Nationalism is not Good

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by MrPresident

No it isn't. It is proof that a 18th century world power can not defeat a less than determined nation 3,000 miles away.

Not satisfied?
Vietnam with Soviet help vs the US.
Smae principle, same result.

Indeed I am.

It's a common error.
If you object to killing, nobody will force you, but in the US you are still obligated by US law in certain matters during wartime.

Does it say in the cease-fire agreement that if Saddam doesn't follow the rules he will be overthrow?

If he fails to comply, does not the war continue?
There was no PEACE treaty, it was a CEASE-FIRE.
It would seem obvious you wouldn't leave a Hitler type in power, now doesn't it?

Yes he is. It is a common political tool that when your economy is in trouble (or depressed) that you use foreign policy to distract the voters. It is like the oldest political trick in the book.

In your opinion.
Most of us (and interestingly, it's our country) don't agree wityh that assessment, and since I would say you knew more about Britian then I do, I will say we know more about our nation then foriegn observers.

First of all God doesn't give rights. And secondly, it is.

You just contridicted yourself.
You also put yourself in the cat bird's seat for hypocrisy, you said earlier what right have Americans to critize Germany.
Are you saying only Europeans have such a right, but it's not for the inverse concerning Americans?
Nice little twist there.

In a free society you can say what you want (as long as it is not considered libel). And I think criticising the world's only superpower and its "imperialisation" (not what I believe but a common point of complain in Britain and Europe) is at the very least justified.

Just as the US is justified to pont out European duplicity, foot dragging, and moral cowardice.
It's a two edged sword after all, now isn't it?

Which is...

That terrorism is the reason as an unpresidented attack on the US mainland was carried out, so it can't be airely dismissed as "politics as usual" ala Clinton.

Not to be insulting (or at least trying not to be) but you really put a high value on America and what he do.

I think you mispoke here, not sure what your trying to convey.

I accept that Germany is going to pay a price but I doubt that price will be that high.

It will be immense, we take this betrayal VERY seriously.

Remember Germany is the world's 3rd largest economy and part of the world's largest trading bloc. I think they can handle themselves fairly nicely.

And the US is the largest, and Germany is in serious economic difficulties, and there will be no Uncle Sugar to call on for help, Britain and the other EU states will have to solve it, see if there is little effect.

There is a big gap between going to war and doing nothing. I think you should have a look at what is there. Britain has been in danger from terrorists attack for over 30 years and yet we haven't gone to war against Ireland/8 counties.

A different kind of war with a different enemy.
Ireland wasn't trying to destroy western civilization, and would never kidnap innocents and crash a plane into parliment, such a comparison is worthless.

We know that a war will never defeat terrorism, never. The best a war can do is hold terrorism at bay for a while (see Israel).

Both are flawed premises.
Terrorism in Israel continues MAINLY through Europe constanly tharting Israel's attempts to protect itself, and the opposition to the Iraq action is a further manisfasation of that.
Saddam also supports Hammas, the major player in Israeli terror.
Europe keeps putting Israel in a straight jacket, holds it to immpossible double standards.
If Ireland were doing to Ulster what Hammas does to Israel the UK would invade in a heartbeat and we both know it.

America should remember that they are new to the whole terrorism game and it is not black and white.

That's perception as reality, we have been the target of terror for over a decade, we only took notice when they scored a sucess.

And no matter how advanced you are, or how many weapons you have. Terrorism will always find a way.

Again, you show something I often see, a misunderstanding of human nature.
You can't stop a hardcore fanatic, that much is true, HOWEVER, you can frighten off the rank and file, and the governments that allow them the safe haven they need to opperate, those are the reasons to meet this kind of enemy with full force.
Notice how there was been no major terror strike since 9/11, only empty threats of "more to come" from Bin Laden?
If you think that the total destruction of his base camp and the fact that former friendly nations to him like Pakisatn and Yeman are now arresting Al Queda is a coincedence your fooling yourself.

The only way to stop it is through peace (see Sri Lanka).

Apeasement NEVER works, you will send the wrong message, namely that every time they want something they need only kill some of your people and you will give them what they want.

A Pax Romano may make the world safe for a while but it will not last forever and when it crumbles, everything crumbles with it.

If you do nothing, it will get worse, NOT BETTER.
You make the error of assuming they are reasonable and can be trusted.
They are neither.

That is the essence of terrorism. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That is the essence of the 20th century MYTH we have placed around terrorism, it can and has been fought.

You can't give in to their demands because that will lead to more terrorist attacks. But if you don't give in to their demands it will lead to more terrorist attacks.

Dead people are remarkably unable to carry out such attacks.

I didn't think it was that high. What was your source?

BBC this morning.

Do you need a history lesson on America's isolationist policy. you did not intervene in World War II until you were attacked. Europe was on fire and you did nothing. Do not tell us that we being short-sighted. We know all about it.

The difference is we LEARNED from it, YOU haven't.

Would never happen. The US needs the rest of the world (maybe not as much as the rest of the world needs the US). And the US would never (and I mean never) give up its seat on the security council. And if the US left the UN then it would be turning its back on world affairs and the age of the isolationism has passed. An ocean is not what it used to be.

Don't be so sure of it.
If the US ignored the UN, what need would it have on the council?
If the US put forth a join us or them arangement with it's many trading partners, how many would give up US dollars to stay in an US unsupported UN?
If your honest, that picture should frighten you immensly, remember, once the US is no longer subject to petty attacks through a world body, they will look at easier targets, like their former colonial oppressors for example.

This is the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these forums (no offense intended but this statement really annoyed me). The need to question the state constantly is the basis on democracy. Without it you don't have a democracy. The price of freedom is eternal vilgant.

I wish you wouldn't include a comment I didn't make when the rest of your post concerned things we are discussing, UNLESS you attribute that quote where it belongs.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Do you need a history lesson on America's isolationist policy. you did not intervene in World War II until you were attacked. Europe was on fire and you did nothing. Do not tell us that we being short-sighted. We know all about it.

But that's just it. America learned its lesson from intervening late in WWII. Europe appears not to have learned this lesson. All the lessons to be learned from the start of WWII concerning when action should have been taken, and that events on the other side of the globe can affect at home, all point to intervening now and making sure that Saddam is not a threat.

Britain and France should have intervened in 1936, failing that they should have not permitted the Anshluss, and after that should have never have sold out Czechoslovakia. America should have joined the war in 1939. That is what hindsight tells us.

The current situation, while not a perfect match, is close enough to recall the 1930's to mind, and to ask if the lessons learned at the cost of some 40-60 million people might not apply. That Europeans seem not to acknowledge this does seem short-sighted. It appears that you do not know all about it, but instead have determined that since the US made the same mistake Europe made numerous times in WWII, they should resign themselves to making the same mistake again.

Admittedly, Europe suffered a great deal more than the US in WWII, but what perplexes me is that the lesson on how the war could have been considerably lessoned in its devastation seems to be ignored in favor of the untested theory on how to completely prevent such a conflict by trading with the dictator, looking the other way while treaties are broken, and ignoring the growing power of an openly aggressive power. What makes Europeans think that people such as this can be reasoned with, dealt with, or bought off?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
It will be immense, we take this betrayal VERY seriously.

Yeah, having an opinion on your own is a betrayal...

To alot of people here George W. Bush's policies are a greater threat (concerning themselves) than those of Saddam Hussein.
Like it or not, that's how it is and it's correct if the government acts accordingly.

But what bothers me far more is that Bush and his supporters (I count you in there, at least concerning this issue) seem to see anything but blind obedience as betrayal.
There was a time when America stood for the removal of that attitude from Germany...

The majority of Europeans as well as alot of Americans don't want to follow that line. It's not just some fringe idea.

 

[AVN]

Originally posted by Hitro


Yeah, having an opinion on your own is a betrayal...

To alot of people here George W. Bush's policies are a greater threat (concerning themselves) than those of Saddam Hussein.
Like it or not, that's how it is and it's correct if the government acts accordingly.

But what bothers me far more is that Bush and his supporters (I count you in there, at least concerning this issue) seem to see anything but blind obedience as betrayal.
There was a time when America stood for the removal of that attitude from Germany...

The majority of Europeans as well as alot of Americans don't want to follow that line. It's not just some fringe idea.

I second your opinion here.
It's important that issues can be discussed in an open and positive environment. Calling someone else his opinion betrayal doesn't contribute in having a good and positive discussion.
And it doesn't solve the problems we have in this world.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by AVN
Calling someone else his opinion betrayal doesn't contribute in having a good and positive discussion.
And it doesn't solve the problems we have in this world.

Amazing how quick you go from best friend and loyal ally
to hostile neighbour. Makes you wonder if you ever were.

 

[Damien]

What europeans wonder is:

1)Is Irak really a threat?
I understand americans when they talk about the"don't move,he won't see us"attitude but Nazi Germany kept annexing territories.
Therefore it was a different case.Moreover,could France and Britain really declare war on GERMANY?

2)Isn't it a war for oil?

3)Won't we have to cope with guerillas?Remember what happened in Somalia.

Irakis have been undergoing a disgusting blackmail for 10 years(food for oil).

 

[knowltok2]

I have to agree with AVN and Hitro here. While I am saddened that Germany has decided at this point to rule out involvement in removing Saddam, I can't view it as a betrayal. It is a choice of theirs to make, and one that like all others carries with it certain consequences (not as dire as AOA is predicting I think, but it is not devoid of them). Only time will tell the full impact of this decision, and while the US obviously won't view it favorably, it is not a betrayal.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by Hitro

Yeah, having an opinion on your own is a betrayal...

Double standards and Shoreder saying he wouldn't support sanctions issued by the UN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES is a betrayal, NOT an opinion, sorry if you think differently.(He did say that, in a speach I saw on the BBC).

To alot of people here George W. Bush's policies are a greater threat (concerning themselves) than those of Saddam Hussein.
Like it or not, that's how it is and it's correct if the government acts accordingly.

And therein lies the greatest betrayal OF ALL, Saddam is a mass murderer, has attacked two of his neibhors in aggressive wars, gassed his own citizens, and you find BUSH more dangerous????
Not trying to be insulting, but don't you see how incredibly stupid your statement is?
Who has Bush invaded in a war of conquest?
Who has Bush gassed?
Saying you find Bush more dangerous is not only insulting, it actually borders on the infantile.

But what bothers me far more is that Bush and his supporters (I count you in there, at least concerning this issue) seem to see anything but blind obedience as betrayal.

Blind obedience...HA HA HA
He had to show me first, and I saw, looked, and listened before I supported it, Bush and his pals don't lead me around by the nose!

There was a time when America stood for the removal of that attitude from Germany...

We might have done TOO good a job, now there seems to be NOTHING you will fight for.

The majority of Europeans as well as alot of Americans don't want to follow that line. It's not just some fringe idea.

It's always easier to do nothing, to just forget it and hope it will go away.
The US did that alot, in 1993 (WTC) in the towers in Saudi Arabia (1998), The embassies in Africa in 2000 and the USS Cole the same year.

That's why I find the European attitude so vexing, it seems that NOTHING will move most of you.

I doubt that even an Atomic bomb exploding in Manhatten would change this attitude, people would be horrified AT FIRST (ala 9/11) and them go back to their normal lives in Europe.
THAT'S what I see.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Damien
What europeans wonder is:

1)Is Irak really a threat?
I understand americans when they talk about the"don't move,he won't see us"attitude but Nazi Germany kept annexing territories.
Therefore it was a different case.Moreover,could France and Britain really declare war on GERMANY?

2)Isn't it a war for oil?

3)Won't we have to cope with guerillas?Remember what happened in Somalia.

Irakis have been undergoing a disgusting blackmail for 10 years(food for oil).

1. Iraq has tried. Germany also built weapons that were expressly forbidden by the terms of the treaty they had signed. Yes Germany in 1936 was more of a threat to the world than Iraq is today. Do we need to wait till a nation is at the level of Germany 1936 before acting?

2. It is a war about a lot of things. Mainly it is about a demonstrably ruthless dictator getting his hands on a nuclear weapon and wielding tremendous power in the region. Sure the region is important because there is oil there. Oil is the reason Saddam has the money to build his weapons of mass destruction. Oil plays a part, but it is not a war of going in and securing oil rights (at least not for the US, I've heard that claim leveled at France and Russia though).

3. Maybe, maybe not. There weren't any guerillas last time. Also, in Somalia their was confusion of roles, limits to equipment, and lack of support. In Iraq, there would not be warlords trying to defy the US authority in the interim between invasion and the establishment of a government. Also, Iraq has an army that is quite capable of keeping order. It is possible that this army will still be intact.

Also, as bad as Somalia was, most people think of one incident and assume that if something like that level of casualties were sustained it would be a failure. There may be some hard fighting involved. I hope not, but their are no gaurantees. America and the world shouldn't shrink from doing the right thing because of a fear of a few casualties. It should not be ignored, but action should not be conditioned on a bloodless requirement.

4. Where did that policy come from? What would it take to lift it? Isn't it too bad that Saddam can't even handle that deal, but instead subverts it to buy weapons and pursue WMD?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by newfangle
After much debate here at CFC (most of it pointless), I have come to the realization that nationalism is the cause of this world's problems. Take a look at the EU. With the exception of perhaps England, nationalism is practically a thing of the past. For Germany and France, nationalism caused many deaths in two wars. Russians are so damn sick of political change, a lot of their pride has diminished as well.

National pride is just pointless now. (Yes, I will change my avatar, but I have problems getting high quality ones). No one cares to hear national anthems at sports arenas. The biggest problem is that people will blindly follow their national leader, regardless of his intellectual prowess (cough *Dubya/Chretien*).

As the world progresses (it most certainly is), I would like to see such archaic ideals as nationalism completely fazed out. Clearly such concepts are useless now, espcially with instantaneous worldwide communications.

Congratulations newfangle. You have just managed to spot the forest, in spite of all these darn trees blocking your view.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by knowltok2


1. Iraq has tried. Germany also built weapons that were expressly forbidden by the terms of the treaty they had signed. Yes Germany in 1936 was more of a threat to the world than Iraq is today. Do we need to wait till a nation is at the level of Germany 1936 before acting?

>>>THE US and the UK already bomb N and S portions of Irak.With spy satellites,etc I think we can be informed when he becomes too dangerous and I don't think he'll become THAT dangerous.

2. It is a war about a lot of things. Mainly it is about a demonstrably ruthless dictator getting his hands on a nuclear weapon and wielding tremendous power in the region. Sure the region is important because there is oil there. Oil is the reason Saddam has the money to build his weapons of mass destruction. Oil plays a part, but it is not a war of going in and securing oil rights (at least not for the US, I've heard that claim leveled at France and Russia though).

>>>N Korea,China,and many other countries are dictatorships that got nukes.


4. Where did that policy come from? What would it take to lift it? Isn't it too bad that Saddam can't even handle that deal, but instead subverts it to buy weapons and pursue WMD?

>>>Why wasn't Saddam kicked and replaced by a democratic govt?(This was already discussed in the History Forum)Ok,the resolution was about removing Iraki troops from Kuwait and not about invading Irak and kicking Saddam but I think it should've been made and could've been made.The allies were already on the road to Baghdad.

Why did they stop?It stinks oil.
Irakis were quite happy with the americans at that time.(many guys in the Iraki army went for US camps since they were better fed there than in the Iraki army and moreover,they showed no resistance when they were caught).

After 10 years of blackmail and starvation...it's different.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Double standards and Shoreder saying he wouldn't support sanctions issued by the UN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES is a betrayal, NOT an opinion, sorry if you think differently.(He did say that, in a speach I saw on the BBC).

Schröder said a government lead by him would not participate in any kind of military action, neither with nor without UN support. Non-violent sanctions were never much of an issue.

Now to the so-called betrayal. Let's discuss what that is. To me a betrayal is saying you would support someone and then not doing it when it comes to a fight (or any other kind of action that was supposed to be combined).
An example of that would be if two countries form a mutual protection pact and at the moment the one gets attacked the other backs out. That's what I'd call a betrayal.

Now is this the case here? I don't think so. Schröder never said he would support offensive military action against Iraq, not a single time. And there is no Iraqi attack on the US or any other ally, so defensive action is not needed. Bush's administration and his Labour allies never gave any proof for the claim of Iraq being behind Sept. 11th (in fact they admitted that this wasn't the case).
So please tell me where Germany betrayed the US.

And therein lies the greatest betrayal OF ALL, Saddam is a mass murderer, has attacked two of his neibhors in aggressive wars, gassed his own citizens, and you find BUSH more dangerous????
Not trying to be insulting, but don't you see how incredibly stupid your statement is?
Who has Bush invaded in a war of conquest?
Who has Bush gassed?
Saying you find Bush more dangerous is not only insulting, it actually borders on the infantile.

The threat concerns the personal level of course. What do we have to do with Saddam? Not much. But certainly alot with Bush, and he does effectively harm the country, through his environmental policies and trade policies.
I can understand if Israel feels threatened by Saddam, or Kuwait, although he wouldn't stand a chance against the IDF.
But Iraq is a local power in the Middle East (and not really much of a power...), as we are not located in the Middle East and (contrary to the US) have no claims on geopolitical leadership, that's far from being our main concern.
And definetely far enough to make alot of people think that it is not worth breaking our constitution.

The United States, especially under Bush, has always followed self-interest, why can't you understand that others do like that as well, completely apart from the question if such a war makes sense, which is also answered with "no" by some Americans, including representatives. By the way, are they traitors???

Blind obedience...HA HA HA
He had to show me first, and I saw, looked, and listened before I supported it, Bush and his pals don't lead me around by the nose!

I was actually not talking about any kind of your obedience to Bush. I am aware of the fact that your personal opinion on this issue is the same as his, so there's no need for blind obedience.
I was talking about the relationship between the United States and Germany (and other allies for that matter), referring to your betrayal claim. Germany (the government) has a different opinion on this issue than the US, wouldn't following them anyway come close to blind obedience?
What do you expect? That friendship means we do everything you say?

We might have done TOO good a job, now there seems to be NOTHING you will fight for.

Nothing except our freedom, meaning defending our country. That's how it is written in the constitution. Invading countries in the Middle East to press through our interests is not part of it.

It's always easier to do nothing, to just forget it and hope it will go away.
The US did that alot, in 1993 (WTC) in the towers in Saudi Arabia (1998), The embassies in Africa in 2000 and the USS Cole the same year.

That's why I find the European attitude so vexing, it seems that NOTHING will move most of you.

I doubt that even an Atomic bomb exploding in Manhatten would change this attitude, people would be horrified AT FIRST (ala 9/11) and them go back to their normal lives in Europe.
THAT'S what I see.

A nuclear bomb exploding in Manhatten or in fact anywhere in the US or Europe would certainly be a catastrophe. But it wouldn't give any of us the right to hit everyone we don't like just in suspicion.
Europe has a different view on war, we actually know what it means to have it in our continent, and not just far away.
Peace is an important thing to defend too, next to freedom and liberty.
You are free to disagree with that, but I refuse any claims of that being a betrayal.
If I would call the US' policies on the Kyoto protocol a betrayal you would probably say that it was never ratified, would never have been ratified and so on. Fine, but in this case there wasn't even a protocol, treaty or whatever else, but you still have the nerves to call it a betrayal.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Damien
>>>THE US and the UK already bomb N and S portions of Irak.With spy satellites,etc I think we can be informed when he becomes too dangerous and I don't think he'll become THAT dangerous.

You don't need a spy satellite to detect a mushroom cloud, and they haven't made one yet that will pick up a grapefruit sized hunk of uranium. I guess as long as he doesn't become THAT dangerous, inactivity and appeasement should be the order of the day.

>>>N Korea,China,and many other countries are dictatorships that got nukes.

What's your point? If it is to point out that once a nation enters the nuclear club options for dealing with its less than pleasant qualities start evaporating, consider it made. If you are trying to imply that the US should attack stable (somewhat) nations with nuclear weapons just because they have them if we are going to attack Iraq, then you are trying to see the world in black and white. Each and every situation is different, and while there are precedents and lessons that can be learned from each, that does not mean that all situations with a degree of similarity have to be handled the same way.

>>>Why wasn't Saddam kicked and replaced by a democratic govt?(This was already discussed in the History Forum)Ok,the resolution was about removing Iraki troops from Kuwait and not about invading Irak and kicking Saddam but I think it should've been made and could've been made.The allies were already on the road to Baghdad.

Why did they stop?It stinks oil.
Irakis were quite happy with the americans at that time.(many guys in the Iraki army went for US camps since they were better fed there than in the Iraki army and moreover,they showed no resistance when they were caught).

After 10 years of blackmail and starvation...it's different.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty as the saying goes. Sure Saddam should have been removed. I don't think it stinks of oil though. If it stunk of oil, he would have been removed in favor of a freindly regime. To me it stinks of geopolotics. Concerns about a power vacuum next to Iran, anarchy in Iraq, lack of support from Arab partners, etc. What is amazing is that blame for not removing him in '91 is somehow laid at the US's feet alone. It is further amazing that some people will point to a mistake in the past, assume a sinister motive behind it, and then require that that mistake be continued. If he should have been removed in '91, surely he should be removed now.

As for how the Iraqis respond to America trying to remove Saddam, time will have to tell. He is dangerous, his power is growing, he should be removed, and that being the case, hinging the decision on what the Iraqi people may or may not do is not a reasonable course of action.

 

[IceBlaZe]

By Hitro:

<snip>...in suspicion...<snip>

I wouldn't underestimate that as suspicion.
Saddam is more like a proven, uncontrolled Criminal waiting to get his weapon than an innocent suspect.
And you know how easy it is to get a "gun" in todays world, where sales of weapons in all nations are following the ways paved by that nation's interests.

Or, in simple words, It wouldn't be hard for Saddam to get parts for nuclear weapons from Russia.

So, what do you do? Wait for him to get his weapon and see if he acts, or arrest him before he has the chance? (For crimes he did commit).

It reminds me of the law. Sometimes you need to arrest a murderer for not paying his taxes, only to prevent his next murder.

Si vis pacem, para bellum, Hitro

 

[Hitro]

Ice, there have been alot of discussions about the pro and contra of a preemptive attack on Iraq, also in this forum, so I won't repeat my personal opinion on it once again, parts of it are included in the post that replied to AoA.
What I am discussing with him that I can't understand how he (or anybody else) can call it a betrayal if two allies take opposite opinions on an issue.

By the way, nice latin there...

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Being allies means hanging together when you are needed, not deciding "it isn't in your interest".

Your post basically said "the rest of the world can go hang, as long as WE aern't threatened".

That's a dangerous attitude.

Being allied means that sometimes you have to fight when your interests are not served.

For example, the US could have fought WWII without committing a single soldier, just air and naval power, and it would have served our interests (protecting US trade), and let all of you except for Britain be overrun by Stalin, and it would have suited our national interests.

The truth is, when it comes to right and wrong, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.
It served no US national interest to help Nato in the Balkans, but as allies we were honor bound to assist.

When we can for that assistance, our allies say "what do WE get out of it?"

That's a betrayal of our trust, and of our alliance, in fact your not being an ally at all.

The US doesn't need a single German soldier to fight, but it can and does expect it's allies to at the very least provide moral support, and even THIS was to much for Germany.

Yes, it's your country and your free to do as you like, but then so are we, but remember, when we asked for your help you turned your back on us.

That is betrayal.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I have seen pot-heads my whole life, spare me your "studies', there is a real effect, and it isn't good.

Smoke of any kind damages your arteries, by making them shrink, and your subject to blockages that lead to strokes and heart attacks.

Pot also lessens your mental capacity, as does booze, which isn't good either, but that is already leagal, pot isn't, and I'll tell you something, only teens and people in their 20s favor it, as you grow older you realize drugs aern't so cool after all.
(there are exceptions, so don't bother listing some geezer who likes a buzz )

It's too bad some countries are to stupid to see that, you can take a free society to far sometimes.

Smoke may damage your arteries but tobacco is legal so that cannot be used as an argument against marijuana decriminalization.

Pot may be bad for you short term, but as you mentioned, so are many LEGAL substances i.e. alcohol.

But besides all of this, marijuana should be decriminalized because the government has no mandate to protect us from ourselves. If we want to injest substances then let us; we are not harming anyone else. The government has no right to play big brother to us and say "you all cannot handle this substance, so we will deem it illegal and carry stiff penalties if you are found with it." If you dont like pot dont do it but allow us to do it in the privacy of our homes if we wish to. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY!

Not too mention the grave cost (10s of billions a year) we are paying to arrest, prosecute, and imprison drug offenders. Or the innocent people that have been shot or wounded as a result of a misinformed "drug bust." Or the irreversible harm inflicted on otherwise lawful "drug offenders" by means of blackening their record with a criminal offense. Or, perhaps most shockingly, the fact that by diverting criminal justice resources to going after drug offenders we are shifting government officials AWAY from going after the real criminals: violent murderers, rapists, and robbers. It is a fact that violent offenders are often let out of prison early to make room for drug offenders.

IF YOU SUPPORT DRUG CRIMINALIZATION, YOU SUPPORT LESSER ARREST RATES AND SHORTER SENTENCES FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Being allies means hanging together when you are needed, not deciding "it isn't in your interest".

Your post basically said "the rest of the world can go hang, as long as WE aern't threatened".

That's a dangerous attitude.

That's not wrong, but that exactly what the US, especially Bush, is constantly doing. I can't think of a single issue that was decided upon based on anything else but self-interest.
Kyoto comes to my mind first here, other things as well.

Being allied means that sometimes you have to fight when your interests are not served.

For example, the US could have fought WWII without committing a single soldier, just air and naval power, and it would have served our interests (protecting US trade), and let all of you except for Britain be overrun by Stalin, and it would have suited our national interests.

Don't you think it would harmed your trade interests if Stalin would have overrun continental Europe? It certainly would have, and that's the explanation for opening a second front when the war was already won by the allies as a whole.
It's been US self-interest then as well, may I remind you that no US plane, not even to talk of a soldier, participated in the war until others declared it on the US? Europe was burning for more than two years then, Asia even longer.
I can understand that attitude given the time and place, but let's not portrait it as any different than it was.

The truth is, when it comes to right and wrong, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.
It served no US national interest to help Nato in the Balkans, but as allies we were honor bound to assist.

Hmm, questionable, I think opening the Yugoslav market for Western industries served US interests quite well.
Nobody's fighting wars for idealist interests, especially not in today's time, I never heard anything about US or European soldier fighting the massacres in Rwanda...

When we can for that assistance, our allies say "what do WE get out of it?"

That's not the point, and that is the main thing you miss. Although the people may by majority be against any war, the political leaders are not really, Kosovo showed that.
Germany (and others, don't forget that only Tony Blair supports Bush) doesn't reject a war against Saddam in the first place because it doesn't serve our interests, but just because we think it won't archieve anything and may well bring new problems.
You seem to assume that the US opinion is the one the whole alliance should be acting upon, but what kind of alliance would that be then? Have you ever considered not to attack Iraq as well because we don't want it?

That's a betrayal of our trust, and of our alliance, in fact your not being an ally at all.

The US doesn't need a single German soldier to fight, but it can and does expect it's allies to at the very least provide moral support, and even THIS was to much for Germany.

Yes, it's your country and your free to do as you like, but then so are we, but remember, when we asked for your help you turned your back on us.

That is betrayal.

So all this could be said vice versa, which wouldn't make it more appropriate.

 

[bigfatron]

<<Warning - long and rambling post! >>

Surely this debate exposes the natural danger of nationalism.

By defining a sub-set of people and imbuing that subset with a special significance it is inevitable that people within this subset will be viewed as more valuable to the other members of that set than people who fall outside it.

This is true of religions, countries, even supporters of sports teams.

A frequent, though not inevitable, corollary of this is that those within the sub-set start to believe that those outside it are intrinsically or inherently of lesser value.

This can be true of racial, religious, national, tribal or sexual groupings. I've heard ultra-feminists argue that men are inherently less important to society and should be treated as such, although I'm sure shock was as much of a motivation for them as conviction.

The side argument here about Iraq hinges over the value that we choose to place on different communities.

Some people believe that the impression is being given that the US government (and possibly many of its people) place a different and much higher value on the life of a US citizen than of anyone else.

Now you can argue that all countries do this, and I would say you would be correct; however, degree is important as are the actions this leads to.

Extreme polarisition of values can justify actions such as Hitler's invasions of Poland & Russia, mild polarisation might mean that you would spend more money on your local health service than on foreign aid. For each of us there is a point on the line where we feel nationalism has become unacceptably extreme (well except Darkshade of course).

There seems to be a frustration in the US at the world's failure to act on September 11th, but no concommitant recognition of other countries' frustration at the US' failure to act in spheres that have led to much higher loss of life.

One can argue that the cases are different - loss of life by famine, lack of medical treatment for preventable disease, anti-terrorist action, etc. is an unfortunate side-product of a policy aimed at different results. Intention is all.

However, such arguments may lead non-Americans to believe that they are sophistry, providing cover for the extreme polarisation of value placed on civilised (i.e. caucasian, european) life as opposed to arab, asian or african life.

For in every case where they are deployed they support the taking of 'uncivilised' life while defending 'civilised' life - why? because the intention of 'civilised' governemnt is always honourable.

Personally I believe the gap in understanding between America and most of the rest of the world stems from two things -

firstly the US does appear to place an exaggerated value on US lives compared to most other nations. The American myth is steeped in stories of 'bringing the boys home', acts of heroism are almost universally carried out by Americans even where history nust be re-written to accomodate that fact.

I genuinely think most Americans are so inured to this by their media they can no longer recognise the reality. Of course other countries suffer from the same value imbalance, but I truly think it is much less pronounced.

one symptom of this is to see the attack on WTC as an attack on the world or on civilisation - however to the rest of the world it was, however shocking and evil an act, an attack on the USA. This is not to downplay its seriousness. However, the US is not the world, it is simply not the same thing.

The second cause of the split between US and European views is the shock factor of America being attacked in its homeland - while most countries around the world have faced terrorism, insurgency, world or local war on their territories, the US had sustained no attack on its territory apart from Pearl Harbor since the turn of the last century.

Americans felt more secure than any other people, and their belief in their security was steeped in myth as well as strongly supported by reality. They could not be hurt by others - it was simply not possible.

Combining the effects of exaggerated personal values with the massive shock to self-security means that to the average US citizen Sept 11th was an event that competely changed their world view.

To many non-americans there has been little or no change in how secure or otherwise we feel, but in the US there has been a step change.

What becomes most difficult to reconcile is the desire of the American people for action, to end the insecurity they now feel, against the predominating view in the rest of the world that nothing fundamental has changed.

Objectively the rest of the world is probably right - after all, even if Saddam exploded a nuke in London, more people would die from famine that month in Africa than from the effects of the blast.

However, it is hard not to have some sympathy for people who have suffered a shock as traumatic as that of 9/11.

My conclusion is that nationalism is a force which is tolerable in low doses but becomes dangerous in times of stress and danger - and we live in such times now.

I'll get me coat now.....

 

[MrPresident]

Being allies means hanging together when you are needed, not deciding "it isn't in your interest".

No it doesn't. NATO states that if any country is attacked that all the other countries could to their aid. We did that already in Afganistan. However Iraq did not attack America. So America's allies are under no obligation to join in any attack. And particularly when such an attack is based on upon the doctrine of pre-emptive attack. This makes me very uneasy (which tells you something considering my pro-America stance and pretty much everything). It goes against international law, sets a dangerous precendent, destroys national soverity and could very easily be subverted and abused. And there is no UN-mandate to attack Saddam (the 1991 war was to get him out of Kuwait not to overthrow him).

Having said all that I do support an attack against Iraq and I think Blair is right to support America on this issue. However I don't think America can criticise the Germany people for electing an anti-war chancellor. And I don't think the threat of freezing diplomatic relations is that big of a threat. And I really don't like people calling it a betrayal. Being the world's policeman is one thing, being the world's judge, jury and executor is another.