the big bad USA.
Ron Walker, UK
First, it needs to be understood that neither Europe nor
the USA are monolithic cultures, each composed of identically-thinking
clones. There's a wide range of views on each side of the Atlantic. That
range is one of Europe's biggest problems: varying cultures disagree on
essential items like political corruption, or the universal application
and enforcement of laws, making a practicable common legal framework difficult,
(bordering on impossible.) But, with that proviso made, it can be seen
that there are genuine differences about things like where the "common
ground" that divides left from right can be found. There's also a
considerable difference in the perception of reality. The American "common
ground" is considerably to the right of that in most European countries.
Hillary Clinton, derided as a "dangerous radical" by many Americans
stands to the right of Margaret Thatcher on a number of key issues, and
she was one of Europe's leading right-wingers. Americans tend to define
"patriotism" as a lack of self-criticism: no European takes
quite so Jingo-istic a world view as their American counterpart, which
(probably) results in a clearer world view. We don't share the reflex
reaction to someone pointing at an obvious screw-up by our politicians
by responding "You're just saying that because you're ANTI AMERICAN!"
(A charge that gets levelled at me almost daily) I happen to LIKE Americans.
Americans as they're depicted in US-made TV shows are welcomed into my
home daily. If CSI's "Gil Grissom" was a real person, he'd be
a welcome dinner guest. It's not "Americans"I have a problem
with: it's AmericanISM. In the years following the US Civil War, the USA
sucked in a vast number of immigrants (a surprising proportion of whom
came, looked at how others were being exploited, and went straight back
home) And they needed to be assimilated into the existing culture. The
"existing culture" therefore needed to be formulated; translated
into a form where immigrants could be tested on it. And the result is
in many ways like a religion. It has saints, prophets, holy relics heretics,
and... a central dogma at the heart of it. That a national culture CAN
be turned into that kind of multiple-choice test is inherently worrying,
as it hands undreamed-of power to those who decide which answers are correect,
and which are wrong. And it allows such people to exist and to function.
It's also rather like an academic course in Information Technology. (I.T.
changes so quickly that in the time taken to prepare textbooks and agree
a curriculum... the world has moved on) The USA's importance as a world
power has been in steady decline for decades. True, it outspends the rest
of the world on defence... but wasn't Russia referred to as "Upper
Volta with Rockets" not so long back? Median income in the USA has
been in decline since the 1980's. The "poor" are getting both
more numerous, and poorer (although not quite as quickly as the rich are
getting richer: the poors' slice of a growing "cake" is getting
thinner and thinner... and the process is getting faster) The USA's past
prosperity has relied heavily on a domestic market of unparalleled size
and affluence. With a big domestic market, unit production costs are slashed.
The EU is now a bigger marketplace than the USA, and with a GROWING median
income. Antonio Gramsci once remarked that "Ideology has no history".
Most Americans have spent their entire lives as citizens of the most powerful
economy on earth. They assume that it was always so, and will always be
so, because it's part of the natural order of things, (and because God
LIKES it that way.) Yet, in the 1850's when the British Empire was at
its height, more than 50% of world trade involved Britain as buyer or
seller. Today, that can't be said of ALL the "G7" countries
put together. Clearly, they just don't make "economic superpowers"
like they used to. But Hollywood will comfortingly reassure it's domestic
audience that they're the best nation... ever. It certainly won't dwell
on pseudo-prosperity built on a mountain of debt. It won't ask whether
minimum wages are higher in Europe or the USA (They'll just assume that
Rich America MUST earn more than poor, pinko Europeans. The UK minimum
wage is more £ than the number of $ earned by minimum wage Americans.
And that's on top of free healthcare)
Technology breeds increased productivity. Increased productivity offers
a choice - more leisure time for the same level of production, or more
production, or a compromise between the two. European cultural aspirations
tend towards the "leisure" side of the compromise, the USA towards
the "More production" side. That makes the "European"
model smarter. Productivity expands faster than the ability to consume
or redeploy the surplus labour force. The REAL long-term choice is between
"leisure" or "mass unemployment". (Think about it.
"Increased efficiency" means that eventually "work"
will consist of ONE guy pressing a button, and everyone else on welfare.
Exactly WHO is going to BUY what the machines he's switched on make?)
It's a future situation where, paradoxically, the USA has chosen the path
that reaches the crisis first.... and is least suited culturally to deal
with the consequences.
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
