A Call for Reason

Reasons for Ramage:

1. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is the most openly aggressive. As Sarge said, he's still shooting at our planes.

2. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is (accordiing to sources) the one most actively pursuing, and the closest to acquiring, nuclear weapons.

3. Hussein has as many ties to terrorism as the others on that list. He's one of the guys financing the Palestinian terror bombers families, as has been reported.

4. There's already an active resistance to his reign, as witnessed by the seizure of that embassy in Germany (It was Germany, wasn't it?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
Reasons for Ramage:

1. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is the most openly aggressive. As Sarge said, he's still shooting at our planes.

2. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is (accordiing to sources) the one most actively pursuing, and the closest to acquiring, nuclear weapons.

3. Hussein has as many ties to terrorism as the others on that list. He's one of the guys financing the Palestinian terror bombers families, as has been reported.

4. There's already an active resistance to his reign, as witnessed by the seizure of that embassy in Germany (It was Germany, wasn't it?)

---

Okay, these seems to be some points. Let's look at them.

Point 1 -- won't argue one way or the other. Our president also claims that others are also actively persuing our destruction. Seems we could argue this either way jsut based on information coming out of Washington.

Point 2 -- highly debatable. I saw five articles in the last month; two said that Iraq was close to building such weapons, two said they were not, and one said it is nearly impossible to tell based on current information. All of these articles were written by "experts". One "very close" article was written by one of the weapons inspectors. So was one of the "not close at all" articles. Again, little to choose from here.

Point 3 -- Yes, Hussein does have ties to terrorist. So did most of the other groups I mentioned. And several of the other groups seem much more active of late in their terrorism. Again, at best a wash.

Point 4 -- This one falls way down. Yes, there is opposition amongst some Iraqis to Hussein's rule, I grant you this, but it is neither organized nor cohesive. The group who took the embassy in Germany has never been heard of before. The Iraqi ex-pat communities in London, Paris and Berlin all denounced the actions of this group and quickly distanced themselves from the hostage taking. This is probably the second time (the other time being in Washington at the beginning of this month) that they ever spoke with anything like a unified voice. There is no single plan amongst them other than "we want Saddam out". Amongst the "opposition leaders" courted by Washington are two ex-members of Hussein's inner circle (neither of whom like each other), a dozen or so dissident clerics (including 2 with ties to Iran), four Kurds (two of whom actively call for a Kurdish state, INCLUDING the Kurds in Turkey, and only two of whom like each other), and several others of less obvious pedigrees. These men do not work together, do not like each other, have no common vision for Iraq-after-Hussein, and it is questionable as to whether any of them would even necessarily lean towards the US after being put into power.

If we want an nation with an organized and more or less unified internal and external resistance movement that speaks with one voice that calls out to be liberated, why not chose Tibet or Burma?

So we have three points for attacking Iraq, yet the same arguments could be used for attacking elsewhere, and one that does not really hold water.

Well, if that's what justifies it for you, then fine... what ever get sthe job done.

However I restate: MY position is that, even if Iraq was completely uninvolved in 9/11 we are still justified in resuming military action as they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

As for the regime which takes Saddam's place... who can say whether they will be our ally 10 years of 10 minutes from the day they gain power? The purpose of the exercise is not to give the US a puppet ally in the region, but to eliminate a dangerously unstable regime. Even if the regime which replaces it is hostile to the US as well, as long as they are reasonably rational they are better than Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage
Well then it appears the best reason to attack Iraq, as opposed to other nations, is that, like others, it has sponsored terrorism but, unlike other nations, we know we can take it without too big of a political fallout.

As for Musharraf "wanting to return his country to democracy", I would have you read about the 29 changes he made to his country's constitution, changes that give a permanent place to the military in their legislature as well as giving him the right to hold office for another five years without necessity of vote, among other democratic measures.

This is well beyond Realpolitik.

The US, it appears, is doing not even what is expedient, but merely convenient. We could attack other nations, but someone might get even more angry with us or we could lose an ally (even though that ally is of questionable legitimacy). This is not a moral tone nor is is the clear black-and-white, Good v. Evil tone that Mr. Bush signalled. Rather it is merely a case of keeping busy, of appearing to do something constructive, but actually having no firm direction, no firm conviction, and no actual goal.

So let's go ahead an attack Iraq. It certainly couldn't hurt, or so it appears. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to place yet another regime in that country that we'll regret in 10-15 years.

---

First things first. Iraq is old business that should have been disposed of years ago. Removing the threat of Iraq will free up many assets currently tied down in the Middle East... remember my post on how thinly the US Army and Marine Corps is currently streched?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage
I agree with you, First of Two. No one but a fool wants a multi-front war.

I am not advocating attacking multiple enemies. Instead I am trying to deduce any semblance of logic for attacking Iraq rather than any of the other potential targets. It would seem the others have a more direct connection to the stated goals of the War on Terrorism than does Iraq.

---

[color-red]I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Violence should always be the last option.
[/COLOR]

Yes, Europe survived two world wars. Europe and her people survived those wars because AMERICAN boys went over there and bled and died after the enlightened Europeans appeased and apologized and wrung their hands and whimpered and wined and moaned and then SURRENDERED!

Your prosperity (including in Canada) has been built upon the bleached bones of my country men and I am sick to death of listening to the "cultural elite" and "more civilized" Europeans look down the end of their brown-coated noses at my country.

You've spent the last fifty years hiding behind American military might and sipping tea and telling yourselves that you are better than the boorish Americans. Horse shit! The only thing Europe has exported in the last fifty years is watered down socialism and some cheap wine. Or is that whine?

Last I heard, it wasn't three thousand of your citizens who were bombed,burned, asphyxiated, and crushed. So tell you what- if you want no part of what we feel we need to do in Iraq, go home to Mommy and cry.....

Let HER bail you out the next time you're getting your collective socialist !#@$# kicked.

You are correct on ONE thing. War is never, ever a good thing. But sometimes it's the only thing left to do. Stop cowering behind Chamberlain's skirts, drop you socialist agendas, and come join the REAL world.

There will still be dragons to slay when you do!

Jeez, Selek, why don't you tell us how you really feel? It's bad for you to keep your feelings all bottled up like that. :)

Seriously, I see your point and feel your pain, but I feel compelled to point out that the US chose not to get involved in either world war until our own citizens were dying aboard the Lusitania or at Pearl Harbor.

I'd love for the whole world to stand up and say, "Gee, we owe a lot to the US military. Thanks for everything, and if you ever come visit, we'll give you a 50% discount on everything you buy, Sarge." Sure, that'd be great, and well-deserved too :), but I know I live in a glass house, so I'm not going to start heaving rocks.

Y'know Selek unlike some Brits, I happen to like Americans, and I appreciate the accomplishments the US has made, and the good things they've done. I even agree with Sarge, we owe a lot to the US and her military. That said, I do not think the sun shines out of your collective asses, and I reserve the right to disagree with ya'all if I so desire. Nor are you guys the entire world, and nor are you the 'saviours' of our entire planet, no matter what some of your more 'vocal' countrymen may think.

And as far as you in particular are concerned, I'll refrain from saying something I'll later regret, other than to suggest you learn to edit your mouth. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by selek
Your prosperity (including in Canada) has been built upon the bleached bones of my country men and I am sick to death of listening to the "cultural elite" and "more civilized" Europeans look down the end of their brown-coated noses at my country.

---

I have to ask, other than having beaten you from conquroring us back in 1812, what the hell other threats have you been saving us from here in Canada? Mexico? The Inuit menace? Sorry you probably call the Es-kee-moes!

Okay, okay that was uncalled for. I obviously overstepped my bounds implying that you wouldn't know the correct "non offense" term for Native North Americans living in the far North.

My bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by selek
... and telling yourselves that you are better than the boorish Americans. Horse shit! ... Let HER bail you out the next time you're getting your collective socialist !#@$# kicked.

---

So it's okay to type out "Horse shit", but the word "asses" is far too offensive to type out. :D

That's funny. :)

You deserve a cookie. :)

Once again, I'd like to point out that :

1) Disagreeing with the US international politics doesn't make one a fanatic anti-american craving for the destruction of the USA.

2) The fact that one country helped another at some time in history doesn't prevent the latter to ever raise its voice against the former. The USA helped Europe a lot during WWI and II, that doesn't make the current USA godly flawless, and every disagreement from a European a proof of utter ungratefulness.
In other words... I've had enough of this argument of "We helped you during WWII so shut up now". Otherwise, I could start ending each of my posts with "Hey, how could the USA dare raise their voice against France while the States only exists thanks to France's help ?" :rolleyes:

3) We know what bombings are... many European countries had their share of it (though none of the magnitude of 9-11, of course).

4) The world is not in black and white. The USA are not flawless. Europe is not flawless. Both can be partially right (or wrong) at the same time.

5) French wine is not cheap :p

C5, I agree with everything you said apart from the bit about the wine. 50p a bottle? I'll have some of that - who cares if it's not finest quality, after half the bottle you stop caring...

Hmm horseshit? Well apart from using bad language it`s not correct. Ever thought about what inventions are European?
I will give some examples of german inventions. I think the other europeans here could do the rest;)

German Inventions:

The fax
The phone ( although it was a german/british invention)
The plane (also british/german)
Jets ( mean the planes )
The car
Protestantism ( ok invented is the wrong word/ Martin Luther)
Aspirin ( ever had a headache? ;))
Penicilin ( or a similar substance. not 100% sure)
The Panzer/tank as we know it today ( ok originally american, but given a new shape by germans as everyone surely knows)
The Autobahn

Well this is what i remind right now, is certainly more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

The Autobahn

---

You might have to give p on the Autobahn Surak... No other country in the world has anything like it! ;) Moterways are close (70mph limit)... But by my (shaky) understanding even American Freeways are low speed limit controlled (would happily be corrected if wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

The Panzer/tank as we know it today ( ok originally american, but given a new shape by germans as everyone surely knows)

---

It might have been an American invention, but it was the Europeans that developed that idea... Although Modern Tanks are far closer to T34's... Even the Pather was based on the T34's success... And to pass credit where its due the Soviets built their tanks along the lines of Lewis's designs (an American)...

Mind you, the only reason the The US didn't develop the tank was due to their pacifist forein policy of the 1930's... Until Eisenhower used his influence to modernise their army...

And I'll stop there, before fact becomes opinion. I am damned if I am going to retort to some of the smaller minds that have posted here... Because I would rather not say anything that would upset and annoy the Americans that I like and admire...

[Note - Just being a little silly here, don't take me too seriously here]

Well by your definition, you can't claim credit for both the Panzer Tank and the Telephone. Much as Germans took the tank into how it is seen today, it is Bell who invented the telephone as we know it (and some consider Reis (the German dude) got the idea from a French dude - Bourseul )
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1098.htm

Very few things are invented in a vacuum. I would say that credit should go to the person or people who made an invention practical. So, I'll give Germans the tank and leave the phone for Americans. :D


In any case I've never been a big fan of the "we saved your butts so you should be grateful to us" argument. Not that I don't believe the US did save Europe from Nazism and Communism, but that is tempered by the fact that it was in our own best interest to do so (which is the main motivation for pretty much every action a nation state takes) and also due to the fact that what comes around goes around - the French helped us out in our Revolution, Europe stayed neutral in our Civil War - it only seems sporting that we helped out the European nations in their time of need. :D

The main reason we can squabble with the European powers is we have so much in common - it's more like a family argument. Compare that with our relationship with many of the Arab states. The caricature of an American in Europe is probably a gunslinger who wants to shoot badguys, eat at McDonalds, and drill for some oil to pump directly into the 3 Mile Per Gallon SUV. The caricature of an American in many Middle Eastern nations is an infidel who deserves death.

(Oh for good measure, the American caricature of a European is probably that of a well-intentioned but hopeless idealist who doesn't beleive that bad guys exist :D))

Oh, we know bad guys exist - we've seen enough of them. Britain's been conquered more times than I've had hot dinners, but just as often it's kicked the bad guys' asses back to where they came from... :D

As an American soldier, I have to say that these comments are harldy fair.

Canada has always stood beside the US, and the courage of the individual Canadian soldier is beyond question. Their current government may leave a lot to be desired, but on the whole I can't think of any other nation I would want on my northern flank. Perhaps Canada should annex Mexico. :)

As for Europe, the UK is firmly with the US... much like Canada, they have always supported us in the rough spots. They are also the only other nation on earth that has signifigant power projection capability.

As for the rest of Europe, if they show reluctance and desire to resolve the conflict without violence, who can blame them? I'm not particularly looking forward to it myself...

I think they are _wrong_, and that violence is the appropriate tool to resolve this situation... but hardly blame them for wanting it not to be so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by selek
[color-red]I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Violence should always be the last option.
[/COLOR]

Yes, Europe survived two world wars. Europe and her people survived those wars because AMERICAN boys went over there and bled and died after the enlightened Europeans appeased and apologized and wrung their hands and whimpered and wined and moaned and then SURRENDERED!

Your prosperity (including in Canada) has been built upon the bleached bones of my country men and I am sick to death of listening to the "cultural elite" and "more civilized" Europeans look down the end of their brown-coated noses at my country.

You've spent the last fifty years hiding behind American military might and sipping tea and telling yourselves that you are better than the boorish Americans. Horse shit! The only thing Europe has exported in the last fifty years is watered down socialism and some cheap wine. Or is that whine?

Last I heard, it wasn't three thousand of your citizens who were bombed,burned, asphyxiated, and crushed. So tell you what- if you want no part of what we feel we need to do in Iraq, go home to Mommy and cry.....

Let HER bail you out the next time you're getting your collective socialist !#@$# kicked.

You are correct on ONE thing. War is never, ever a good thing. But sometimes it's the only thing left to do. Stop cowering behind Chamberlain's skirts, drop you socialist agendas, and come join the REAL world.

There will still be dragons to slay when you do!

---

Well said calguard.

Okay, I've read a lot of the posts here, particularly those after my rant. I would like to clarify a couple of things.
Despite my earlier tirade, I am not anti-European (or anti-Canadian , either, except perhaps for Rather, Jennings, and Shatner). When my grandparents and great-grandparents sent their sons 'over there', it was with the intent of not only securing our own interests and resisting evil, but in preserving the good things in Europe. As was pointed out, our most steadfast allies lie on the continent, and we ARE grateful. Again, as was pointed out earlier- it seems much like a family squabble when we disagree.
I do not beleive that Americans are infallible (I just tried three times to spell that), nor do I believe we are the sole voice of reason, democracy, or wisdom in the universe. I spent a number of years serving along side Marines (I was Navy) and got to see "The Ugly American" first-hand far too often. I never said I couldn't understand why some Europeans think Americans are boorish. Just not all of us.
I do not believe my beef is with the average European on the street (or autobahn), but with the leftists and elitists which seem to make up the talking heads.
The prosperity and social programs of which the socialists in our societies are so proud were built with money that would have been spent on Defense if Americans were not holding the line on your soil. Money you didn't need to spend on guns instead went for butter (and L50 wines).
Yes, free Europe stood watch too, but does anyone really think France, or Germany, or even Britain herself would have been able to resist the Stalinist hordes without the American G.I.?
A sizable percentage of your wealth, prosperity, and comfort have been built secure in the knowledge that there was a cop on the beat. That cop was wearing red, white, and blue.
Now America is targeting an evil man who has proven time and again that he has no qualms about murdering innocent men, women, and children in the most horrific ways imaginable. Remember, you don't need a camp and a shower to gas people. America has decided that for her own sake, for her children and yours, that this evil must be opposed BEFORE it crosses the Maginot line.
The parallels between then and now are clear, but just like in the thirties, the storied elites and the ivory tower intellectuals are wringing their hands and singing the sad opera of appeasement.
Thousands, if not millions died in two World Wars while America stood by, lending only support. It has been rightly pointed out that things might have been different had we gotten involved earlier. Will you now stand by? How many millions will be aboard YOUR Lusitania?

Also, I don't believe England has EVER been conquered. Beaten half to death, bombed into rubble, NEARLY starved into submission, but never conquered.

Quote:

---

Also, I don't believe England has EVER been conquered. Beaten half to death, bombed into rubble, NEARLY starved into submission, but never conquered.

---

Post 1066.

That's much better, Selek. After your rant, I was wondering if you had the ability to express your opinion without getting offensive. Now I see that you can. Let's keep things civilized (or should that be civilised?:)) here; wars may be barbaric, but debates shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66

As for the rest of Europe, if they show reluctance and desire to resolve the conflict without violence, who can blame them? I'm not particularly looking forward to it myself...

---

Maybe that reluctance is because large parts of Europe were battlefield in WWII. Concerning me I still have many family members who remember WWII and as I am interested in history I always tried to get information of that time and know pretty well of the horros of it, althouh certainly not comparable to actual experience.
Although US were a major power in the war they never had battles in front of the door.
On the other hand I am not of the opinion to add any achievements of single persons to records of single cuntries, after all its not our benefit that Einstein was a genius and the like. I like more to regard achievements of any kind, may it be good or bad, as human achievements, because after all we all have to live with the consequences.



BTW
"The caricature of an American in Europe is probably a gunslinger who wants to shoot badguys, eat at McDonalds, and drill for some oil to pump directly into the 3 Mile Per Gallon SUV"

Do not tell that is not the right picture?? I am shocked!! ;)


On a side note I have to admit, while I am certainly no prejudiced person and openminded, I expected something like that when entering the US. Its been three years now that I was in New York and I somehow expected to see more, well brutal people, after all what you hear about crimes and that. But I was really surprised how friendly, polite and generous the US were. It was really surprising when I sat on a bench with my friends looking on a city map. It's been several times that peopl asked us if we need help or advice. That people ranged from the ' guy next door' to the 'well dressed business man' leaving a bank on Wall Street. Sadly to say I never experienced something like that in Germany.

Evan,

You must have been here on a Sunday, we clean our firearms then. :D

In all seriousness, there was a major campaign in New York City to improve "quality of life" by having a rather low tolerance for all crimes, including the "harmless" stuff like grafitti. It was controvertial (and still is), but most people feel it worked.

I have to say, calguard, that I wish more people here were as level headed as you seem to be.
On polls, I believe that we elect leaders to lead based on information that they have and the rest of us don't. If we wanted leaders to simply do what the polls say the public want's then we should have an Athenian Democracy instesd of a Republic.
Of course, the idea of the U.S. being led by the decisions of the very uninformed and capricious "mob" terrifies me. And should terrify the world as well.
I don't have access to all of the intelligence data that our leaders do, and I don't want them to release it to the public because it would harm our long term ability to gather more. While this does leave open the door to abuse by our leaders that is hardly a new condition in the world and frankly there is no system of government that cannot be abused by it's own leadership.
So, instead of second guessing the government based on the incomplete info I possess, or on the word of so called experts(who don't have access to that intelligence data either), I try to simply support the people that were elected to make those decisions.
I admit I do not always agree with them, but it is the way things work.

The U.S. won't find more support in Europe than in the Eastern part. Countries like Lithuania, Romania and Poland see the U.S. as the ultimate good-guy.

The U.S. should also place Romania on its list of "close" allies, I read somewhere that they signed a special treaty with the U.S. concerning the I.C.C.. Romania will not handover any U.S. citizen to the I.C.C. without prior approval.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aelius

On polls, I believe that we elect leaders to lead based on information that they have and the rest of us don't. If we wanted leaders to simply do what the polls say the public want's then we should have an Athenian Democracy instesd of a Republic.
Of course, the idea of the U.S. being led by the decisions of the very uninformed and capricious "mob" terrifies me. And should terrify the world as well.

---

While I agree with what you said, my own personal concern is the executive branch has been, in my opinion, taking excessive power from other branches, meaning the elected leaders are not making decisions, save for the president.

As an example, while Bush is commander-in-chief, he is dependent upon the Congress for declarations of war and, since those are so rare, funding for the military. While I agree with calguard's statement that Congress has already authorized the use of force against Iraq, it is my opinion that that was in regards to liberating Kuwait and enforing the treaty at the end of the war. The executive branch has indicated that regardless of compliance, Hussein must go. Whether I agree with that or not, if Hussein were to suddently let inspectors back in (which I doubt), then even if he were still to be a threat (which he may very well be), this would go beyond the original authorization of congress.

Similarly, the stripping of US citizens of their right to trial by jury (i.e. the "dirty bomber") takes away power from the judicial branch. It is one thing if he were caught in an enemy army, but to arbitrarily strip rights away from a citizen is another.


Oddly, I agree with most of Bush's goals, however his methods I disagree with. I dislike too much power going to the executive branch. Do I need to be consulted for an invasion of Iraq to oust Hussein? No. Should congress? If the purpose of an invasion is to oust him no matter what, then I believe yes.

I agree, Dan, that were Saddam to suddenly comply with the terms of the ceasefire we would lose our justification for an invasion. However, I feel confidant that this hypothetical scenario will never happen.
To comply with the ceasefire Saddam would have to agree that the inspectors could go anywhere in the country with no warning or delay's as well as stop shooting at our aircraft. I can't see him agreeing to that. If he did that would be fine because we could then defang his weapons production. But as they say "I won't hold my breath".
As it stands however, the country of Iraq has been in violation of the ceasefire for almost ten years and that is more than sufficient justifacation for the resumption of hostilities under international law.
In fact, hostilities are ongoing. An invasion would simply be retaliating for the near daily attacks on coalition aircraft conducted by Iraqi forces in violation of the ceasfire agreement.
Because of this situation the President has no legal obligation to get approval from Congree or our allies for any attack on Iraq.
In spite of this, what I would do is go to the UN and lay it on the line. Point out those nations that are helping Iraq violate the sanctions and tell the security council that if they do not clamp down on the sanction busting and enforce the resolutions passed against Iraq that we will resume hostilities against Iraq for violations of the ceasfire agreement put in place by the coalition under UN aegis.
The only way the UN could block such a move would be a security council resolution and the US could veto any such attempt.
As to the increasing power of the Executive branch, I agree that Padilla should not be declared an enemy combatent without evidence. The problem is that the US government seems to thrive on leaks. The people who do the leaking seem to ignore the fact that when they leak classified information they are placing peoples lives at risk, as well as compromising the ability of the US to gather further intelligence. So the gov't needs to find a judge who can evaluate the info who can be trusted not to leak it to the press.
Of course when they do something like that the press starts accusing them of secret trials.
There is no simple solution to this problem, and it will take time to find a good one. The problem is that everyone want's the right answer immediatly. Many times in the history of this country situations involving conflict between the branches of gov't have been settled, but it takes time to reach a balance point.

Dan & Aelius: I agree with you that there are cetain issues that have raised questions even in a conservative like me. For instance, I agree that the dirty bomber is entitled to a trial by jury of his peers. With this whole international terrorism problem, however, we find ourselves dealing with some very sticky wickets; namely intelligence versus law enforcement.

Alot of the tips we get concerning terrorist activities do not come from law enforcement but from intelligence. On the surface, this is simple. Have the intelligence folks pass the information on to law enforcement under the aegis of posse comitatis. Here's the problem: under posse comitatis, intelligence can only be used for the development of leads, not for evidence.

This can be worked around if the evidence can be produced by a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) from a friendly nation. What if the crucial evidence, however is located in a hostile or (for lack of a better term) quizling state? You know the guy is as guilty as sin but under current laws, what evidence you have is inadmissable in court. Do you let the terrorist-in-the-making go?

A Sincere Apology to the Two Captain Hunters
Guys, I dropped the ball big time and I don't know what to say except I'm sorry.

Khrys: THere is no doubt about it that Poland has been a big time booster to NATO. They have hit the ground running and have proven themselves to be stalwart allies. Romania is...coming along.

...and a Little Something from the CYA Department
I do not by any stretch of the imagination consider any North American or Western European nation to be a "Quizling State". We both have the same goals but the devil is in the details. The fact that we are arguing back and forth over ways and means is a pretty solid indicator that we are allies to one another, not vassals. The current arguing is not going to be the end of all things. It's just the same process all of us went through the Cold War and even after this terrorism mess is sorted out we'll argue again. Nations, like the people they represent, have their own view points and it is far better that they are aired out rather that kept bottled up. While the folks on the political side continue to bicker, the folks on the operational side of the house continue to talk. The more things change, the more things stay the same (I'd use the French phrase but I fear that if I attempted to write it out, I'd make the eyes of all the Fracophones on this board bleed). I deal with alot of frustration in a job where it is very easy to slide into cynicism. Deep down inside, however, I ultimately believe that things will work out. I guess I'm just an "In the Closet Optimist".

I understand completely. However, the horror of war is only one of many lessons WWII has to teach. If that is the only lesson learned, which it seems to be with many Europeans, the result is a ostrich-like head-in-the-sand denial of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk

Maybe that reluctance is because large parts of Europe were battlefield in WWII. Concerning me I still have many family members who remember WWII and as I am interested in history I always tried to get information of that time and know pretty well of the horros of it, althouh certainly not comparable to actual experience.
Although US were a major power in the war they never had battles in front of the door.
On the other hand I am not of the opinion to add any achievements of single persons to records of single cuntries, after all its not our benefit that Einstein was a genius and the like. I like more to regard achievements of any kind, may it be good or bad, as human achievements, because after all we all have to live with the consequences.

---

Quote:

---

BTW
"The caricature of an American in Europe is probably a gunslinger who wants to shoot badguys, eat at McDonalds, and drill for some oil to pump directly into the 3 Mile Per Gallon SUV"

Do not tell that is not the right picture?? I am shocked!! ;)

---

Well, actually... that IS me, but not all (or perhaps even most) Americans. And I prefer a shotgun to a revolver.

Quote:

---

On a side note I have to admit, while I am certainly no prejudiced person and openminded, I expected something like that when entering the US. Its been three years now that I was in New York and I somehow expected to see more, well brutal people, after all what you hear about crimes and that. But I was really surprised how friendly, polite and generous the US were. It was really surprising when I sat on a bench with my friends looking on a city map. It's been several times that peopl asked us if we need help or advice. That people ranged from the ' guy next door' to the 'well dressed business man' leaving a bank on Wall Street. Sadly to say I never experienced something like that in Germany.

---

I'm glad you had a good experience. Come visit the West Coast next time.

That's because we ARE... now where did I put that cape? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
The U.S. won't find more support in Europe than in the Eastern part. Countries like Lithuania, Romania and Poland see the U.S. as the ultimate good-guy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
That's because we ARE... now where did I put that cape? :)

---

It's Sunday - don't you on the left coast clean the capes the same time as those trusty six-shooters? :D

(Though here in Massachusetts, I believe there's a 348,283,228,526,971 day waiting period to buy a can of mace, slightly longer for a pistol...)

Are you kidding? I'm at work on a Sunday. What makes you think I have time for taking my cape to the cleaners?

Egads... I just realized I'm at work on a Sunday at 1830!
Those Al Queda punks are gonna pay! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack


It's Sunday - don't you on the left coast clean the capes the same time as those trusty six-shooters? :D

(Though here in Massachusetts, I believe there's a 348,283,228,526,971 day waiting period to buy a can of mace, slightly longer for a pistol...)

---

"Of course, the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution, afford to allow Iraq to take a step toward democracy and have the people elect their own leaders, even if there is a possibility of having an elected leader with an anti-US disposition? This hypothetical question assumes that we have already removed Saddam (which is not a matter of "if" but "when")."

...

"the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution "...

Actually maybe even live up to those values before getting a H&K woody?

I agree with the original poster. I stopped coming here for a while because I expected something a little more even-handed than "We'll put a boot in your ass". Try this:

www.democraticunderground.com

I don't always agree with their tone, but it tends to be accurate enough...

Well I guess some people enjoyed the fact that most East Europeans feel that the U.S. is right.:D

The only reason I brought it up is that West and East really do differ on opinion. Having been occupied by the Soviets for nearly 50 years really can affect the population especially when the primary enemy is the U.S. to the established government.

I remember after 9/11 I was reading Polish newspapers, all of them were smearing nearly every Arab state and were stating how the U.S. should pulverize state X over state Y. Now, the only reason they don't stick out for the U.S. is that they want to join the E.U.. Next year is the referendum in Poland on whether or not to join the E.U., most polls in Poland suggest it will not pass. If it doesn't expect the government to turn 180 degrees, drop the I.C.C. treaty (which all the parties are opposed to) and help the Americans. This same situation exists in many Eastern European states, joining the E.U. is a very powerful reason why we (as in states) don't speak up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Morticutor_UK
Actually maybe even live up to those values before getting a H&K woody?

I agree with the original poster. I stopped coming here for a while because I expected something a little more even-handed than "We'll put a boot in your ass".

---

I honestly don't quite follow what you're talking about. Could you explain further? I see little evidence of "H&K woodies" and I see a lot of diversity of opinion, on both sides of the pond.

Like the thread starter, I find it... unpleasant... that on a website dedicated to a TV show based on the ideas of universal brotherhood, IDIC and strong morality can harbour such strong, uncritical, unreflective hawkish attitudes. That's why I stopped coming here, because I got fed up of hearing so much aggression and so little reflection.

Granted, I was not clear. I was far too pissed off to actually verbalise the strong emotions I felt at the time. For this I apologise - I do not like to lose my point.

Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?

On Star Trek: The Next Generation we learned the Federation had become allies with the Klingon Empire, a bunch of "militaristic hawks" if there ever were one - they fight simply for the love of battle, because they are "warriors". Yet the Federation finds something of value in them. Perhaps then there is something of value in the point of view of the hawks.

(Ironically, there is a parallel on Enterprise, where the Vulcans, inventors of IDIC, can't seem to find much of value in the Humans - Phlox even chastizes T'Pol over this. Perhaps the Vulcan-Human relationship is a metaphor for the European-American one :D )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?

---

That can only go so far.

Take the "with us or against us"-attitude of the TNG-Borg. For all the value they have, the aspects which the Federation finds so abhorrent far outweigh them.

IDIC promotes understanding, I agree.
Not necessarily acceptance. Because some things cannot be accepted.

Joe

While some things may not be acceptable, I honestly believe that very little, if any, of the political debates here fall into that category.

I know for example that many has posited some things that you strongly disagree with - for example, the morality of nations and war, the ideas that war is an extension of diplomacy, etc.

Many have also suggested that pre-emption in Iraq, or other places, is the way to go. While this may be disagreeable, is it so worthless as to not even be considered as a point of view.

When a president says that with regard to the war on terrorism, you are with us or against us, specifically stating that he is referring to those states which harbor, aid, or finance terrorists, is that something which is so disagreeable as to have no merit.

Diversity is hard. TNG suggested that even some day the Federation might reach a dialogue with the Borg. DS9 suggested that in some ways the Borg are better than the Federation - at least they tell you they are assimilating you. Diversity is finding something worth listening to in those you hate. Even Hitler was worth listening to. He told the world his exact plans, but no one outside of Germany listened to him. If people had listened to him instead of dismissing him (early) or appeasing him (later), many lives could have been saved. If people in the North or South of the USA had realized how passionately the other side felt about the issue of slavery and the Union, perhaps they would have realized the other side was prepared to go to war (the North didn't really believe the South would secede and the South did not believe the North would really fight them, beyond perhaps a token fight). Stalin practically told the world his plans post-WWII and still the USA was surprised to be in the Cold War. Even the opinions that make you want to vomit are valuable.

I've valued the opinions that disagree most strongly with mine, they make me think about my own views. Usually I still feel the same way, but sometimes they change a little. And other times I understand my viewpoint better as a result of a bright light shining on them.

I believe the diversity in these forums is a good thing.

Amen, Dan. While I don't agree with the views of several people on these boards, I will fight to the death for their right to express those views. And yes, any society needs both doves and hawks in order to prosper.

Well said Dan. Without both a left and right wing, you will only fly in circles.

Ugh. Saturday, 9 am. Why am I awake?

Would have answered sooner, but just got promoted and setting up business (maybe) with a mate. Just can't sit still...

Dan, I agree with your last few posts, and the two after, but my biggest concerns are the way that other points of view are being ignored. My main fear is the very lack of debate that surrounds this situation. There was a Times cartoon yesterday, whcih said:

"Are you A: for war with Iraq, or B: against it? Not that your opinion matters anyway".

Blair runs at the risk of being opposed to the vast majority of his party. Only now has he agreed to recall Parliament. He only released "the document" after relaising he wouldn't get anywhere if he didn't, and that paper was shot down as not containing any solid facts (does that make it innefactual? Yeah, I know...)

Maybe our "great leaders" need to spend some time listening to what's said, instead of making us listen to them.



Anyway, here's some specific answers from your reply to my last post.

"Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?"

Tolerate everything except intolerence. It's always good to have a different point of view - society needs that chaotic edge in order to be able to evolve, but as pointed out already, not everything has something that can be accepted.

"On Star Trek: The Next Generation we learned the Federation had become allies with the Klingon Empire, a bunch of "militaristic hawks" if there ever were one - they fight simply for the love of battle, because they are "warriors". Yet the Federation finds something of value in them. Perhaps then there is something of value in the point of view of the hawks."

I always saw Klingons as a letout - most fan sites describe them as the ultimate space vikings/bikers. I listen to Cradle of Filth, and I'm listening to Nile right now. I play violent computer games to relieve stress. I would never commit the acts in "Lord Abortion", but I sing along well enough.

In person, I hate violence; for me, it's a sign of failure. There are letous for fighting that are more constructive than the way things are going. Pax Americana anyone? After all, who's going to challenge it when Iraq goes down?

"(Ironically, there is a parallel on Enterprise, where the Vulcans, inventors of IDIC, can't seem to find much of value in the Humans - Phlox even chastizes T'Pol over this. Perhaps the Vulcan-Human relationship is a metaphor for the European-American one"

I often thought as the League of Non-aligned worlds from B5 like the pre-EU Europe - too small to have effective power, too much history and national identity to come together. But I stopped watching Enterprise when I noticed that I kept falling asleep through it. But that's either here or there.


Consider this:

Bush wants Europe to fight with/for him, but also shafted us royally with the steel and farming tarriffs and subsidies. The EU has been more reasonable than most, because they acceptt teh value of a dialogue, whcvih he ignored. After a long cooling off period, only when they immediately threatened 4 billion dollars worth of trade did it even get a mention.
I work in the Legal services sector in negotiating solicitors costs, and I've seen some solicitors work like that - they only do anything about it once the order has been made for them to pay costs - should'ha negotiated, boyo.