I am seeking honest debate, and I sure as hell ain’t gonna get it from you.
I’ll be dipped in dogshit if I’m gonna spend another twenty minutes cutting and pasting your lies so you can ignore them again. You were wrong about what Zagadka said; you were wrong about the UN resolutions, your statement about Saddam “bending over backwards” for the inspectors was a bold-faced God damned lie, and you skipped over every other point I made as if it weren’t fucking there.
Pitch your bullshit somewhere else. I’m done with you.
I take this to be an indication of how certain members of the right now intend to address the spectacular failure in Iraq, against which they were warned and warned again: explode in a fit of rage, take their ball, and go home.
I do not understand what this means. If you would like me to respond to this, I would appreciate a clarification.
I am not eliminating human agency. Humans act for reasons. They are motivated to act in some ways rather than others due to incentives. These are the basic behavioral assumptions I am relying on. Unless the incentives change, we won’t.
I made no assumptions whatsoever about the nature of utility. I used it in the most general sense possible. You may have a belief that long-term survival requires collaboration, but clearly many others do not.
A rational actor only means that it is goal-directed and makes decisions that maximize its utility. It is a very thin, unambiguous definition of rationality.
This rests on ambiguity and conjecture. It is inconsistent with the US administration’s (induced) beliefs about the state of the world. The fact that you draw different conclusions does not in any way mean that the United States can or should somehow alter its behavior.
I would argue both empirically and theoretically that this is false. If you would like to take it to another thread, I would be happy to oblige.
This does not logically follow. In the post-cold war shuffle, our erswhile allies have roundly failed to assert their own leadership. The US can retain its leadership role by dint of the size of its purse, the number of its missiles, and its ideological orientation. Crudely put, our allies can and will continue to put up with our bullshit because they have nowhere else to turn. The EU is nowhere near showing signs of international leadership. The inclusion of a dozen more eastern European (and staunchly pro-American) countries only makes leadership less likely. The world is stuck with the United States, and this administration knows it.
This is not likely. Russia’s economy is the size of Belgium’s. China is constantly perforated by internal administrative failures on a wide scale. The Chinese army may be enormous, but its soldiers are wearing plastic shoes.
It is equally unlikely that the United States is going to anger a Greek deity sufficiently for it to strike us down.
Mr. Svinlesha it was very graceful of you to volunteer for Shodan’s demonstration of the message board debate equivilent of a thrashing, followed by an underwear over the head wedgie. Take your ball and go home, indeed.
I debated opening this thread again after my previous two posts. And I saw Brother Cadfael’s kind words, and was glad I did. Thanks, BC.
Then I was going to be done again with it, and I saw the Debasernom de screen as the last poster. So I opened it again.
Now I have both your kind words of support to thank you for, and the image of the underwear wedgie to carry in my head this whole weekend. So I am not sure if it was wise or not. :eek:
I’m more than willing to continue the debate, should Shodan so wish. He’s the one who decided to meet a reasoned response with a petulant outburst and accusations of lying.
If I’ve misrepresented anything in his posts, I’ll cheerfully recant it. If there’s anything he or anyone else considers significant, that I haven’t addressed, I’ll gladly do so.
Please don’t hesitate to show me the error of my ways.
Algernon:*
I am far more shocked and angered when a priest sexually abuses a child than I am when some low-life degenerate does the same thing or worse.*
A position often repeated, but is it really fair? E.g. a man can do only so much. If you spend your time and energy fighting against the relative small problems in a democratic nation you neglect the much worse problems in other non-democratic nations. The critique countries like Iran and Sudan feel themselves entitled to level against the US in connection with the recent Iraqi torture scandals while at the same time engaging in state torture of thousands of inmates in own prisons is more akin to a genocidal general being morally in arms with a priest who wore a dirty shirt for mass.
Asteroide: - Throughout the 90’s the US carried a debt of ~1 or 2 billion USD (about 4 years of dues) which it used as a bargaining chip - eg to attempt re-instatement on the Human Rights Commission. (Is this debt fully cleared yet ?)
You men the same “Human Rights Commission” (a lose choice of words if I ever heard one) that just came out with a statement of solidarity with Sudanese mass murderers, and then felt it necessary to reelect Sudan, in the midst of a genocide, to its midst? In any case, yes I believe the debt was repaid shortly after 9/11.
Asteroide:
*- On a per capita basis Europeans pay more UN dues than Americans do. *
And this is important because 10% of €1 is clearly more important than 1% of $100
Oh, tell me svin – you don’t think simultaneously coming out with statements like (just to pick a few of your wise words) “See your friend and fellow right-wing Bush supporter, New Iskander. He thinks such acts are perfectly legitimate. And there are lots of people out there like him, I’ve been given to believe, over there in the Land of the Free. And all of those people support Bush.
Are you sure that’s the sort of company you want to keep?”
(Possible the weakest “argument” I’ve read all week) or “Let me ask you bluntly: do you seek honest debate, or do you simply want to dick around and play semantic games?”
and then ” He’s the one who decided to meet a reasoned response with a petulant outburst and accusations of lying.” is pretty emm… bold? Or to put it bluntly: do you have anything relevant to contribute with re. the OP or did you just pop by to hurl a bit of dirt around?
Well, that wasn’t an argument, exactly – more like an observation. Regarding the Iraqi prisoner scandal, Shodan had written:
Which is certainly true, and yet we find many people on the right who do seek to defend it. If New Iskander is too lame an example (and I’d certainly be the last person to claim he was rational), then how about Rush Limbaugh, defender of the downtrodden, scion of the Right? Is he also irrational?
Uh, well, with the exception of the three sentences you cite, pretty much everything I wrote in two, rather longish, posts?
I’d also like to take a shot at answering the OP. To be concise, I think Europe, and the world, would have the US live up to its hype. If you feel you must wave your flags, then by all means, do; but at least wave them for something of substance, rather than words. If you claim that you support the rule of law, then live by the rule of law – rather than invading countries on trumped-up and obviously false charges, and otherwise regularly violating the UN Charter. If you say that you stand for freedom, democracy, and human rights, quit supporting dictatorial, right-wing regimes. And so on. In short, quit hiding your practice of real politik behind a facade of false humanitarian concern.
And if you can’t do that, at least be honest about it and tell the truth. Say it like it is: we don’t give a shit about democracy, freedom, or human rights – we’re only out after what we can get.
It’s funny how a lot of Americans think that nothing can be done.
And that’s the problem. You’re lazy. And you don’t seem to notice that your pollution is fucking up the rest of the world.
You could do a lot to stop it, improve the mileage of cars, improve public transport, etc. but you don’t. Because you’re too busy ‘fixing’ up other peoples countries to fix up your own? Charity starts at home. Spend less on ‘defence’, or else soon, you won’t have anything to defend. It’s not about foreign policy, it’s about how you treat your own people.
And learn how to spell why don’t you.
Well surely I don’t have to tell you that there are plenty of unsavory people on the left, who think Stalin’s purges were necessary and understandable, that Mao was the greatest leader since, well ever, and the Cambodian killing fields never took place. Etc. Yet should I somehow implying you share views or bed with them for simply being a liberal it would be nothing but a simple ad-hominem, as were your little swing at Shodan. It would have been more honest had you gone right out and called him a baby-eating Nazi or something. Wherefore your indignation that he didn’t have reasoned response sounded fairly ridiculous.
Can you show me a single country live up to its own hype? In or outside Europe. Just to name one: France which is often portrayed as the source of the most fervent anti-Americanism. And one of their most frequent criticisms is that America doesn’t show sufficient respect for international institutions and agreements. Yet when their own interests were marginally pressed they decided to let international institutions be international institutions and do as they bloody well pleased re. the monetary union. How about next time France brings up international agreements the US reply with a “we have different priorities”. Or when Poland and the Czechs insulted France by having different opinions vis a vis Iraq, France’s indignant reply was that they should show some gratitude for being invited into the union – yet noting gets a Frenchman going like implying he should show gratitude for being liberated by the US in WWII. Etc. etc. The question is not whether American is immaculate because surely we can all agree it’s not – the question is whether the faults really deserve such massive criticism.
I also find it somewhat interesting why Americans (that’d be US’ers Aldebaran) are so preoccupied with being liked by any and everybody. Continuing with the French. My French friends have no such worries. They even take a certain pride in being hated by everyone in general and someones in particular. Further I submit there isn’t a damn thing America can do about the hatred. It’s the price of wealth and power. Learn to live with it ‘cause it ain’t never going to be any different.
Talking of France, I can recommend the book Anti-Americanism by the French author Jean-Francois Revel.
Sarcasm translates difficult on the internet Who Stole My Name. You really should include a smilie or something when you post something intended to be sarcastic.
I in no sense implied, nor did I intend to imply, that Shodan shared the reprehensible views espoused by Rush Limbaugh (on talk radio) or New Iskander (on these boards). I merely pointed out that many people on the right do share those views. It would be a fairly simple matter for Shodan to agree with me on the matter, distance himself from such opinions, and then continue to forcefully argue for his own perspective on these issues, should he choose to do so.
The entire passage was a throwaway line to begin with, and in no sense central to the thrust of my arguments. If Shodan took any offense on that account, I apologize straight up; it was unintentional.
For what it’s worth, I have often been accused of “supporting Saddam” or “supporting terrorism” in these debates. It’s not unusual for my particular position on the issues to be lumped in with other, much less defensible ones, and treated as a whole. (Shodan, to my mind, is particularly culpable in that regard.) But I really try not to do that with my debating opponents.
Oh, as far as that goes, I agree with you, at least to a certain extent. France and Germany have been particularly bad about ignoring the convergence requirements, although one can perhaps wonder about the wisdom of those requirements.
And let’s not forget French involvement in Iraq, either. After all, they were the ones who sold Saddam his first nuclear reactor, under Chirac’s previous stint as prime minister. They also sold Mirage jets to Iraq, illegally. I have been given to understand that these jets were later involved in the chemical attacks at Halabja and other sites. Nobody involved in this conflict has clean hands; there’s plenty of blame to go around.
Sure. As I mentioned earlier, in my response to Shodan, one has to separate the virulent, knee-jerk, anti-Americanism one finds on occasion over here from a measured, rational, well-grounded criticism of US foreign policies. In this context it’s also worth noting that those who are often most critical of the US, at least from my own personal experience, do not spare their own governments from criticism either. In other words, the left in Sweden is not only critical of the US; they’re also critical of the current Swedish government, the Swedish weapons industry, and so forth.
But in a sense, this defense is really just a kind of shifting of blame as well. It’s like you’re saying, “Sure, the US does wrong; but look what France does!” For me, as an American citizen, I can only say that my primary focus, and responsibility, is my own country. Hence I tend to be more vocal in my criticism of the US than I am in my criticism of France.
Another reason the US is the focus of such massive criticism is, of course, that they are the world’s last remaining superpower, and thus the policies pursued by the US tend to have a more profound influence on world events than, say, the policies pursued by France, generally speaking. The French refusal to abide by the convergence requirements of EU is of course a violation of an international agreement, and should be rightfully criticized for that; but this failure does not have, even remotely, the impact upon world affairs as does, for example, the US decision to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
Then, finally, there is the hype. France is a good counter-example in this regard, since it might well be the single most nationalistic country in Europe. But taking most European countries on a whole, they seldom make claims for “inventing democracy,” supporting the rule of law, always doing the right thing, standing up for noble principles like justice, freedom, and so on, with quite the same self-righteous tone one often finds emanating from the rhetoric flowing from the US government. I think, personally, that a lot of people react quite negatively to the US because they are confronted with the disjunction between America’s high-flying rhetoric of nobility, on the one hand, and its rather dismal record, on the other. This is made worse by the perceived refusal, on the part of the US public, to acknowledge this disjunction.
Yeah, well, that’s the French, you know.
C’est la vie!
The price of wealth and power….
I sometimes think that those who rule in Washington are the sort of hard-headed realists who have taken a good look at the world and decided: better to be a hypocrite with power than a honest man with none. It seems to me that hypocrisy is the price of wealth and power, at least in America.
Anyway, I simply disagree with your assessment, above. I think the US can pursue more humane, rational policies, and that by doing so, they can increase their standing in the world. Not in every situation, perhaps, but in many. There will of course always be a group of people whose hatred of the US is simply irrational, and who could never be appeased (such as those discussed in the book you mention).
But Shodan would lump everyone who criticizes the US into that category, and simply rule critical discourse on US society and policies as out of bounds, a priori. Consider his much lauded defense in post # 62; apparently, from his point of view, American can do no wrong, and has done no wrong. Anybody who disagrees, he writes, is just an asshole.
Not worth much. And never by me. And so what? You thought it was time to turn the tables?
My though exactly. How could we love them if they weren’t so goddamn French? And when I see a fourth of July parade or party election, complete with fireworks, balloons, funny hats and what not silliness, my though is: Yeah, well, that’s the Americans, you know. They sure know how to make an ass of themselves. But how could I love them if they weren’t so damn American? And I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could be mortally insulted by the American version of nationalism and flag waving, which to an outsider – at least this one – with respect, looks downright childish or silly, but wholly harmless, and about as threatening as a parade of smurfs. Perhaps I could understand it if it were more like the first of May parades seen in erstwhile communistic nations, e.g. military processions on the Red Square with endless columns of tanks and missiles – which incidentally many of the same grouping that now purport to be up in arms over the American version of flag waving fawned over for much of a century.
And here’s the rub, for to tell you a dirty little secret. I started my inglorious political life on the left wing. And to some extend still see myself there, it’s just that most everybody else has abandoned me. And what profess themselves to be the left now, is little more than an empty shell of knee jerk anti-Americanism, anti-Israelism and anti-what-have-you-not’ism, about as revolutionary as a puddle and without a single constructive or new political idea to the lot. I’m sorry, I just see very little worthy of respect.
Perhaps but it does become problematic when the criticism goes like: don’t do like you do, do like the French does. In any case this thread is about European. And as a European I think we should be more concerned about ourselves and less about Americans, lest we should end up like the middle east; always blaming someone else for their own miserable mismanagement and incompetence.
Well I disagree, many European countries have indeed claimed, and with a right because we did, to have invented democracy, the enlightenment, rule of law etc. But rhetoric aside, empty or not. I look at what is actually done. And I see a world that would on the whole be a lot worse were it not for the US – as well as a lot less interesting. E.g. Eastern Europe, they know full well that it wasn’t Western European wishful appeasement policy that saved them from the communists, but American hard-headed power. (Poland has been described as the most pro-American country on earth – including the USA. So you’d be happy I’m sure to learn ill feelings perhaps are not so widespread as all that.)
And are you absolutely sure you really want anything else? I think many critics should perhaps think again about what they wish for - in case it came through. Should we really wish for leaders that are not hard-headed realists, do you really think soft-headed dreamers would do a better job of it. The world is a dangerous place, and it takes a hard-headed realists to make the unpleasant but unfortunately sometimes necessary decisions which goes with life. And perhaps the absolutely last thing we want, are politicians fired up by a dreamer’s utopian ideologue. There are two things in this world dangerous above all else: A man who does what he’s told, and leaders driven by ideologue. Politicians should be hard-headed, cynical and with a corrupt streak half a mile wide. Hitler (don’t nobody come up with some stupid Godwin thing here!) wasn’t corrupt. Stalin wasn’t corrupt. Both were idealists dreamers and with a cause. And look what that brought us. Or to stay with Shakespeare: we want our politicians to be fat and lazy.
Would you please provide real evidence that Iraq and Saddam Hussain actually posed any kind of meaningful threat to the US ?
There have been no WMD found, and you rail against nations who did not and still do not hold the same view as the US.
France, Russia, and Germany were not at all convinced of the threat, and the liklehood that they had access to intelligence about Iraqs intentions and capability would be very high.
On the basis of flawed intelligence the whole of the world community knows, as do very many senior US analysts, the war against Iraq was not justified.
Now if the basis for war had been about ongoing human rights abuses then perhaps this war might have had more moral legitimacy, but these were never the major reasons for this invasion.
Bush tried to link in 9/11, however there is no link here, a little circumstantial evidence but there is far greater and more convincing hard proof of involvement from other quarters about the links between Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia and 9/11.
As for Bush not knowing about the potential for 9/11, well he might not have been personally aware(after all he does not like to get into details). but someone sure as hell was aware.
Maybe US should have invaded the UK for harboring potential terrorists.
What is clear is that the best provable argument that the US had for attacking Iraq was the moral one, and that is fast disappearing with the allegations of torture and worse.
One thing that I as a Briton find very distateful about US rhetoric is the use of the word ‘UnAmerican’
That word tries to take posession of a set of values shared and developed by many other nations and effectively denies these contributions.
It’s almost as if US politicians are saying that the US is the only true source of certain values, that these values are better than everyone elses values and also that certain set of values has a nationality, rather than saying that human rights and a sense of fair play are actually pan national and should be universal.
In the UK, if I were to take that word and Anglicise it this would become ‘UnBritish’.
If I were then to try and use that word in some moral or political sense, it would strongly resemble the Victorian attitude to race and superiority.
Try it like this,
‘The system of government in Arab countries is very Unbritish’
If any UK politician tried to utter some phrase like that it would be jumped upon very hard as being racist, if we were to say that the values of another nation were ‘UnBritish’ it would be just as bad.
Technicly the word ‘UnAmerican’ itself is not racist, just as ‘UnBritish’ would not be, however is speaks of a subtext that has a racist tone, perhaps US citizens do not mean it in this manner, but plenty in Europe do, and if you are living anywhere in the Arab world then the use of this word appears to be setting up American values above their own, which is not really a good way to win over the suppport of the average resident in the ME.
Trust me when I say that the word ‘UnAmerican’ is a loathsome word to many Europeans and it shows a lack of awareness by the US of how its rhetoric appears even to its closest allies.
It is this lack of self awareness by the US and its unwillingness to even see how it appears to others, to try understand things from another POV that makes the US seem overwheening and arrogant.
:eek: