Would you consider yourself to be Anti-American?

Éomer of Rohan

And before you ask either, I’m not a Jew either, just in case that’s also on your agenda.

I want to know what you mean by that because I consider it a grievous insult if you are calling me anti-semitic. I simply enquired as to whether you were american since your rhetoric sounded much like that from certain republican americans that I know - that is all. It was not a discriminatory question.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I want to know what you mean by that because I consider it a grievous insult if you are calling me anti-semitic. I simply enquired as to whether you were american since your rhetoric sounded much like that from certain republican americans that I know - that is all. It was not a discriminatory question.

Diddums, were you offended? You might try avoiding such cheap shots as “are you American” then. Ultimately you’ve just responded with the most incredible diatribe of irrelevant waffle I’ve witnessed in a good while and missed the point entirely. You really should not be caught up in your own dogma so as to be blind to the world around you.

As such to disagree with you is to become a pro-American warmonger. I’m not. I made no moral judgment on American, European or Iraqi actions. All I did was highlight the ultimate consequences of historical Darwinism.

Read over what I posted again. Take a deep breath, think outside of that little box you live in and argue with what I said, rather than what you would have liked me to say. If finger puppets will help you understand, I may be able to sort something out for you.

If you intend to spout pages of pseudo-intellectualism in response to this, don’t. It would be a waste of both our times, bandwidth and the thoughts of those you would plagiarize.

Éomer of Rohan

You might try avoiding such cheap shots as “are you American”

You obviously missed where I made it clear w.r.t the reasons I asked this.

As such to disagree with you is to become a pro-American warmonger. I’m not. I made no moral judgment on American, European or Iraqi actions

Where did this come from? I was attacking your theories...

Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

and

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right

and as yet all you have done is tried to insult me. However it was you who brought up 'pseudo-intellectualism' with

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

- hence my questioning your obvious disdain for intellectuality.

All I did was highlight the ultimate consequences of historical Darwinism.

Do you know the modern name for a Social Darwinist? A Nazi.

Take a deep breath, think outside of that little box you live in and argue with what I said, rather than what you would have liked me to say. If finger puppets will help you understand, I may be able to sort something out for you.

I was arguing with precisely what you said hence the quotes I included to point out the relevent piece I was arguing with . So far it has been you who has failed to argue, saying things like

If you intend to spout pages of pseudo-intellectualism in response to this, don’t. It would be a waste of both our times, bandwidth and the thoughts of those you would plagiarize

- do you care to substantiate your theory of my plagiarisation?

To conclude, I think it is fairly obvious that your argument was not at all well contructed and thus you resort to such slanging tactics; something I am trying to go off for lent lol.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You obviously missed where I made it clear w.r.t the reasons I asked this.

No you didn’t. You just gave the reason “Not a criticism, just a question”.

Where did this come from? I was attacking your theories...

No you weren’t you were just waffling irrelevant arguments that bore no relation to what anyone has discussed here.

Do you know the modern name for a Social Darwinist? A Nazi.

LOL. I’ve no doubt that’s a term you use liberally about a lot of people who disagree with you.

To be more accurate, a Social Darwinist by it’s nature would be more correctly aligned to Liberal Capitalism than any kind of Fascism, National Socialism or Socialism. Read up on your political and economic science.

I was arguing with precisely what you said hence the quotes I included to point out the relevent piece I was arguing with .

Just because you quoted, does not mean you even understood what you quoted. You’ve still not addressed what I argued, btw.

DeVore

Lads, I'd remind you both that this forum is here to debate the issues at hand, not to attack the debater.

The Corinthian, please rein in your honed debating snipes, your side-wipes are creating heat, not light.

Eomer, you are not blameless either and comments on intectual prowess are not far off the "little boy" jibs, just better concealed.

I dont expect people to come to an agreement, there is often illumination to be found on both sides in the explanation of difference but I will insist on civility which is sorely lacking in the recent posts on this thread.

DeV.

swiss

I'd like to make that a little clearer.

The Corinthian, that insinuation that Éomer of Rohan had a Nazi agenda stepped over the line. There were other transgressions of civility, but that one was especially objectionable. If there are any more comments like that forthcoming, consider yourself banned from politics.

The same holds true for Éomer of Rohan or anyone else who feels like taking a side swipe at other posters (as opposed to their arguments). If you feel you cannot post without being derogatory or insulting to other posters, then you should not be posting in this board.

Well this thread really grew while i was asleep.

Might is right. Bottom line

Perhaps once, but not anymore. Might is just another tool in the arsenals of nations. Those that use might exclusively are barbarians. No nation that uses might exclusively can hope to survive for long. Look at Nazi Germany for example, they used their might, and the world turned on them. The US in the past have known that to use their military everywhere would turn the world against them, and against the world they would have no chance.

Make no mistake my friend, if you wanted to change it, there are others who will want the same, and doesn't the world turn on the hopes and dreams of idealistic men who want to change things for the better, not just the pragmatists who can help it happen?

In this i have to disagree with you. On the international level, its the nations themselves that make the impact, not the individual. I'm entering my thirties, and i don't have the time or the inclination to throw my past aside, to pursue a life in politics, which is the only avenue to change this. The only other course available, is violence, and thats foreign to me.

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures

As things stand in Europe, there is nobody that would consider starting a war. Europe over the last 100 years has grown closer. The only nation capable of starting a war with europe, are countries outside of its influence. In that case, Europe is more than capable to defend itself. While we don't have an individual nation capable of comparing the the US might, combined we have more than capable forces. You also seem to forget that while America has been a more visible presence in all the recent wars, the european armies, are better trained, and have seen just as much bloodshed. The French, the british, and even the Irish have performed mop-up for american forces, in matters relating to the UN & NATO. This gives us the advantage of the experience of occupying countries, which is alot more dangerous than taking a country.

You really should not be caught up in your own dogma so as to be blind to the world around you.

I think we all can be called up on this front. Even you, if you want to be honest. Its called being Human.

To be more accurate, a Social Darwinist by it’s nature would be more correctly aligned to Liberal Capitalism than any kind of Fascism, National Socialism or Socialism. Read up on your political and economic science.

All this is just psycho-babble. At the end of the day, these labels mean nothing. It has no relevence to this topic. If you want to discuss this type of stuff, wouldn't it be better off in Humanities?


At the end of the day, this thread is abt whether you're an anti-american or not.

I am.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
Perhaps once, but not anymore. Might is just another tool in the arsenals of nations. Those that use might exclusively are barbarians. No nation that uses might exclusively can hope to survive for long. Look at Nazi Germany for example, they used their might, and the world turned on them. The US in the past have known that to use their military everywhere would turn the world against them, and against the world they would have no chance.

Might is not just exclusively military, but also technological, financial and political - Or perhaps ultimately financial; “the sinews of war are infinite moneies”, after all.

When one power is in a position that it is the financial linchpin in all the World’s major international bodies; the UN, IMF, NATO, etc. it does not need to fire a shot to win a war. That is true might.

I think we all can be called up on this front. Even you, if you want to be honest. Its called being Human.

Fair enough.

At the end of the day, this thread is abt whether you're an anti-american or not.

Returning to the discussion at hand, European anti-Americanism has its origins in the divergence in interests between Europe and America since the end of the Cold War. Up until that point, American leadership was welcomed by a Europe in the front line of a potential nuclear holocaust.

With the end of the Cold War, Europe began to reassert itself, hoping that their western cousins would quietly go back home to tend their farms. America, quite understandably heartened by its newfound status as the World’s only remaining superpower, disagreed. After fifty years of policing and shaping the map of the World, she was beginning to get (in her opinion) good at it.

Thus, all throughout the 1990’s we began the see a slow divergence in European and American interests, which began to become more visible with friction in Kosovo between European (particularly German) and American interests - with one favouring the Macedonian government and promoting the Euro as currency of trade and the other supporting the Albanian separatists and promoting the Dollar as currency of trade.

Add a dozen little incidents leading up to 9-11, including the EU rejection of an offer by the US to use their global positioning satellite network in favour of its own and the move by Germany to Linux (for, amongst other reasons quoted, security reasons) and you’ll see a slow deterioration between the two continents.

Add to this the prevalent feeling of superiority (a.k.a. prejudice) that Europeans feel with respect to Americans - An attitude that sees Americans as ‘country cousins’, a nation that “has gone from barbarism to decadence without the customary period of civilization” or generally as ill educated, vulgar, shallow, culturally bereft (if admittedly likable) buffoons.

Now mix both these factors together with the aftermath of 9-11; an America seen to be swinging it’s weight and the dawning on Europe that America is not overly concerned with getting permission from daddy anymore. Leaving Europeans with potentially very little they can do about it outside of demonstrations and vetoes that are unlikely to stop any conflict.

It is from the above background and the frustration that comes from the feeling of almost political helplessness and fear for the future (after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire?) that we see the rise of anti-Americanism.

When one power is in a position that it is the financial linchpin in all the World’s major international bodies; the UN, IMF, NATO, etc. it does not need to fire a shot to win a war. That is true might.

True, but you were suggesting that the US had dominence over Europe in its might. According to the above, Europe could and will beat them, in terms of might.

With the end of the Cold War, Europe began to reassert itself, hoping that their western cousins would quietly go back home to tend their farms. America, quite understandably heartened by its newfound status as the World’s only remaining superpower, disagreed. After fifty years of policing and shaping the map of the World, she was beginning to get (in her opinion) good at it.

Seems a change from you're earlier statement that Europe was still more than happy to let America shape the world.

Thus, all throughout the 1990’s we began the see a slow divergence in European and American interests, which began to become more visible with friction in Kosovo between European (particularly German) and American interests - with one favouring the Macedonian government and promoting the Euro as currency of trade and the other supporting the Albanian separatists and promoting the Dollar as currency of trade.

There has always been a divergence when it came to America trying to influence Europe. The nations in Europe, have never given America the right to dictate policy to Europeans. Even in the heights of the US political power, Europe has always been rules by Europeans.

Add to this the prevalent feeling of superiority (a.k.a. prejudice) that Europeans feel with respect to Americans - An attitude that sees Americans as ‘country cousins’, a nation that “has gone from barbarism to decadence without the customary period of civilization” or generally as ill educated, vulgar, shallow, culturally bereft (if admittedly likable) buffoons.

TBH honest i've never felt this. Americans are just different. I don't feel superior to English people, becuase i'm Irish. Or that i'm superior to Black haired people, cause i have brown. America from my generation has always been powerful, technological & military wise, so this country-bumkin attitude doesn't really apply. America though has always been as arrogant as any european nation even at the height of their colonial power.

That could be what i dislike about americans. Their overwhelming arrogance. But apart from that i have nothing against americans, just america as a nation/superpower.

Now mix both these factors together with the aftermath of 9-11; an America seen to be swinging it’s weight and the dawning on Europe that America is not overly concerned with getting permission from daddy anymore. Leaving Europeans with potentially very little they can do about it outside of demonstrations and vetoes that are unlikely to stop any conflict.

The US has never asked for permission from "Daddy" (as u put it), for anything they've ever done. They just assume Europe will fall in line.

9-11 was awful, but it doesn't excuse the behaviour of a nation currently trying to start wars everywhere. The Versailles Treaty didn't excuse Hitler from gassing the Jews, and being religious doesn't excuse Cromwell for what he did.

Europe if it chose could do alot more if they wanted. You're confusing reluctance to act, as being a lack of power. The power & ability is there all right, its just hasn't been applied as yet. Don't count Europe out as yet.

It is from the above background and the frustration that comes from the feeling of almost political helplessness and fear for the future (after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire?) that we see the rise of anti-Americanism.

I disagree. Anti-Americanism grew out of the actions of the US government for the last 50 years. Ploys by the Reagan administration gave Europe a taste of how the US loves to manipulate foreign states. Actions by Bush just re-inforce the image of a powerful force, that bulls its way thru all restrictions. Restrictions that the US agreed upon when it suited them.

Anti-Americanism has also grown out of the lack of compromise with the US. There is no room for negotiation with them. No subtlety anymore. Everyone is starting to realise that the US is a loose cannon, with alot of firepower. Coupled with the attitude that civilisation ends at the borders of the US, makes for a very worrying stance. Since the US has broken, or ignored so many international conventions/agreements is it any wonder that Europe is very wary of the US. Especially since despite their claims of never using Nukes unless for defense, the very real possibility of them being used, is likely.

Yes there is fear. A certain amount of respect also. The same kind of fear and respect you treat a dobermann before it bites you.

after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire

You're assuming its going to be an american empire. What about an European Empire. You see, i haven't lost my faith that Europe could turn around and create the most powerful organisation, in Economic, Political & Military wise. The EU is just the foundation. Without the US being members, the organisation has a chance to grow.

Have you not noticed that any world organisation that the US is part of lacks respect? The UN has lost respect, over the Iraq situation. Its starting to be viewed as a puppet org for the US. AS for NATO, everyone claims that NATO would cease to be a org with any power without the US, so whats the point?

Anti-Americanism for me, is objecting to the actions of america. Which probably constitutes 1/4 the population of Europe.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
True, but you were suggesting that the US had dominence over Europe in its might. According to the above, Europe could and will beat them, in terms of might.

True. Were Europe a united body. It’s not as recent events have shown.

Seems a change from you're earlier statement that Europe was still more than happy to let America shape the world.

No, Europe has been more than happy to allow America to shape the World, when it suited Europe’s interest. I believe the problem is arising from a divergence in interests and the European realization that America never really needed Europe’s permission (a mixture of hurt pride and fear).

TBH honest i've never felt this. Americans are just different.

Perhaps that is the case with you, but even you admit to a dislike for what you consider to be their overwhelming arrogance, and I have observed that a conceit of cultural superiority to America is not unusual throughout Europe.

The US has never asked for permission from "Daddy" (as u put it), for anything they've ever done. They just assume Europe will fall in line.

I don’t disagree with you, but they have at least paid lip service to treating Europe with deference in the past. It is the lack of this illusion of asking for permission from "Daddy" that has acted as the catalyst to the current feeling.

9-11 was awful, but it doesn't excuse the behaviour of a nation currently trying to start wars everywhere.

In fairness, I agree and actually didn’t argue that it should be taken as an excuse.

Europe if it chose could do alot more if they wanted. You're confusing reluctance to act, as being a lack of power. The power & ability is there all right, its just hasn't been applied as yet. Don't count Europe out as yet.

Here I disagree somewhat. Europe could have, but didn’t. And it hasn’t for so long that it probably is in no position to do so at present.

You admitted yourself that you’d “rather American troops dying” than Irish or European. Fair enough. But don’t kid yourself sitting in front of the telly by saying that we could if ultimately you won’t. I’m not pointing the finger at you, just that this is the common European attitude to military action, and America quite understandably feels contempt for it.

Abdication of responsibility is what has created this power imbalance between Europe and America. Western Europe, in particular, is too pampered.

I disagree. Anti-Americanism grew out of the actions of the US government for the last 50 years.

Worldwide, perhaps, but we’re (or at least I’m) talking about European anti-Americanism. In Europe, we were more than happy to turn a blind eye, for the most part, to the actions of the US government for the last 50 years, while it suited us.

The phenomenon of anti-Americanism in Europe is far too recent for your assertion.

Anti-Americanism has also grown out of the lack of compromise with the US. There is no room for negotiation with them. No subtlety anymore. Everyone is starting to realise that the US is a loose cannon, with alot of firepower. Coupled with the attitude that civilisation ends at the borders of the US, makes for a very worrying stance. Since the US has broken, or ignored so many international conventions/agreements is it any wonder that Europe is very wary of the US. Especially since despite their claims of never using Nukes unless for defense, the very real possibility of them being used, is likely.

You’ve just agreed with everything I’ve been arguing in that one paragraph.

You're assuming its going to be an american empire. What about an European Empire. You see, i haven't lost my faith that Europe could turn around and create the most powerful organisation, in Economic, Political & Military wise. The EU is just the foundation.

Again, true. Were Europe a united body. But it’s not.

Europe is still a collection of competing states, loathed to surrender any national sovernty for the greater good and often holding greater affinity to America than to their European neighbours.

But that’s a different discussion...

True. Were Europe a united body. It’s not as recent events have shown.

Perhaps. But how much of that is down to American influence?

No, Europe has been more than happy to allow America to shape the World, when it suited Europe’s interest. I believe the problem is arising from a divergence in interests and the European realization that America never really needed Europe’s permission (a mixture of hurt pride and fear).

Just as America has been more than happy for Europe to take a hit, when it suited their own interests. This is not reserved solely for Europe & the US. Any nation will allow someone else to take the brunt for them, rather than take damage themselves.

Europe has known for years that the US plays their own game, and doesn't need our permission. It's you thats assuming that Europe counts America as being lower than us, and that they needed our permission. I've never seen any evidence that this was the case.

Perhaps that is the case with you, but even you admit to a dislike for what you consider to be their overwhelming arrogance, and I have observed that a conceit of cultural superiority to America is not unusual throughout Europe.

Just as there is an overwhelming superioritry complex with Americans towards the rest of the world. Also if you ask what most Cork people think of the rest of Ireland, a hint of superiority will emerge. The same goes for Dublin, or the other cities. Its part of human nature to feel superior to another. For me its people who are poor & uneducated. Its not intentional, its just there. However i find that Americans at times take that to extremes.

Just me however, i could be way off base, and u could be completely correct.

Here I disagree somewhat. Europe could have, but didn’t. And it hasn’t for so long that it probably is in no position to do so at present.

Grand, the last time that Europe banded together was WW2.

You admitted yourself that you’d “rather American troops dying” than Irish or European. Fair enough. But don’t kid yourself sitting in front of the telly by saying that we could if ultimately you won’t. I’m not pointing the finger at you, just that this is the common European attitude to military action, and America quite understandably feels contempt for it.

Oh come on. If you ask the average American they will feel the same way as we do. They'd rather have Europeans being killed than their own troops. However it is the US Government that has chosen to have such a presence worldwide. It was their choice to step forward and take part in all these wars/skirmishes. Nobody asked them to do so, it was their choice. Just as, if they hadn't stepped forward, Europe may have done so.

Abdication of responsibility is what has created this power imbalance between Europe and America. Western Europe, in particular, is too pampered.

Not True. The result of WW2 was what created the imbalance. Being ripped to shreds economically & militarily tends to do that.

Too pampered? Hardly. But i'd rather know in what way are they too pampered?

Worldwide, perhaps, but we’re (or at least I’m) talking about European anti-Americanism. In Europe, we were more than happy to turn a blind eye, for the most part, to the actions of the US government for the last 50 years, while it suited us.

Actually no, i was talking about Europe. This has been growing for a long time. I'm not talking abt anti-americanism in governments, but rather among people, so governments taking a blind eye has no bearing on what i am saying.

You’ve just agreed with everything I’ve been arguing in that one paragraph.

Actually, no i haven't. You've been implying that this anti-americanism sentiment has grown out of a sense of insecurity and resentment by Europe towards the US. I'm saying that its US actions, many of which are so aggressive, that if it was any other nation, we'd be at war. I'm saying that Europe is recognising the US as being a real threat. That is the source for this feeling.

Again, true. Were Europe a united body. But it’s not.

Again you're discounting the possibility of it ever happening. I agree its not at the moment, however, the future is waiting for such a thing. And i'm not even talking about 30 years away, but it could happen within a decade.

Europe is still a collection of competing states, loathed to surrender any national sovernty for the greater good and often holding greater affinity to America than to their European neighbours.

I'm not even going to start with this one. Definetly a subject for another thread.

bonkey

I've skipped about the last page of Punch n Judy replies, and come back to where I think one of the most significant points made in this argument was :

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Might is right. Bottom line.

Nope. Its just not that simple any more.

Might used to be right, but somewhere along the line our technological advancement got so great that this old truth is suspect. Its first really appeared when the concept of MAD came out - albeit nuclear, biological, or of any other nature. Once both sides have the ability to effectively completely destroy the other, then the "Might is Right" equation becomes meaningless.

As a result of this, we have seen a world begin to evolve where the old-world powers (and I include the US in this) believe that the best way to preserve the old balance is to leave themselves with these weapons, and to stop everyone else from getting them. No MAD, and hence, back to good old MiR instead.

Unfortunately, it doesnt work that way, and slowly but surely, these nations are going to learn that they are at best staging a delaying manouever. Sooner or later, the people they dont want having big bad bombs will have them, and all of a sudden the balance of power will shift radically again.

Never before in history was it even theoretically possible for a single man from a tiny revolutionary force to destroy the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet. Today that capability theoretically exists. Tomorrow, or next week, or in a couple of years...it will not just be theory, but a genuine threat.

The world is on the brink of returning to feudalism, as a result of technologies which allow small numbers of people to inflict disproportionate amounts of damage to their targets. The old belief in the "most powerful army" is becoming increasingly suspect.

No, the more I look at it, the old MiR just doesnt hold up any more - not when most nations have already learned that they have to agree to put certain weapons out of everyone's hands or everyone will lose.

So, is it really "Old Europe"? Is it really a case of Europe being so jealous of having lost world domination that it cant accept that someone else is calling the shots? Is it a case of Europe desperately trying to stop the US fro pulling too far ahead? Or could it be a case that Europeans - having had their nations literally torn brick from brick in the last century through war - are amongst the first to realise that there is a limit to what Might can and should be used to achieve, and that sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits, and that non-prolioferation treaty's can only work if they are the first step away from the old feudalist ideal of MiR.

I think that its all of these reasons, and more. Just like the objectors in the US have, themselves, different reasons for objections. I find it laughable that anyone can try and classify the pro- or anti- arguments into a single mindset....but thats going a bit too far off topic...so I'll get right back to the thread topic.

At the end of the day am I anti-American? No. I dont think I am, because for me, such a generalisation is ridiculous unless you are talking about someone who is simply basing their opinion on any given topic involving the US on the simple fact that we are discussing the US and nothing else matters.

There is much about American society and politics, and domestic and foreign policy which I disagree with - some I find detestable. Then again, I can say the same about Ireland.

I admit to having stereotypical images of certain "types" of American which are far from flattering, but again - I can say the same about the Irish and my stereotypes of them.

I have very little trust for the leaders of the current US government, in certain respects. Then again, I most definitely say the same about the Irish government.

So, the way I look at it, if I'm anti-American, I'm also anti-Irish by the same standards. If I'm anti-America, I'm anti-Ireland by the same standards.

I was born in Ireland. I'm Irish. Somehow this entitles me to pass comment on my own nation, but not on anyone elses? I dont think so.

In fact, I can honestly say that if I am anti-America, or anti-American then I dont believe that there is a nation or people on earth which I am not anti.

So, if I treat them all equally - criticising where I see fault, applauding where I see success, having my little stereotypical images and poking fun, whilst knowing that my images are wrong and that my fun is meant as fun, not as a slur of some sort - if I do all of that....I dont think I'm anti American....I just think I'm honest.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by bonkey


So, if I treat them all equally - criticising where I see fault, applauding where I see success, having my little stereotypical images and poking fun, whilst knowing that my images are wrong and that my fun is meant as fun, not as a slur of some sort - if I do all of that....I dont think I'm anti American....I just think I'm honest.

jc

I agree.

There are hell of a lot of aspects of American culture and society that annoy me. But then I remember that most of the TV I watch is from the US (Sopranos, The West Wing, Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, hell even ER). US culture has been responsible for some of the most intelligent and thought provoking film I have seen...Memento, The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Magnolia (starring Hollywood's own Tom Cruise!), Being John Malkovich, Adaptation. But then its also given us Die Hard and everything Jennifer Lopez has ever starred in!

Incidently, does the fact that I dislike Bull Fighting make me anti-Spanish? Or does the fact that I think German cuisine is the pits make me anti-German? I love Italian food, but I'm not too keen on Berlesconi...pro- or anti-Italian?

Surely I can be constructively critical of many aspects of US society, without being labelled anti-American. Isn't that what friends are supposed to do...tell friends when they are out of line? Anti-American is so over-used it has begun to lose its meaning anyway.

For the record I think Bush is a dolt...it was ironic seeing him with Bertie today, the bowl of shamrock having a higher IQ than the other two combined.

bug

I'm not anti-american. I am against the Bush admin.
Im not going to make a sweeping statement on America but I would be doubtful of an individuals intelligence if they said they supported Bush, that's my opinion.
I think that patriotism is something very different for Americans than for example, the Irish.
I think perhaps patriotism for Americans includes the ideal of wanting and supporting a great leader, land of the free...blah de blah, its very idealistic. The Irish are a very sinical race IMO, and dont believe a word of anything until they see it themselves
Perhaps those Americans who are pro-war in Iraq, feel that they must stand behind their leader ?? Or perhaps they really believe that they ARE in real danger from Saddam because 60 minutes says so.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Unfortunately, it doesnt work that way, and slowly but surely, these nations are going to learn that they are at best staging a delaying manouever. Sooner or later, the people they dont want having big bad bombs will have them, and all of a sudden the balance of power will shift radically again.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Please remember that it was argued by many not all that long ago that the inevitable end to the MAD doctrine was to be deterioration into nuclear war. So to assume that the people they don’t want having big bad bombs will have them, or have the opportunity to use them or the will to use them is premature.

The reality is no one has. And the World did not fall apart on January 1st 2000 due to the Y2K bug. And Ebola has not decimated the planet. And the level of terrorism in the World has not really changed all that much, post 9-11.

You are speculating upon a scenario that is based upon the assumption of inevitability of numerous conditional circumstances coming together in the future. Perhaps, perhaps not. I wouldn’t put all my money on it.

The other thing that you don’t appear to consider is that MiR is no longer simply a military strategy, but political and (in particular) economic one. Never forget that the Cold War was one not though military, but economic conflict.

Indeed, in most cases American influence has been backed not by the bullet or the bomb but by good old-fashioned greenbacks. Would Ireland speak against US foreign policy? Unlikely, but not because of a threat of military action, but because of economic interests. Turkey presently teeters on the brink of supporting a War on Iraq (it may still do so). Not because of military threats, but because of a profane wad of cash being waved under their nose (Don’t know about you, but I’d take it :rolleyes: )

So it probably too early to dismiss the MiR doctrine at present. It can’t really be defined anymore as a simple case of gunboat diplomacy and neither is the scenario of proliferation you postulated a forgone conclusion.

Éomer of Rohan

Would Ireland speak against US foreign policy? Unlikely, but not because of a threat of military action, but because of economic interests. Turkey presently teeters on the brink of supporting a War on Iraq (it may still do so). Not because of military threats, but because of a profane wad of cash being waved under their nose (Don’t know about you, but I’d take it )

Is this not the problem with society? Too many people are willing to compromise on their principles and ideals to benefit a morally corrupt and morally bankrupt nation which seems to believe that money and power or rather one through the other, in any order you like, is an end in itself.

Is it not also true that in civilised society, balckmail, bribery and extortion are crimes? Since when should this not be true on an international basis?

Sand

Is it not also true that in civilised society, balckmail, bribery and extortion are crimes? Since when should this not be true on an international basis?

"Social" laws are based on the illusion were all equal, in international circles the notion of equality is laughable.

As for might makes right, as noted - the "logic" of might making right hasnt changed at all, merely Europe, the greatest proponents of might makes right for the last 500 or more years, is no longer the biggest kid on the block.

Isnt it ironic that when the US was weak it argued for trade, negotiation and respect for international laws, and when Europe was strong it regularly thumbed its nose at them or merely changed the rules to suit themselves. All thats changed is the positions.

It doesnt cost Europe anything at all to advocate rule by committee.

Éomer of Rohan

"Social" laws are based on the illusion were all equal, in international circles the notion of equality is laughable

What has equality got to do with extortion etc?? These laws are not based on equality - in fact far from it, they are based on Christian religious morals. And what's more there are a thousand and one theists, socialists, humanists etc that will tell you WE ARE equal in terms of one human from another.

As to nations, the outdated idea of the nation state is laughable. Was not the UN devised to remove the inequalities between nations by acting independently of the will of any nation in a given dispute?

As for might makes right, as noted - the "logic" of might making right hasnt changed at all, merely Europe, the greatest proponents of might makes right for the last 500 or more years, is no longer the biggest kid on the block.

Isnt it ironic that when the US was weak it argued for trade, negotiation and respect for international laws, and when Europe was strong it regularly thumbed its nose at them or merely changed the rules to suit themselves. All thats changed is the positions

What international rules are you referring to? Remember that in that age the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers. The US was admittedly weak on that score but though she may have advocated 'respect for international laws' (and I would like to see any example of that) she did not hesitate to wage unthinking war on the natives of the Americas, going so far as to gift some on the reserves Smallpox ridden blankets.

I am no apologist for European Imperialism; it disgusts me that this continent wasted so much for no purpose. However at the same time, we live now and the threat of the US and its obvious willingness to disregard (and yes, this is a more civilised age) its international commitments, such as that to the UN.

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong. Killing innocent civilians for no reason other than oil....well I will let you decide what category to insert that into.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What has equality got to do with extortion etc?? These laws are not based on equality - in fact far from it, they are based on Christian religious morals. And what's more there are a thousand and one theists, socialists, humanists etc that will tell you WE ARE equal in terms of one human from another.

Equal is a loaded term. Similar would be a better or more accurate one. And we’re not. Some have a talent for art, others for sales or negotiations and some are best suited to, and often happiest, digging ditches. Regardless of the opinion of philosophers over the centuries, this is what has borne out to be the reality.

As to nations, the outdated idea of the nation state is laughable.

That may well be the direction that we are heading in, but I think it premature to consign the nation state to the rubbish heap of history, just yet. Recent jingoism in the US and the bloodshed we’ve seen shed in the Balklands over the last dozen years would point to the nation state being still alive and well.

Was not the UN devised to remove the inequalities between nations by acting independently of the will of any nation in a given dispute?

Sure it was. That’s why we have a security council with five permanent veto carrying members.

I am no apologist for European Imperialism; it disgusts me that this continent wasted so much for no purpose.

Actually we did very well out of them, on balance. What do you think powered industrialization in much of Europe, particularly Britian.

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong.

Where exactly did you explain that might is not right? Flies in the face of what you argued about “the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers” really.

Killing innocent civilians for no reason other than oil....well I will let you decide what category to insert that into.

Even the most cynical of us would not be so glib as to assume a simple motivation of oil. Issues such as the Dollar’s position as a currency of trade over the Euro and (a diversion from) domestic US politics may also have their part to play in the current motivation. Finally, the current US administration may, rightly or wrongly, even think they are doing the right thing.

However, all of this is a little off topic, methinks.

Éomer of Rohan

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong

Where exactly did you explain that might is not right? Flies in the face of what you argued about “the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers” really.

The rules WERE written by the Imperial powers but just because it happened doesn't meant that is was right that it should happen.

That may well be the direction that we are heading in, but I think it premature to consign the nation state to the rubbish heap of history

The superstates that various analysts believe we are heading towards are simply larger versions of the nation state; same principle really - and not quite what I meant.

Actually we did very well out of them, on balance. What do you think powered industrialization in much of Europe, particularly Britian

For most of the years of Britains dominance of world affairs, more of her money came from trade within Europe than without with the exception of the Napoeonic Era when trade with mainland Europe was largely ruled out.

Issues such as the Dollar’s position as a currency of trade over the Euro and (a diversion from) domestic US politics may also have their part to play in the current motivation

Fair point.

Finally, the current US administration may, rightly or wrongly, even think they are doing the right thing.

Wrongly.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
For most of the years of Britains dominance of world affairs, more of her money came from trade within Europe than without with the exception of the Napoeonic Era when trade with mainland Europe was largely ruled out.

And the raw materials for her manufactured goods (that she sold to Europe) came from..?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Wrongly.

The current US administration would probably consider your stance to be amoral and themselves as the good guys. One thing I've realized over the years, is villians rarely know they are.

But we're going waaaay OT at this stage.

Éomer of Rohan

Well then, I will leave it to you to put us back OT then? But I believe that we can't really go off topic on this one since so many factors are connected to Anti- Americanism etc. Nonetheless, I see what you mean.

ferdi

as regards the pole - why do you have to be pro or anti? i am niether ie:

i love american entertainment of all kinds, food, i have adopted americanish dress, lifestyle and have some american friends - does this make me pro american?

i do not agree with american foriegn policy or the inbuilt feeling of supremicy and paranoia in the american psyche (eg: all of michael moores books and movie, gun culture etc..) - does this make me anti american?

war sucks but they are gonna do it no matter what so lets just protest and march and in a few months we will forget about it and the media will move on

peace

ferdi

Éomer of Rohan

I think that that is the reason that there is 'pro - America anti - Bush' option. I wrongly took that one, having realised now that I AM anti-american culture, american popular politics, american 'education' and so on.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

in fact you'd go further than that and advocate the genocide of the American people

What I actually said was that sometimes it seems as though eradicating the nation state of america is the only option. I did not advocate genocide. Even in sand's quote from me, I did not say WE should wipe them out.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What I actually said was that sometimes it seems as though eradicating the nation state of america is the only option. I did not advocate genocide. Even in sand's quote from me, I did not say WE should wipe them out.

You said that we should "allow Osama to eliminate America entirely -- he would be doing us a favour". Despite your pathetic attempt to backtrack, it's clear that you are in favour of genocide, even if you don't want to get your own hands dirty. Your post is almost certainly illegal in this country under the laws against incitement to hatred, and I'm surprised a moderator hasn't deleted it. Please take your twisted bigotry somewhere else -- it's not wanted here.

sceptre

Nicely put Meh.

Éomer, if you think that wiping out an entire country full of people (call them a race, call them a country, doesn't matter to me) is something that would be considered a good thing, you're advocating genocide. Doesn't matter if you'd like it done by you, me, our army, Osama bin Laden or Colonel Sanders.

With regard to the initial question, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti stupidity. Part of the reason I haven't been contributing many essay-size answers to topics on the upcoming event is that we have enough stupid people in this country for me to pick away at in person, let alone how many the US must have with their much larger population.

Sand

And what's more there are a thousand and one theists, socialists, humanists etc that will tell you WE ARE equal in terms of one human from another.

Really? In theory we are, in practice Im working and the guys I pass on the street are begging. Theres guys out there who star for the local football team, do their leaving cert with straight As and in their spare time do work for the homeless. And then theres those who have anger management issues, crashed out of secondary school and spend their time doing menial jobs. Doesnt sound all that equal to me?

As to nations, the outdated idea of the nation state is laughable. Was not the UN devised to remove the inequalities between nations by acting independently of the will of any nation in a given dispute?

As noted, the nation state is still an extremely real force. And the UN has been inffective in removing the inequalities between nations - so much so that the US can not only exercise its will against Iraq, but do so with the UN stamping its foot and shouting that it should be listened to. Thats how great the equality between nation states is. And again as noted the UN recognises the inequalities and institutionalises it by giving France a greater weight than Germany, or even India.

What international rules are you referring to? Remember that in that age the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers. The US was admittedly weak on that score but though she may have advocated 'respect for international laws' (and I would like to see any example of that) she did not hesitate to wage unthinking war on the natives of the Americas, going so far as to gift some on the reserves Smallpox ridden blankets.

Backs up my point though doesnt it? The US appealed to international law where it was weak - and acted like a regular imperialist where it was strong. Much like France appealing for the rights of small nations to be heard in the UN, whilst telling EU candidates that theyd better shut the hell up about what they thought if France was going to let them into the EU.

The United States, being a rather young state, with no wish or interest in engaging in some no doubt disastrous alliance with either Great Britain or Republican France in their Naplonic conflicts declared they wanted no part in the conflict, but was mightily affronted when the French decided that being neutral meant they couldnt trade with their enemies - hence the French policy of seizing American traders, which the Americans were upset to find the French werent willing to negotiate about, despite it basically being piracy of a neutral nations trade.

TomF

This is an interesting commentary on a possible war by the U.S. and its allies against Iraq. I think the use of "brilliant bombs" (note the change from the old "smart bombs" term) indicates a return led by the U.S. to the old concept of war between armed forces instead of total war against all, including defenceless civilians.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/375ixxkk.asp

"As the New York Times reports, "[The Pentagon] has designed an air campaign that tries to avoid destroying bridges, roads and other public works so that the country can be rebuilt quickly and peoples' daily lives are not completely disrupted. . . . It has even required planners to calculate whether bombs that drift too short or too long might hit civilian targets--and to readjust lines of attack if they do."

In addition to this caution, the Pentagon has intimated that a wave of relief workers will follow immediately behind the front-line troops, passing out food and blankets to Iraqis, providing medical care and fixing any vital infrastructure that does get damaged. And to top it all off, the Bush administration is hard at work on a Marshall Plan to rebuild Iraq before the first shot has even been fired.

Whatever you think about the morality of going to war, taken as a thing, the plan put forward by the United States is a civilizational advance on the order of magnitude of Hammurabi's codification of laws. No one has ever waged war the way America is preparing to wage it in Iraq. If this precedent becomes the human race's new standard for warfare, then it will be a happy day indeed.

Which is why the principled anti-Americans are wrong. A society that fights in this manner is not to be feared.

BUT EVEN IF you grant them their premise, by their own strategic lights, the principled anti-Americans are wrong to oppose the coming war. An ambitious America is much less fearsome than one which is wounded or insecure. Imagine that France wins the debate and the United States walks away from Iraq. Saddam is left intact, and those who would do America harm are emboldened. Imagine if, as Mansoor Ijaz has speculated could happen, a dirty bomb goes off in an American harbor. What if the next September 11 involves not just the destruction of three buildings, but a major U.S. city?

America might decide that action is necessary and that the niceties of war aren't. A very different precedent might be set. After all, an arrogant hyperpower is less dangerous than a scared hyperpower: The strong do what they can, while the weak do what they must.

So even if you are inclined to believe the worst about America, the world will still be better off once Saddam has been removed. At the end of the day, even the most principled anti-Americanism is wrong on Iraq."