Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

zigzag · Jul 16, 2002, 01:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hope you don't mind if I contribute a couple of comments.<hr /></blockquote>Hardly - it's not for me to mind, and you're one of the real historians around here.

I'm no deTocqueville, and no historian, but I do enjoy discussions about what makes the U.S. unique. At the same time, I can understand why other people are sick of hearing about it, or are ambivalent about it.

Meanwhile, I'm off to my imaginary villa in France.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 16, 2002, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Meanwhile, I'm off to my imaginary villa in France.<hr /></blockquote>I want one of those islands in Lago Maggiore.

MikeM32 · Jul 16, 2002, 02:37 PM

The only time I've ever been to other countries was when I was in the US Navy. And shore leave usually didn't last long (Lucky if I had one day to get off the DAMN SHIP).

Although I was held over in Sicily before I ever even arrived on the ship I was stationned on. I practically lived in Sicily for almost 2 weeks before they could fly me out to Turkey via C-130 where the U.S.S. Forrestal had just anchored.

Most of what I saw in Europe was somewhat depressing, and just made me yearn to get back to the good ole US of A again, but Sicily....Sicily was awesome. Those Sicilian women really know how to blow.........

........up a baloon

Mike

M�lum · Jul 16, 2002, 05:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeM32:
Sicily was awesome. Those Sicilian women really know how to blow.........

........up a baloon

<hr /></blockquote>Many Sicilian woman have moustaces, did you notice?
If you were in the US Navy I suppose you saw place like Toulon, La Spezia, Malaga.. which are the most depressing places in Europe. A pity you didn't see more.

spectre · Jul 16, 2002, 05:23 PM

I find it fairly funny that the most powerful military is on someone's list as to why the United States is the best country. The military doesn't seem to effect me in any way.. Canada has a couple of WW2 tanks, and that's about it, but this doesn't really effect me. Possibly Canada is just better at not getting into arguments with other countries; or they use other methods to solve problems rather than military. Maybe having a larger military is actually a bad thing? Then again, maybe it's because Canada is friends with the US that we don't get into too many fights <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

zigzag · Jul 16, 2002, 07:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spectre:
I find it fairly funny that the most powerful military is on someone's list as to why the United States is the best country. The military doesn't seem to effect me in any way.. Canada has a couple of WW2 tanks, and that's about it, but this doesn't really effect me. Possibly Canada is just better at not getting into arguments with other countries; or they use other methods to solve problems rather than military. Maybe having a larger military is actually a bad thing? Then again, maybe it's because Canada is friends with the US that we don't get into too many fights <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Well, I took pains to point out that not everyone regards having the most powerful military as a positive thing. But some people do. Consider where the world would be if the U.S. hadn't been around to intervene in the two world wars, or to keep a lid on Stalin, among other things.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 16, 2002, 11:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Talisker also does not mention little inconvenient details like the Suez Crisis, a French/British colonialist fiasco which the US and Soviet Union properly put an end to; or successes like the Berlin Airlift. Or for that matter the whole Cold War. <hr /></blockquote>Or for that matter, the entire SECOND theatre of World War II the US had to fight in ADDITION to fighting in the European one.

He seems to have forgotten that other pesky Axis power that had to be bitchslapped by the US during that war, y'know, the one that proved to be even more tenacious than Nazi Germany itself.

No influence from our military eh? Without the US, Talisker would now (according to his locations) be living in either a Nazi slave state or an Imperial Japanese one. Take your pick.

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 03:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


No influence from our military eh? Without the US, Talisker would now (according to his locations) be living in either a Nazi slave state or an Imperial Japanese one. Take your pick.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry, but this kind of statements are extremely stupid. There is no way you can predict what would have happened if something in history would have had a different turn.

What would have happened if the Germans weren't so busy on the eas front against the Soviets? D-Day would have been an absolute disaster.
What would have happened if the USA didn't get Braun (the father of the V1 and V2) to build missiles and rockets?

TNproud2b · Jul 17, 2002, 03:26 AM

OMG

You are clueless.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 17, 2002, 04:05 AM

Truly clueless. Go read some history M�lum and get over the fact that yes, indeed the US saved much of the world from take over by either Nazis or becoming part of the Empire of Japan. I know you don't like it. It's something that doesn't sit well with all your anti-American propaganda, the fact that maybe, just maybe you sit there in all your taken for granted freedom THANKS in no small part to the very country you're always railing against. Must sting huh?

It's a matter of record that the UK would have fallen in a matter of months without help from the US. Oh sure... the Nazis would have spared Scotland. Dream on.

As for New Zealand... LOL! Keep entertaining notions that they and Australia both wouldn't have been pushovers for the Japanese! Not to mention with their greatest ally a Nazi captive every bit as much as France and most of the rest of Europe was. Again, read some history:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"World War II profoundly changed the mindset of New Zealanders, especially the attitude toward Britain. Until the War attachments had primarily been with Britain. The Japanese attacks in the Pacific were a frigtening experience. Not only was Britain unable to defend New Zealand, but the New Zealand Army was in North Africa fightening the Germans. The only thing that stood between New Zealand and Japanese invasion in 1942 were four American aircraft carriers. The impact on how New Zealanders viewed Britain was never the same. The War had other impacts. It introduced New Zealanders to Americans for the first time. This widened their perspectives of many New Zealanders which was to be reflected in fashion and other areas after the War."<hr /></blockquote>From an author who was there at the time:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Phyllis was born on October 14 th, 1935, the eighth of nine children to dairy farmer parents. As a child in the World War II the Japanese invasion was a fearful bogey, and not just imagined. With two older brothers overseas and aging parents the family had no idea what would happen to them, and waited day by day for the invasion, listening on static ridden radio as Darwin was bombed, and rumours of Japanese submarines on New Zealand coasts, which turned out to be true. Then the United States marines came. New Zealanders were so relieved because the marines offered protection, and turned the tide of the war in the pacific. Phyllis� brother was in the pacific arena but New Zealand and Australia did not have enough service men to combat the Japanese alone, as the majority of men had gone to fight in North Africa and Europe. New Zealand was very vulnerable until the marines came. <hr /></blockquote>Hey how about Australia?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Australia's Big Fear, and realization. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour finally confirmed Australia�s big fear: to be isolated and white in an Asia at war. When Singapore fell to the Japanese on 15 February 1942, 15,000 of the 130,000 captured troops were Australian. The country was faced with the fact that a distant and beleaguered Britain could be no real assistance against an imminent Japanese invasion. Japanese planes bombed Darwin on 19 Feb and Broome on 3 March 1942. Australia faced the very real threat of invasion by Japanese troops! The Australian war cabinet then outraged Churchill by diverting the 7th Australian Division from the defence of Burma to the New Guinea and Pacific regions.<hr /></blockquote>Guess who turned the tide and diverted Japan's invasion plans for Australia and NZ. Yup, you know it. Suck on it.

[ 07-17-2002, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 04:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Truly clueless. Go read some history M�lum and get over the fact that yes, indeed the US saved much of the world from take over by either Nazis or becoming part of the Empire of Japan. I know you don't like it. It's something that doesn't sit well with all your anti-American propaganda, the fact that maybe, just maybe you sit there in all your taken for granted freedom THANKS in no small part to the very country you're always railing against. Must sting huh?

<hr /></blockquote>You're cheap. You didn't read my words well. I'm NOT saying the USA didn't have an influence on the events, but because I know history better then you do, I also know that there are other influences that helped the USA, to say it at least.

Don't even try to give me the "anti-american" label, I'm sick of this excuse of not beeing allowed to criticise or point out errors.

The USA is only a country you know, like any other country. It has it's good sides and bad sides, it does good things and makes mistakes, and it also depends on other countries, like other countries depend on the USA.

I ONLY pointed out that you cannot say what would have happened if history had a different turn, because you cannot. It's a fact, not an opinion.

Myrkridia · Jul 17, 2002, 04:36 AM

It's a fine place to live, but the only thing I hate is the arrogant pricks. "If you say America sucks, I swear I'll put a boot in your ass"

[ 07-17-2002, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Myrkridia ]

Myrkridia · Jul 17, 2002, 04:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Truly clueless. Go read some history M�lum and get over the fact that yes, indeed the US saved much of the world from take over by either Nazis or becoming part of the Empire of Japan. I know you don't like it. It's something that doesn't sit well with all your anti-American propaganda, the fact that maybe, just maybe you sit there in all your taken for granted freedom THANKS in no small part to the very country you're always railing against. Must sting huh?

<hr /></blockquote>Ya America "Saved the world" only AFTER Pearl Harbor. It took a kick in the ass to get us up and in the war. Then we have the nerve to call it a cowardly attack or something to that affect. 1. We were supplying Britain with weapons and ammo. (I don't think Germany liked that very much) 2. You can whine about the so-called rules of war and be all pissed about Pearl Harbor happening but in the end the only rule of war is to win and I think nuking a couple hundred thousand unarmed civilians more then makes up for it right? <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 17, 2002, 04:54 AM

No sorry M�lum but you don't seem to know your history. And some things are quite easy to predict the outcome of.

No, the US didn't win WWII all by itself, but had we not entered the war or even not supplied the UK as early as we did, it's an absolute certainty (get that into your head a CERTAINTY) that the UK would have fallen. The UK at the time was absolutely, not by any shred of anyone's imagination a match for the superior military might of Nazi Germany. Who was gonna save the day otherwise? France? Already a b;tch state.

Had the UK fallen (Again a virtual CERTAINTY)... there would have been no hope for the whole of Europe whatsoever. Your entire continent would have fallen under an iron curtain of Nazism and Fascism every bit as much as parts of it fell under the Soviet Union later on. To deny this is just to deny reality. What would have saved you other than a determined US military? A miracle? Some unforeseen military force the world hasn't discovered yet? What? Give some facts rather than blowing smoke. What could have saved you? From any tactical standpoint based on REALITY there would have been no chance of Europe recovering on it's own from a complete Nazi take over. None. Your only hope (if you can call it that) would have been -much like what played out with the Soviets- that the corrupt system the Nazis would have put in place would have run out of gas on it's own and collapsed after say 50 to 60 years of your being Nazi b;tches.

To add another factor in and (again FACTS based on what we now know and what's pretty obvious to most anyone) given even a few added years beyond 1945 (which a UK fall would have certainly provided) Hitler would have had his own atomic weapons! No matter what the Russians were able to pull off, Moscow and other key cities in Russia would have gone 'boom' before long after that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What would have happened if the USA didn't get Braun (the father of the V1 and V2) to build missiles and rockets?<hr /></blockquote>Your question is astonishingly obvious! Had Von Braun not been building them for us... (DUH! THE VICTOR) He'd have been building them for the Germans (Who would have been the victors had we not entered the war). Oh wait, your as yet unnamed miracle that doesn�t involve the US entering the war may have saved that from happening.

Your D-Day question is equally as silly. Without us having already helped turn the tide of the war enough for the UK to be on the offensive and not just about to collapse on the defensive- WHAT D-DAY!?!

Sheesh, anyone who thinks the Soviet Union and the US were/are bad as super powers, imagine a global Nazi super power From the UK to the whole of North Africa to the far reaches of eastern Russia with nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them!

Honestly, even for us, I think the Russians were a pushover in comparison to that nightmare scenario which came more dangerously close to happening than many want to admit. Toss in an Imperial Japan absolutely dominating the Pacific... yikes!

[ 07-17-2002, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 05:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No sorry M�lum but you don't seem to know your history. And some things are quite easy to predict the outcome of.

No, the US didn't win WWII all by itself, but had we not entered the war or even not supplied the UK as early as we did, it's an absolute certainty (get that into your head a CERTAINTY) that the UK would have fallen. The UK at the time was absolutely, not by any shred of anyone's imagination a match for the superior military might of Nazi Germany. Who was gonna save the day otherwise? France? Already a b;tch state.

Had the UK fallen (Again a virtual CERTAINTY)... there would have been no hope for the whole of Europe whatsoever. Your entire continent would have fallen under an iron curtain of Nazism and Fascism every bit as much as parts of it fell under the Soviet Union later on. To deny this is just to deny reality. What would have saved you other than a determined US military? A miracle? Some unforeseen military force the world hasn't discovered yet? What? Give some facts rather than blowing smoke. What could have saved you? From any tactical standpoint based on REALITY there would have been no chance of Europe recovering on it's own from a complete Nazi take over. None. Your only hope (of you can call it that) would have been -much like what played out with the Soviets- that the corrupt system the Nazis would have put in place would have run out of gas on it's own and collapsed after say 50 to 60 years of your being Nazi b;tches.

To add another factor in and (again FACTS based on what we now know and what's pretty obvious to most anyone) given even a few added years beyond 1945 (which a UK fall would have certainly provided) Hitler would have had his own atomic weapons! No matter what the Russians were able to pull off, Moscow and other key cities in Russia would have gone 'boom' before long after that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What would have happened if the USA didn't get Braun (the father of the V1 and V2) to build missiles and rockets?<hr /></blockquote>Your question is astonishingly obvious! Had Von Braun not been building them for us... (DUH! THE VICTOR) He'd have been building them for the Germans (Who would have been the victors had we not entered the war). Oh wait, your as yet unnamed miracle that doesn�t involve the US entering the war may have saved that from happening.

Your D-Day question is equally as silly. Without us having already helped turn the tide of the war enough for the UK to be on the offensive and not just about to collapse on the defensive- WHAT D-DAY!?!

Sheesh, anyone who thinks the Soviet Union and the US were/are bad as super powers, imagine a global Nazi super power From the UK to the whole of North Africa to the far reaches of eastern Russia the with nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them!

Honestly, even for us, I think the Russians were a pushover in comparison to that nightmare scenario which came more dangerously close to happening than many want to admit. Toss in an Imperial Japan absolutely dominating the Pacific... yikes!<hr /></blockquote>Get the concept: I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, did I? Because I'm smart enough to understand that it is absolute madnes to even think you can predict what would have happened. That's my point.
YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

Again, I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, because I don't know, and neither do you. You can only guess what would have happened.

Have you read the book Fatherland?

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 17, 2002, 05:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
Get the concept: I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, did I? Because I'm smart enough to understand that it is absolute madnes to even think you can predict what would have happened. That's my point.
YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

Again, I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, because I don't know, and neither do you. You can only guess what would have happened.<hr /></blockquote>Gee... we can only guess. Let's see.. France down and out. Belgium, Holland overrun. Eastern Europe and the Baltics conquered. The Nordic countries occupied. The oil fields of North Africa firmly in Nazi hands. The UK fighting for survial, population in danger of starvation, sea lanes hounded by subs, almost a complete seige, planes, guns, ammo running out, enemy bombs raining from the sky over London and major cities...

Meanwhile Nazi Germany in control of vast oil fields. Italy at that point a strong ally. The largest and best equipped military on the planet BAR NONE. (And Yes, even the US's). Complete and near total air superiority even over the UK with the worlds largest and best equiped airforce. Unchallenged powerful Navy fighting an island nation that barely had one. Factories at full war production pumping out new ordinance on a scale no one had ever witnessed.

Gee.. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPEND? Awww... you're right, it's too hard to call.

<img src="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1942euro.gif" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1942~eur.gif" alt=" - " />

Edit: just to put things in a little perspective.

[ 07-18-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 05:25 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
Get the concept: I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, did I? Because I'm smart enough to understand that it is absolute madnes to even think you can predict what would have happened. That's my point.
YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

Again, I'm not saying WHAT would have happened, because I don't know, and neither do you. You can only guess what would have happened.<hr /></blockquote>Gee... we can only guess. Let's see.. France down and out. Belgium, Holland overrun. Eastern Europe and the Baltics conquered. The Nordic countries occupied. The oil fields of North Africa firmly in Nazi hands. The UK fighting for survial, population in danger of starvation, sea lanes hounded by subs, almost a complete seige, planes, guns, ammo running out, enemy bombs raining from the sky over London and major cities...

Meanwhile Nazi Germany in control of vast oil fields. Italy at that point a strong ally. The largest and best equipped military on the planet BAR NONE. (And Yes, even the US's). Complete and near total air superiority even over the UK with the worlds largest and best equiped airforce. Unchallenged powerful Navy fighting an island nation that barely had one. Factories at full war production pumping out new ordinance on a scale no one had ever witnessed.

Gee.. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPEND? Awww... you're right, it's too hard to call.

<hr /></blockquote>You want some options?
-The Soviets took over the Nazi Empire and all of Europe became Communist but the system crumbled in the end (like it did)
-The Nazis took over the Soviet Empire
-The Nazi Reich crumbled because of increasing resistance by it's own population
-The Nazi Reich crumbled because of it's incapacity to control such a large geographical area.
-The Nazi Reich crumbled because of schandals inside the System
-Hitler was killed by a partisan and no new hypnotic leader was found, little by little the Nazi's lost power.
-Hitler was killed or died and the new leader changed the policies.
-The Nazi's realize that they couldn't continue the way they were running the place and started reforms (a la Iran for example)
-The Nazi regime was split in 2 or more due to internal power struggle.
-The Soviets and Nazi's joined forces
-The Russians used the Atomic bombs they could build thanks to the info from the USA or the creaters of these weapons.
.........

I can come up with an endless list if you want of things that could have happened. They sound impossible to you?

Well, I'm sure the Holocoust sounded impossible to the Jews before the 1930's too.

[ 07-17-2002, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 17, 2002, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Your question is astonishingly obvious! Had Von Braun not been building them for us... (DUH! THE VICTOR) He'd have been building them for the Germans.
<hr /></blockquote>I think you mean, Von Braun would still have been building for the Germans. The guy worked for Speer until the end of the war. His luck was being able to surrender to the US, rather than the USSR.

Malum is empirically right that we can't predict with absolute certainty what would have happened if the US had not entered the war, but he is wrong to deny that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of one of Crash Harddrive's depressing scenarios.

It isn't just a matter of reading history books, the population of Britain knew it perfectly well at the time. My mother was born the same year as Anne Frank and my grandfather was a Chief Air Raid Warden in a large town on Britain's East Coast. Invasion sooner or later was seen as certain until the US entered the war. Britain was militarily a pushover at that time, having lost much of its Army's heavy equipment at Dunkirk.

The fact that the US on balance saved Britain's (and Europe's) bacon still rankles to this day and I think that attitude is reflected in Malum's and Talisker's denial. It's a very sore subject and Europeans get upset at what they see as the "Errol Flynn" version of history. That's named after a movie in which Flynn won in Burma without mention of the fact that the troops in Burma were mostly British and Indian. Nevertheless, the allies would have lost but for the American troops and materiel, and for the enormous manpower and bravery of the Soviet Union.

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 06:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Malum is empirically right that we can't predict with absolute certainty what would have happened if the US had not entered the war, but he is wrong to deny that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of one of Crash Harddrive's depressing scenarios.

It isn't just a matter of reading history books, the population of Britain knew it perfectly well at the time. My mother was born the same year as Anne Frank and my grandfather was a Chief Air Raid Warden in a large town on Britain's East Coast. Invasion sooner or later was seen as certain until the US entered the war. Britain was militarily a pushover at that time, having lost much of its Army's heavy equipment at Dunkirk.

The fact that the US on balance saved Britain's (and Europe's) bacon still rankles to this day and I think that attitude is reflected in Malum's and Talisker's denial. It's a very sore subject and Europeans get upset at what they see as the "Errol Flynn" version of history. That's named after a movie in which Flynn won in Burma without mention of the fact that the troops in Burma were mostly British and Indian. Nevertheless, the allies would have lost but for the American troops and materiel, and for the enormous manpower and bravery of the Soviet Union.<hr /></blockquote>I didn't express my feelings to what would have happened, I only pointed out that you cannot say things would have happened with the certainty as Crash did.
That's my point, nothing else is to be read there.

At the same time we do not know if in the end what has happened was the good thing to happen. For sure it is now and it very possibly is for the future, but we just don't know.

I mean, in a (sometimes looking possible) event of a total distruction of this Planet, the Military power of the USA almost certainly will have some responsability.

In a (absurd if you want) different turn of events the Nazi's could have won WW2 but could have saved the world from total distruction.

What would have been the best ending? We just don't know, we can only guess and, if we vote for the right people, who then do the right things, we can influence the future, but cannot predict.

Talking about Anne Frank.. Do you know the full story?? I'm sure 99% of the world population do not know about the recent facts that have come out over the last few years.
Not that it matters as the story is a good one to embody certain aspects of WW2 life.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 17, 2002, 06:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:

Talking about Anne Frank.. Do you know the full story?? I'm sure 99% of the world population do not know about the recent facts that have come out over the last few years.
Not that it matters as the story is a good one to embody certain aspects of WW2 life.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Yes. Do you think they will really get a prosecution and conviction for turning her and her family in?

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 06:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:

Talking about Anne Frank.. Do you know the full story?? I'm sure 99% of the world population do not know about the recent facts that have come out over the last few years.
Not that it matters as the story is a good one to embody certain aspects of WW2 life.<hr /></blockquote>Yes. Do you think they will really get a prosecution and conviction for turning her and her family in?[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>No, this would damage the whole Anne Frank story more then anything else. It's better left as it is.

zigzag · Jul 17, 2002, 10:32 AM

Just to keep things within the context of the topic, I would add that:

(1) No one has seriously disputed the proposition that the U.S. has been, overall, the most powerful military force over the last century;

(2) That proposition was originally put forth not to boast, but as one reason why many Americans (rightly or wrongly) think of their country as "the best", which was the original inquiry;

(3) Whether the power of the U.S. military is a positive or negative is a value judgment that everyone has to make on their own. I view it mostly as a positive (the U.S. successfully intervened in the two world wars and subsequently kept a lid on the Russians), but partly as a negative (the U.S. has on other occasions abused its power). Either way, it has been the most powerful overall.

(4) I think we can all agree that the very idea of "the best country" is a too slippery in the first place. I would never go around saying that the U.S. is "the best" - I'd be more inclined to say that it has been the most influential for the past century.

Now, a quote from one of the funniest books I own, "The Xenophobe's Guide To The French":

"The French care about what really matters in life - being French. They are convinced of their corporate, moral, and individual superiority over all others in the world. Their charm is that they don't despise the rest of us: they pity us for not being French."

Timo · Jul 18, 2002, 12:27 PM

Love that French quote.

Anyhoo, since the old Euro vs. America thing is up, again, I thought I'd post this bit from Slate:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In fact, there are competing intellectual street gangs on each side of the Atlantic these days, and both are filled with a rather lunatic bloodlust. For all the salon talk in Europe about arrogant super-duper-powers led by idiot cowboys, there is an equal amount of bleating about anti-Semitic, Arab-loving, crypto-Trotskyite Euro-Weenies in America. The caricatures are poison; they have consequences. They are too easily digested, too easily passed through the public bloodstream; they provide a sugar rush for the idle and foolish. We gave the last century over to the vehement idealists: They gave us the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Britain's rail privatization scheme. It's time for a new paradigm. And I have a modest proposal:

Let Hutton [Brit Amero-skeptic] captain 50 Euro-Weenies; let Norman Podhoretz, the ancient neoconservative crustacean, captain 50 Ameri-Goths. Let us transport both squads to a desert island and ask them to compete�not just in standard survivor games such as worm-eating, but also in more erudite pursuits such as hieroglyph reading and grant-proposal writing. Let them box and wrestle and debate as well�perhaps a new sport could be invented: debate boxing. We can televise all this, although I'm not sure there would be many viewers. Then again, perhaps we should avoid making intellectuals into celebrities. Perhaps we should leave them on that desert island and go about the serious business of picking out what's best on both sides of the Atlantic and making a nice little society for ourselves. (emphasis added)<hr /></blockquote>

vmpaul · Jul 18, 2002, 01:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:

(3) Diversity. Human nature being what it is, there are many people who wish it were less diverse, but in any case it has been more diverse for a longer time than anywhere else on the planet. It hasn't been called "The World's Melting Pot" for nothing.<hr /></blockquote>You know, this touches on something I've been thinking about since 9/11. Not that I think the US is the best country but I do think it's a good model for how the rest of the world is going to have to live together eventually. Respect for individual rights backed up by the rule of law.

If humanity is ever going to grow up and avoid major wars, self-immolation and such, at some point we're going to have to stop hating each other because of the differences and just start accepting this diversity. Jew vs Mulsim, black vs. white, it all seems so petty.

Believe me, if this was the 50's I wouldn't feel this way but ever since the Civil Rights movement in the 60's I think we've been moving along a path tolerance. Are we completely there yet? Absolutely not, and I'm sure we can all think of a number of instances to shatter that image.

But think of a place like New York. Over a few square miles, is there a more culturally, ethnically, religously, and economically diverse place on the planet? And yet they live in a relatively peaceful progressive society.

Again, not that we're a poster child for toerance, (just look at the christian fundamentalist we have!) but I think for being as diverse as this country is the US handles it pretty well.

Just some thoughts. I'd be interested in how non-US countries view this.

jamesa · Jul 22, 2002, 11:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:

(3) Whether the power of the U.S. military is a positive or negative is a value judgment that everyone has to make on their own. I view it mostly as a positive (the U.S. successfully intervened in the two world wars and subsequently kept a lid on the Russians), but partly as a negative (the U.S. has on other occasions abused its power). Either way, it has been the most powerful overall.
<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, I think that the US realises they don't always use their power for what most would consider "positives" - this is embodied in the US's reluctance to sign up for the ICC (International Criminal Court).

I was pretty critical of an earlier post, but I'll be honest that I think the US is a great country. Someone just managed to post a whole host of crap that really annoyed me.

What I think many in the US don't realise is that the national boundaries are becoming less and less important. Blocs, USSR style, are springing up all around us - EU, ASEAN, NAFTA. These are going to be the definition of the various entities we exist in over the next century - not outdated borders, a relic leftover from 18th and 19th century colonialism. I understand that many people in North America feel differently, but what is the difference between someone born in Vancouver and someone born in Seattle? There are a few hundred kilometres separating them at birth, and yet based on traditional thinking this can affect everything from their identities as people through to the opportunities they will have during their lives. What's the basis for this - a simple line on a map, left over from a fallen powers' colonial past.

My biggest gripe with America on an International level is its often arrogant unilateralism - "we know best, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway". Most of the time they do get it right, but not always. The ICC (which, had it existed for the Vietnam War for instance, would have seen US serviceman prosecuted, and rightly so too), the mess in the middle east (which I don't blame the US for, but I believe with the political will it could be solved very quickly, in fact probably solved already). Little things (in the scheme of things). Individually, they're forgivable, but it's the principle that shits me - it's not the US's world, everyone lives here. To go ahead and make decisions without any consideration for the fact there are 6 billion other people on the planet, each with as much right as any US citizen to a say, but instead their opinion is left to rot.

-- james

zigzag · Jul 22, 2002, 12:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jamesa:
What I think many in the US don't realise is that the national boundaries are becoming less and less important. Blocs, USSR style, are springing up all around us - EU, ASEAN, NAFTA. These are going to be the definition of the various entities we exist in over the next century - not outdated borders, a relic leftover from 18th and 19th century colonialism. I understand that many people in North America feel differently, but what is the difference between someone born in Vancouver and someone born in Seattle? There are a few hundred kilometres separating them at birth, and yet based on traditional thinking this can affect everything from their identities as people through to the opportunities they will have during their lives. What's the basis for this - a simple line on a map, left over from a fallen powers' colonial past.<hr /></blockquote>What's interesting to me is that there are two countervailing trends - one is towards the blocs that you speak of, the other is towards post-colonial ethnic identity and nationalism. Some people (EU, for example) are less and less concerned with borders, while others are more concerned with defining and separating themselves than ever.

I mean, when I was a kid, we were obsessed with the Soviet bloc, which no longer exists - it's now a bunch of sovereign entities, many of which I've never heard of before and can't even spell. Meanwhile, Chechnya is fighting for independence, and you've got the Serbs and so forth fighting each other in what used to be known simply as "Yugoslavia". And, of course, there's always Northern Ireland. And we mustn't forget the French, who have laws prohibiting the use of certain English terms.

Not that it's a new problem. There has always been a tension between the desire to identify with a particular nationality and/or ethnic group, and the desire to integrate/assimilate into the larger world.

I've always been fascinated by the fact that in a space the size of Europe, despite centuries of migration and trade and so forth, there are still so many distinct languages and identities. I would have expected them to blur together much more than they have.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2002, 12:37 PM

Some comments, with no particular connection between them:

Originally posted by jamesa:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />What I think many in the US don't realise is that the national boundaries are becoming less and less important. Blocs, USSR style, are springing up all around us - EU, ASEAN, NAFTA. <hr /></blockquote>NAFTA and ASEAN are trading blocs, not political unions. The EU began as a trading bloc with a specific purpose (not universally shared among Europeans) of conversion to a political union. It's a particular project located in a particular geopolitical space, not necessarily a universal trend for all humanity.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

These are going to be the definition of the various entities we exist in over the next century - not outdated borders, a relic leftover from 18th and 19th century colonialism. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, Nationalism has its roots pre-imperialism. The idea of the modern nation-states is normally dated to approximately the early sixteenth century. Ernest Gellner is an interesting (if pretentious) read on the topic.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I understand that many people in North America feel differently, but what is the difference between someone born in Vancouver and someone born in Seattle? <hr /></blockquote>Not much, but don't tell the Canadian that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />My biggest gripe with America on an International level is its often arrogant unilateralism - "we know best, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway". Most of the time they do get it right, but not always. <hr /></blockquote>Well, that's called sovereignty. Remember Woodrow Wilson's 14 points in history class? One of them was national self-determination. Each nation controls its own destiny. Of course, they interact and cooperate on the international level. National freedom of action isn't absolute in the real world. But the principal still is that nations are sovereign and this anti-colonialist principal is enshrined in the United Nations

Do you think that one nation telling another nation how to lead thier lives is a superior form of government to national self-determination? How is that different from imperialism?

Substituting a committee of nations dictating government really isn't qualitatively any different from a single colonial power doing the same thing. Would you like to see Britain controlling Australia's foreign policy again? Why would it make it any better if it were the EU that were to dictate policy? Or the UN?

What believers in multilateralism have to wrestle with is that their beliefs are inconsistent with the competing ideal of democratic accountability. Citizens in democracies can only influence their own governments. If their own governments cede political power to other nations, or to multilateral, unelected, unaccountable bodies like the ICC, democracy is diluted.

Perhaps supporters of bodies like the ICC see democracy as a passe 18th century ideal. But I still think it has a valid role.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The ICC (which, had it existed for the Vietnam War for instance, would have seen US serviceman prosecuted, and rightly so too)<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, by the terms of the ICC's treaty it wouldn't have done because the US has a good track record of prosecuting its soldiers who commit war crimes.

But the very fact that you would say that US soldiers would be prosecuted for Vietnam (as opposed to say the Viet Cong) is exactly why the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration and both parties in Congress are correct to be leery. The US absolutely would be singled out unfairly for prosecution.

I realise that ICC supporters deny that would happen. But if they want to convince the US body politic that this would not be the case, ceasless attacks on Americans and American foreign policy and false charges of unialterialism for what is a very multilaterally-involved foreign policy probably isn't the right way to go about it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

P.S. I wasn't aware of Zig Zag's post while I was composing my comments about nationalism v. multilateralism. Interesting parallel thinking.

[ 07-22-2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

jamesa · Jul 23, 2002, 11:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
What's interesting to me is that there are two countervailing trends - one is towards the blocs that you speak of, the other is towards post-colonial ethnic identity and nationalism. Some people (EU, for example) are less and less concerned with borders, while others are more concerned with defining and separating themselves than ever.<hr /></blockquote>I think that the people who are concerned about putting and keeping up boundaries are the ones living in fear, that see the rest of the world as evil and it's out to get them. That's what boundaries were originally put in place to do - separate the colonial competitors. Keep out the enemy.

They've evolved a bit, but effectively that's what they're still there for, and those people who continue to use them in their traditional sense are in fear of something (maybe they've been persecuted, maybe their leaders fear a loss of power). Other countries are reducing them - NAFTA, WTO, etc are about reducing one sort of boundary, that also happens to be one of the most important, the boundaries for goods and services. The internet is also helping to render them less and less important.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
Not that it's a new problem. There has always been a tension between the desire to identify with a particular nationality and/or ethnic group, and the desire to integrate/assimilate into the larger world.

I've always been fascinated by the fact that in a space the size of Europe, despite centuries of migration and trade and so forth, there are still so many distinct languages and identities. I would have expected them to blur together much more than they have.<hr /></blockquote>So long as people aren't at eachothers throats (for whatever reason) the natural tendency is to group together. Trade blocs, EU, state powers being removed to a federal level. Evolution of technology means the old barriers are more and more meaningless.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Some comments, with no particular connection between them:
NAFTA and ASEAN are trading blocs, not political unions. The EU began as a trading bloc with a specific purpose (not universally shared among Europeans) of conversion to a political union. It's a particular project located in a particular geopolitical space, not necessarily a universal trend for all humanity.
<hr /></blockquote>Obviously they're trading blocs. But you watch as these spring up into more. Trading and commerce define a nation's interests - the 21st century extension of the Truman Doctrine. If a nation's trading partners are threatened, its livelihood is in turned threatened. $$$ end up being more important than morals, or anything else. The EU have jumped the rest of the pack and just amalgamated everything - eventually, other countries will begin to do the same; maybe not as fast, or as entirely as has been done in Europe, but it will start to happen.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
These are going to be the definition of the various entities we exist in over the next century - not outdated borders, a relic leftover from 18th and 19th century colonialism. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, Nationalism has its roots pre-imperialism. The idea of the modern nation-states is normally dated to approximately the early sixteenth century. Ernest Gellner is an interesting (if pretentious) read on the topic.
<hr /></blockquote>much of a muchness - the date it truly starts is in the context of this discussion irrelevant. The fact you claim it's older than it really is only goes to prove how pointless the whole "country vs country" argument is, when you sit down and really think about it... it's been like this for how long, but what's the point?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />I understand that many people in North America feel differently, but what is the difference between someone born in Vancouver and someone born in Seattle? <hr /></blockquote>Not much, but don't tell the Canadian that.

but isn't that the point? people may identify differently culturally, but only because they've been conditioned to do so. In truth we're really not all that different.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />My biggest gripe with America on an International level is its often arrogant unilateralism - "we know best, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway". Most of the time they do get it right, but not always. <hr /></blockquote>Well, that's called sovereignty. Remember Woodrow Wilson's 14 points in history class? One of them was national self-determination. Each nation controls its own destiny. Of course, they interact and cooperate on the international level. National freedom of action isn't absolute in the real world. But the principal still is that nations are sovereign and this anti-colonialist principal is enshrined in the United Nations
<hr /></blockquote>What a US President put forward nigh on eighty years ago doesn't necessarily mean that the US isn't guilty of breaking those lofty principles. How many weeks ago was it that Bush was dictating to Palestine that they needed to change their leader?

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />

Do you think that one nation telling another nation how to lead thier lives is a superior form of government to national self-determination? How is that different from imperialism?

<hr /></blockquote>Well, that very much depends on the circumstances. Wealthy and powerful countries should be facilitators for the will of the people of those less powerful than them (if it's necessary) - it is not a country's job to go into a hostile regime and install or support a dictator that's more agreeable to their interests. That is nothing more than imperialism. Instead, how about going in, and allowing the people to democratically elect a government? I mean, to take the Vietnam example again, the President of South Vietnam (I can't remember names now) that the Americans chose to support during the war was not popularly elected. What they were practicing was nothing more than imperialism; our interests are better supported by having a puppet capitalist Govt than allowing the people to decide.

On the other hand, you've got the UN in East Timor right now running free and fair elections.

The difference is the motive of the powerful country - is it doing it to further its own interests, or is it doing for the benefit of the people within the target country in question. Multilaterilalism generally removes the former, and leaves the latter, because (again in general) one course of action will generally not be in the benefit of all those countries unless it's also going to be of benefit to the population of the target country.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Substituting a committee of nations dictating government really isn't qualitatively any different from a single colonial power doing the same thing. Would you like to see Britain controlling Australia's foreign policy again? Why would it make it any better if it were the EU that were to dictate policy? Or the UN?
<hr /></blockquote>

It's not about dictating anything. But a country shouldn't take major international action without major international agreement. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we revert back to imperialism, or that anybody should be dictating any policy to anybody else, but what about a bit of consensus? Less altruism and more agreement. If a country's motives and reasons for doing something are good, they should have no trouble sitting down and explaining to other countries why they are doing it, and why it needs to be done.

IMO, for Intl problems, the UN is perfect for this. I know a lot of people in the US like to knock it, but as a means of reaching agreement internationally about events that shape the world it's a perfect medium. It's not the US's globe to play with as it pleases - it's as much an Indian or South African citizen's as it is an Americans or a Chinese citizens.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

What believers in multilateralism have to wrestle with is that their beliefs are inconsistent with the competing ideal of democratic accountability. Citizens in democracies can only influence their own governments. If their own governments cede political power to other nations, or to multilateral, unelected, unaccountable bodies like the ICC, democracy is diluted.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's absolutely untrue - multilateralism is not inconsistent with principles of democracy - in fact, it's the opposite of what you say. Multilateralism is a form of international democracy. Officials are elected from many countries are elected to an International body to make decisions. If something affects the international community, should a decision being made on the will of 300 million or so US citizens, or some kind of consensus reached by as many countries as possible. What bodies like the ICC do is not dilute democracy, but rather dilute the effect of the US democracy.

Let's give a few examples of unilateralism, and what happens when you allow countries to go it alone instead of acting for the obvious benefit of everyone.
1. International sea worthiness certificates. Instead of handing it off to a responsible world authority so that there is some attempt made at a standard, every country is allowed to do it by themselves. Land locked countries can issue sea worthiness certificates. African nations with no coast give great discounts just to get the revenue. Now, of course you couldn't stop all the ships without an international sea worthiness certificate issued from the UN or some such agency from setting sail, but the "responsible" nations could say that if it's not issued from the said agency, then the ship can't dock in its port.
Instead, every country goes it alone, and irresponsible companies and individuals get seaworthiness certificates for peanuts without the issuing country ever seeing the vessel in the first instance.
2. Environmental standards. A country can choose to take the short term, easy and politically popular option that comes at their own (and everybody else's) expense over the long term. Bush agrees that CO2 emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and he admits that this in turn has a negative effect on the world's environment, yet what of any impact does he choose to do about it? Nothing. It's easier to sit on your hands - because he's from Texas, and how much in campaign donations did he receive from oil companies? I'm only picking a US example because it's something that everyone will be familiar with, and it's perfect about how many holes exist in the local "democratically accountable" argument.

This goes back to what I said earlier - why think of yourself as a citizen of a country. We're all human, flesh & blood, etc. The problem is that people are conditioned to think in nationalistic terms, and this in turn means that the needs and desires of a few are maintained (and not necessarily that well) while the needs of the masses are not. I'm not attacking capitalism - that's not what this is about. It's this narrow minded view of democracy. Democracy is about people who are affected by a decision having a say in it. Democracy is not "you're born 3kms south of a border, you get a say, and we care about you, and 3kms north of the border you exist only so we can exploit you". That's what democracy is at the moment - and to be honest, IMO, the US is the worst offender. It even does it to its own citizens - the way the power is split between the states is inefficient, and power is divided purely on borders that are how old? And why were they drawn? It's been like that for so long people have forgotten why they were put there in the first place, and whether there's any benefit in keeping them. They just are; it's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Perhaps supporters of bodies like the ICC see democracy as a passe 18th century ideal. But I still think it has a valid role.

<hr /></blockquote>

I see 18th century democracy as passe. Communications and travel have evolved to such an extent that I can pass a message to you on the other side of the world in mere seconds. This wasn't feasible in the 18th century. The US version (and many other countries as well) of democracy needs to be updated, and that means that if something affects the rest of the world, it's not ok just for one countries interests to be looked after and to screw the rest of the world. That's what US democracy is at the moment. It's "the ICC is fine if it applies to other people but it's not ok for us" is what I'm talking about. The purpose of the ICC is not to distinguish between countries, but rather to capture perpetrators of atrocities and bring them to justice. The argument that "we do that ourselves" just can't cut it, because otherwise you give the moral authority to people like Slobadan Milosivich to say the exact same thing. To lead the world, you have to lead, and that may mean making tough decisions that may seem like they're not always in your best interest, but intrinsically you know they're the right thing to do.

And while your country is undoubtedly the most powerful in the world, how long this remains the case is not known by anyone. Many US businesses are realising how powerful China is becoming economically, and this isn't going to reverse any time soon. In fifty years time, it could be China stamping on you or your allies, committing atrocities, and you may not be powerful enough to do anything about it. But what about the ICC? If the US joins up, it has the moral authority to say "these people should be brought to justice under jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court", just as Madeline Albright did with Milosivich. you sit on the sidelines, you lose your moral authority. Which, short term is fine, because you don't risk being on the receiving end - but what about in the future?

It's easy to make short term decisions based purely on easy options, and I think your President is becoming quite good at it. Does this mean it's the best outcome for the world, or even for a majority of US citizens?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The ICC (which, had it existed for the Vietnam War for instance, would have seen US serviceman prosecuted, and rightly so too)<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, by the terms of the ICC's treaty it wouldn't have done because the US has a good track record of prosecuting its soldiers who commit war crimes.
<hr /></blockquote>

Then what are you afraid of? If your servicemen do nothing wrong, what do they have to fear?

Do you honestly believe that the western world will come slinging its guns out for the US if it wasn't justified? And if it really wasn't justified, do you think the US would have problems in extricating itself from the treaty?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
But the very fact that you would say that US soldiers would be prosecuted for Vietnam (as opposed to say the Viet Cong) is exactly why the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration and both parties in Congress are correct to be leery. The US absolutely would be singled out unfairly for prosecution.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's untrue. Nobody would be. And like I said, I hardly think your allies (most of the western world) would be mortified if you pulled out under such circumstances were the charges unfair.

But what you are saying by your example - the Viet Cong would commit atrocities and get away with it, therefore we should be able to. Yours (and the Bush administrations) argument lowers the US to the level of the Viet Congs, instead of taking leadership and trying to raise their standards to those of yours.

I used that Vietnam example simply because it's a well known one. But it shouldn't be reliant on a soldier's own country to bring about prosecution if they do something wrong. The reasoning behind that is obvious - it's like saying criminals should be prosecuted by their own family.

The thing is, without the world's largest power behind it, the moral authority of such an organisation is severely reduced. It's an important organisation - kill 1 man you're a murderer, kill a million you're a conqueror at the moment remains true, and our one opportunity to stop it is being hampered by the country that claims its the leader of the free world!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

I realise that ICC supporters deny that would happen. But if they want to convince the US body politic that this would not be the case, ceasless attacks on Americans and American foreign policy and false charges of unialterialism for what is a very multilaterally-involved foreign policy probably isn't the right way to go about it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<hr /></blockquote>

Well, I think the US has made it perfectly clear that it's happy to pull out of the agreements should they believe it necessary. Look at what Bush has done for Star Wars 2. But both of these treaties are (were) beneficial to the International community, and I think the US has to look beyond it's paranoia and realise that such a body is not interested in persecuting them. I also believe that if the US continues to pursue its own interests with no regard to anybody else's, more S11's will happen. I absolutely do not condone what happened on that day, but as the world becomes more and more interconnected, the US has to continue to lead and engage the rest of the world.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
P.S. I wasn't aware of Zig Zag's post while I was composing my comments about nationalism v. multilateralism. Interesting parallel thinking.<hr /></blockquote>

[ 07-23-2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: jamesa ]

swiftp · Jul 23, 2002, 12:54 PM

Well, this seems to have degenerated into a 'hate the Yanks' thread with the objects of the hate retreating into a dogmatic position.

To lighten things up...

What is good about the US:
1) It is absolutely THE best place to bring up a family. I have met some lovely Americans on my visits for business and the atmosphere is wonderful. You do not wish for anything material. Health is great and the whole place is steeped in service culture.

2) Gorgeous scenery. A beautiful country.

3) Relative freedom to do what you want

4) Stable political system, despite the recent Presidential election.

5) Willingness to help sort out the world's trouble

6) Money. There is lots of it.

7) Can-do culture. Positive to the point of embarassment.

What is bad about the US:
1) Atmosphere. As a European, I dispair that the US feels like the Middle East (this is not an insult-its just that every one seems to be passing through). Little sense of history. US cities seem to be devoid of any solid atmosphere (Chicago excepted).

2) Vorracious apetite for the World's natural resources (Jaques Chirac caused a storm by stating that the average US citizen consumes at least 3 times the resources of the average European. Probably caused a storm becuase it was true).

3) Often quite startling ignorance of the average person about the rest of the world.

4) Guns-I cannot belive the attitude. I thought Charlton Heston was an OK bloke until I heard him speak as head of the NRA. Breathatkingly stupid. We could take the view, however, that if Americans want to kill themselves then that's their business.

5) American Telly - 'nuff said. But, I really hate the way the US film inidustry portray history simplisticly and falsly. It is an insult to the memory of brave people.

This has turned out to be more bad then good so I'll stop. On balance the bads are not that bad and the goods are very good. If it wasn't for the current President and his rather hamfisted way of dealing with the world, I would be very pro the US. Still he will go and we'll get another. Lets hope its someone who can deal with the world without p***ing us off.

Serious note:
History is a matter for others and the rather disengenuous posts here have devalued the contribution of the US to the survival of democracy in the last 100 years. Let us not forget that the young men of America came and gave their lives in Europe and the Pacific. Let us also not forget that they gave thier lives alsonside our young men on both sides.

On very last serious note:
My father was in the RAF between 1939 and 1945. During his service he worked on a US airbase for a time. He said the he had never seen bravery like he saw there. He said that it is (relatively) easy to do an act of bravery quickly but remember that the 8th airfoce crews went out and did an act of bravery day after day, week after week. That takes the citizens of a great nation to do.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 23, 2002, 01:27 PM

This is primarily a reply for Jamesa.

I'm not going to try to give a point-by-point rebuttal. These answers are getting unwieldy as it is. I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your position. One of the problems with this issue is that it is too easily reduced to caricature. In fact, what you are talking about is the whole theoretical structure of international relations. It's a hotly debated issue and reasonable people can differ profoundly on it.

From my point of view (which is Neo-Realist), I think you are confusing description with prescription. Much of what you are saying is how you would like the world to be structured. The Realist point of view doesn't really attempt to do that. I'm describing how it is structured although I would be happy to see changes such as more widespread democracy, more rule of law, and more trade.

First an aside: I disagree about your claim that states originated in colonialism. I think that is flatly and historically wrong. Once we eliminate that canard, we can move beyond any notion that states are a means to expolit peoples. In fact, state sovereignty arose as a bulwark against exploitation. That's one of the reasons that empires break down into soverign states. I mentioned Gellner. His model was the Hapsburg, but in more recent times there have been other examples. If states really want to, they have the legal means and the right to be a complete economic autarky. North Korea comes close to being one of these.

In terms of developed democracies, cooperation is the norm. Let's not exaggerate, for the most part, the developed parts of the world get along very peacefully and according to agreed notions of law. Calling the US unilateralist is not accurate. Nevertheless, the binding force of a treaty is the weight given to that treaty by domestic law, not etherial notions of international cooperation. States are sovereign as a matter of fact, but they can voluntarily choose to restrain themselves in the interests of some goal best met by cooperation. This is how international agreements are made. It's also how they can be unmade when circumstnaces change.

As soon as you begin with the idea that a nation should enter into an agreement because it is in somebody elses' interest, and despite the fact that it is against the interests of that nation, you are moving beyond traditional notions of international law and into international coercion. When the coerced country is a democracy, you are also undermining that country's democracy. That's one of the main reasons I oppose the ICC.

To the extent that multilateralist proponants of the ICC see it as their project to restrain the more powerful states and erase borders, it is clearly not in the interests of the targets of that project to get involved. No matter how much we are told that we ought to, the answer is still going to be no.

From the US point of view, the only realistic way we would get involved is if the ICC is subordinated to the Security Council so that the veto can be exercised if necessary. But that, of course, would emasculate the restrain-the-US project. Still, if the ICC is really directed against dictators and not major powers like the US, that is the necessary step and it should be taken.

You are correct that international law does allow for coercion between states. War is one means. A more modern approach is taken in the UN Charter. I am not one of those who dismisses the UN, partly because I have actually studied how the charter works. In terms of its peace and security structures, the UN is not a free-standing organization. It is entirely grounded in states acting as sovereign states. That forms Article 2 of the Charter. That sovereignty can be overcome by the international community only in certain defined ways. One is in self-defense (Article 51), another is by Security Council agreement under Chapter VII, or by joint agreement with the sovereign state under Chapter VI.

The ICC flies in the face of all of this by asserting jurisdiction directly over citizens. I think that is fundementally in error. It therefore isn't that opponants of the ICC are opposed to multilateralism per se, it's more that we are opposed to a particular agenda-based perversion of the form of multilateralism that has been so successful since WW-II.

jamesa · Jul 24, 2002, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by swiftp:

Serious note:
History is a matter for others and the rather disengenuous posts here have devalued the contribution of the US to the survival of democracy in the last 100 years. Let us not forget that the young men of America came and gave their lives in Europe and the Pacific. Let us also not forget that they gave thier lives alsonside our young men on both sides.
<hr /></blockquote>I couldn't agree more, but remember you fell into the trap of doing the same thing - you ended up with more dislikes than likes. It's easier to do, but I think most people would agree that the good stuff far outweighs the bad stuff

Simey, I'd love to continue the discussion - it's really quite interesting, and you've raised some points I'd contest. If you're interested, [email protected]

-- james

zigzag · Jul 24, 2002, 11:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by swiftp:
1) It is absolutely THE best place to bring up a family. I have met some lovely Americans on my visits for business and the atmosphere is wonderful. You do not wish for anything material. Health is great and the whole place is steeped in service culture.<hr /></blockquote>This is encouraging to hear, but surprises me, since one of the biggest raps we get is excess materialism.

As for service, it can be good but I have seen it deteriorate over the last 5 years or so as service jobs go for the asking. When someone is overworked and knows he/she can always get another job in the same industry, the incentive to give good service diminishes. More and more often, I find myself waiting for some clerk to finish chatting before offering help.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />7) Can-do culture. Positive to the point of embarassment.<hr /></blockquote>An amusing way to put it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What is bad about the US:
1) Atmosphere. Little sense of history. US cities seem to be devoid of any solid atmosphere (Chicago excepted).<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, this is the downside of being relatively young and very dynamic. We didn't need WWII to destroy our cities - we did it ourselves.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />2) Vorracious apetite for the World's natural resources (Jaques Chirac caused a storm by stating that the average US citizen consumes at least 3 times the resources of the average European. Probably caused a storm becuase it was true).<hr /></blockquote>Thus the "excess materialism" rap. Although, as I understand it, there are some valid reasons why we use more resources - we also produce more.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />4) Guns-I cannot belive the attitude. I thought Charlton Heston was an OK bloke until I heard him speak as head of the NRA. Breathatkingly stupid. We could take the view, however, that if Americans want to kill themselves then that's their business.<hr /></blockquote>Unfortunately the NRA has been hijacked by extremist blowhards. I know gun-owners who disdain the NRA.

We also have a more varied culture than GB, so it's hard to form a consensus about guns. We have everything from cowboys who depend on them to gang-bangers.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />5) American Telly - 'nuff said. But, I really hate the way the US film inidustry portray history simplisticly and falsly. It is an insult to the memory of brave people.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, it can be pretty awful. The way I look at it is that if you produce enough chaff, you'll eventually get some very interesting wheat. We produce a lot of lowest-common-denominator stuff, but it can generate some fascinating trends and innovations. Other cultures may be more refined and homogenous, but they also tend to be more stagnant.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Serious note:
History is a matter for others and the rather disengenuous posts here have devalued the contribution of the US to the survival of democracy in the last 100 years. Let us not forget that the young men of America came and gave their lives in Europe and the Pacific. Let us also not forget that they gave thier lives alsonside our young men on both sides.

On very last serious note:
My father was in the RAF between 1939 and 1945. During his service he worked on a US airbase for a time. He said the he had never seen bravery like he saw there. He said that it is (relatively) easy to do an act of bravery quickly but remember that the 8th airfoce crews went out and did an act of bravery day after day, week after week. That takes the citizens of a great nation to do.<hr /></blockquote>That's very generous of you.