Americans of the belligerent, bullying sort, are completely brainless when considering the role of the UN. In the first place, the US is an important member of the UN and, therefore, fully responsible for any of its flaws and failures.
To take Israel as a case in point. Yes, the UN fails and it is because the US makes it fail.
If the UN fails, the alternative is unco-ordinated brute force. In the nuclear age, this ultimately means nuclear war. Do 30 million Americans have to die before the US recognizes the value of the peaceful resolution of conflicts?
I have a little time to kill, so... What the heck...
No one is "completely brainless." Even the severely, mentally disabled have brains, disfunctional as they may be.
Okay. So far, so good. The US is one of many (and one of a few with a veto).
Oops. Wait a minute, dadgummit. First we're part of it, but next breath, the whole, entire problem is "fully" on us? That jist don't seem hardly fair.
Yes, let's. If you don't like what we've tried to do, feel free to jump in any time you want. We hosted peace talks between Israel and Palestine two or three times on our shores. Y'all are welcome to take a shot at it whenever you want. Don't let us hold you back. Unless you just want to stand on the sidelines and bitch.
It's one possible outcome. Hardly the only outcome, though. Another might be international diplomacy between nations without the UN albatross gumming up the works.
That's quite a leap. So... If the UN is disfunctional...we will all blow up. Damn, I better get to digging my fallout shelter, 'cause we're all screwed.
I dunno. How many dead Europeans did it take?
“Americans of the belligerent, bullying sort, are completely brainless when considering the role of the UN.”
I wonder of course: whom does Eric mean here? Well, it would be boring if everyone was as un-provoking as I always am.
Alan,
“We hosted peace talks between Israel and Palestine two or three times on our shores.”
Quite accidentally the results of these talks were always calling the Palestinians to give up more claims, and putting the side that is supported and subsidised by the US and Europe at an advantage.
“Y'all are welcome to take a shot at it whenever you want.”
The Arab states did and were widely ignored.
“Another might be international diplomacy between nations without the UN albatross gumming up the works.”
Nobody has counted how many dead Europeans it took to install the notion of “nation” which you Americans use so thoughtlessly! You are referring to the result of the Thirty Years War whenever you use the word. (And, Mike, that was another war that wasn’t a religious war.)
You seem to claim that the US are a nation that has no history beyond the Declaration of Independence, and you treat all concepts you use as if they had somehow fallen from the sky. At the same time you have no explanation why Europe fought so many wars.
Well, we did so for one reason only: to supply Americans with political concepts. Seeing your ungratefulness we are now fed up with this role and want the rule of international law. This must be set by some institution. Have you got a better idea than the UN, or do you just want the rule of the strongest bully instead of the rule of the law?
Again... Y'all are welcome to do it, since you don't seem to approve of our attempts.
"Widely ignored" seems to imply there were many nations invloved in not supporting the Arab states. That is "fully" the fault of the US? Howzzat, exactly?
Nobody has counted because the process would be too laborious, time consuming, and cover too many centuries of human history.
Actually, it goes back a bit before that. But, if you go back too much farther, the written record gets kinda sparse.
Oh, sure I do. Y'all are singularly bloodthirsty. Only the threat of nuclear conflagration slowed your happy asses down.
For those concepts we cherish, we thank you. But, don't be too disappointed if we reject the ones we think suck.
I think so. It involves two spider monkeys, a ball of string, a bucket of chicken bones, a sandbox, and a French Maid's outfit. But, I'm not sure I could convince the Italians to buy into the program.
I’ve got an idea who is meant by Eric’s opening words.
Changing the topic quickly: can you do any better?
Probably. Do I care to? Nope.
In that case I don’t know why you’ve come out of your sandbox with the rest of your paraphernalia.
I've told you before. I only come here for entertainment purposes. Nothing posted here will impact anything rising to the level of the election of a county dog catcher.
It's a slow day today. So, I thought I would drop by. But, I have no illusions that anything I say, or anyone else here says, will affect world events, even if I take any of this seriously. (Which I don't)
“That is "fully" the fault of the US?”
Is this a question for Eric or for me? If you reread my post, you can see that I fully blame the US and Europe.
“Actually, it goes back a bit before that. But, if you go back too much farther, the written record gets a bit sparse.”
Interesting. So you see yourselves rather in a historical line with native Americans (who according to Mike were nomads with no claim to defend themselves against foreign invaders) than with the Europeans on whose cultural concepts you built your nation? Sure? Or is it neither the one nor the other, in other words a vacuum?
“Nobody has counted because the process would be too laborious, time consuming, and cover too many centuries of human history.”
No. Nobody counted, because human lives were and are considered cheap. Most of them, that is. About the others there are records.
“Oh, sure I do. Y'all are singularly bloodthirsty.”
Too odd. That’s what we think of you. Isn’t that what you have the threat of nuclear conflagration for?
“But, I have no illusions that anything I say, or anyone else here, will affect world events, even if I take any of this seriously. (Which I don't)”
Is that really the only reason to use coherent speech? To affect world events, and otherwise one must shut up?
Mainly, Eric.
Our "nation" was built on lots of concepts, including Native American values, and the values of many others. We are a nation of values incorporated from all over the world. Certainly, there was a large European influence. However, many of our values are the complete rejection of the European way. We arrived at our own version and values. For instance, in the European model of wildlife management, the King owns the wildlife. Wildlife belongs to the landowner on whose land it may be found. In the American Model (actually, the North American Model, because the Canadians side with us on this topic), wildlife is a public trust. Wild animals belong to the people, no matter whose land upon which the critters may stand. The people decide how best to manage wildlife, not the Land Baron. Ours is a much more "Native American" philosophy.
Agreed. As I said, y'all are singularly bloodthirsty.
No. The threat is there to prevent y'all from further squabbles over property lines.
Okay. One more time. Pay atttention. There is entertainment value. Little else.
The funny part (scratch that... the sad part) is:
What I said was not meant to be taken seriously. I know you are no different then we are. People are people. Some good, some bad. But, I do not doubt for one minute, you do believe Americans are bloodthirsty. Too bad. The misconception just reinforces your false feelings of moral superiority.
“What I said was not meant to be taken seriously.”
Alan, I wonder what you take me for. Yes, I did notice that you meant that tongue in cheek and my reply was meant in the same tone. But I often noticed that many Americans think that the cause for the many European wars is something special to Europe, instead of thinking of different competing empires, forms of state, modes of production, property rights over centuries. I think you are not completely free of this attitude either. I answered with the counter-stereotype and meant that equally tongue in cheek, but I admit there is something in the average American’s attitude towards war that I can’t understand. I am not completely free of that sort of thing either. It’s not bloodthirstiness I accuse you of, it’s that belief that your wars are fought to spread freedom and democracy, and the surprise that people can doubt that (to put it mildly).
“many of our values are the complete rejection of the European way”
I know that much of course, but a rejection is also an influence. You can only decide on adopting or rejecting a notion that is already there.
As for your example of wildlife management: the difference isn’t European/American, it’s Kingdom/Republic. I don’t know much about kingdoms and land barons though, we have been a republic since the 12th century. Just for the record, in case you think Europe had only kingdoms. But of course ours wasn’t a nation state.
Now can you tell me why you are so much obsessed with the concept of “nation” and so much infuriated by the idea of international cooperation in the form of the UN?
What you fail to understand about Americans is a very simple truth... We do believe it. Granted, sometimes we fall short, and nefarious reasons for wars enter the equation used to justify a war. But we do believe we are different. That we do fight for freedom and democracy. Again, we understand there have been times when we have not lived up to our lofty ideals. But, three of the biggest conflicts in our history have been:
1. The Revolution, fought to free our nation from tyranny and to establish a democratic rule.
2. The Civil War, fought, in part to free men from slavery (at least late in the war). Or, if you fought for the Confederacy, to establish a free country consisting of Southern States.
3. World War II, fought to free the world from evil.
Sneer if you like. Disbelieve if you choose. Unless you are an American, participated in discussions with fellow Americans regarding the importance of the concept in common, everyday conversations, have lived in this country, and have grown to embrace the high value Americans place on "freedom," you will never have an inkling what the concept means to us. You will never realize we mean what we say when we say freedom and democracy are worth fighting for, and believe we do exactly that. You will forever remain a cynic. But, no matter how much you Europeans want to call us "brainless" for believing we have sacrificed our young men for our own freedom, and the freedom of others, you will not shake a belief that is the core of our people. We don't care what you think our "real" motives are.
I'm not obsessed with the concept of "nation." However, I know enough to understand the concept "nation" exists. It is a reality in this world. (Look at a map if you don't believe me). I'm not infuriated by the idea of international cooperation, or the UN, other than accepting the reality that the UN is often a bloated, bureaucratic, cluster @#$%, that is incapable of accomplishing anything substantial.
Ignoring Alan's childish debating skills, let's consider the UN decision via the International Court of Justice that Kosovo's declaration of independence is valid. Does that have any practical significance or not?
No doubt yours are much more highly refined:
The US is part of the UN. The UN is a failure. Therefore, it's the fault of the US and the world will end in nuclear Armageddon.
The logic is inescapable.
Nope. None.
Alan
You morphed
"Americans of the belligerent, bullying sort, are completely brainless"
into
"Americans...are completely brainless ..."
The one statement singles out a particular sort of American, whereas the second one obviously applies to all Americans. You have taken the trouble to change the meaning of the Eric's sentence. Why?
Were you trying to misrepresent Eric as being anti-American or are you suggesting that the two missing adjectives are redundant and all Americans should be described thus?
Big C,
The only reason I changed it was to eliminate the extraneous portion of the statement. It does not matter whether a person is belligerent, or pacifist, American, or European. People cannot be "brainless." As a biologist, I know some of the lower life forms can exist without brains. Bacteria, plants, even some of the invertebrate animals can, and do, survive without brains. Trematodes can be cut into pieces, and the brainless pieces can survive and "regrow" a new head and brain. However, vertebrates need brains to live. If a vertebrate has no brain, it will die.
My point was... No Americans, belligerent or otherwise, are brainless. I could just as easily have said no Europeans are brainless. They cannot possibly be brainless.
I could, however, say Europeans are stupid, or mentally deficient, or morons. I could say Europeans are beer swilling drunks . I could say some segments of European societies are more interested in sexual intercourse with sheep than social intercourse with fellow human beings. I could say Europeans have every characteristic of a dog except loyalty. I could say the brains of Europeans could fit in the bellybutton of a fruit fly and still have room for three caraway seeds. But, I could never say they were "brainless."
On top of all of it... My comments were not meant to be taken seriously.
With this post you have changed my opinion about your war of independence. It was a wise decision of the Brits to deny the lot of you representation. They knew you mustn’t be taken seriously.
And I am not taking you seriously when you say that it’s Eric’s wording that makes you furious. You are furious because there is no gratefulness for your wars for worldwide hegemony you have sacrificed so many young men for. For some unknown reason these young men may swallow the freedom and democracy stuff, but I don’t.
Momo,
I'm no where near furious. How in god's name could I be both furious and laughing at the absurdity of this thread a the same time?
That doesn't sound like laughing.
Dissembling nonsense. He was talking about a specific sub group which was identified by the adjectives you removed so how could they be extraneous?
Jeez, you people are waaay too serious. In the first place, I know Eric was exaggerating when he said some Americans are brainless. And I thought y'all would understand I was being facetious when I descibed the impossibility of vertebrates being unable to survive a brainless state. In the words of Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."
p.s. Big C, I'm not a "sub" anything.
I din't say you were, nor did Eric. Though, applying your torrent of logic technique, everyone and everything is a sub-group of something.
Oh, I can be both belligerent, and bullying, at times. That lumps me in with Eric's "brainless" descriptor. Other than the "American" caveat, some of y'all might get lumped too.
"Torent of logic" I like that. Beats the hell outta "brainless."
Yes I'd quite happily lump belligerent and bullying of all nationalities together and I would have left the "American" caveat out.
“We do believe it. Granted, sometimes we fall short, and nefarious reasons for wars enter the equation used to justify a war. But we do believe we are different. That we do fight for freedom and democracy.”
That’s exactly what I meant. I know you believe it, I just can’t understand why you do.
There is no reason to call the three conflicts you mention “the biggest conflicts” in your history. Though most individuals who fought in them did it for the reasons you gave, that doesn’t mean that the wars were fought for these reasons. The reasons and the outcomes of wars are always more two-edged than you believe.
You left out Vietnam, Iraq, the cold war, and dozens of coups all over the world in your list. Probably you are going to tell me that they are the exceptions to the rule.
“But, no matter how much you Europeans want to call us "brainless" for believing we have sacrificed our young men for our own freedom, and the freedom of others, you will not shake a belief that is the core of our people. We don't care what you think our "real" motives are.”
I didn’t call you brainless. I don’t doubt the existence of your beliefs, but I don’t understand why so many of you believe that brutally forcing other peoples under US hegemony does anything to promote freedom and democracy. Do you really believe Vietnam ought to apologise to the US ?
“I'm not obsessed with the concept of "nation." However, I know enough to understand the concept "nation" exists.”
I never doubted that it exists, Alan. I don’t even reject it completely. The concept of “nation” was necessary for the kind of democracy we have had. But I see the concept dissolving. Economic power in times of globalisation has nothing to do with nations. If you stick to nation as the basis for political decisions and democratic control, you are accepting that economic decisions are not subject to democratic control.
I don’t accept this, and that’s why I want supra-national organisations such as EU and UN, but I don’t want them as they are: they need democratisation.
It's very simple, really. We believe it because the motives of freedom and democracy are the motives Americans will allow to justify placing our young men in harm's way. If it turns out we have been deceived, that those were not the motives our administrations had for entering a conflict, public support for continuation will vanish, and the administration will be removed from office. Sometimes it takes a while, but it does happen.
Okay, let's tackle them. Vietnam first. Regardless how it turned out, we did not go into Vietnam to conquer territory, set up colonial rule, or steal resources. Perhaps the French did during their colonial period, but we did not. Our motive was to keep the people of South Vietnam free from a communist form of government being imposed on them against their will. We went there to assist them in remaining free to choose democratically elected rulers. Just because it went bad does not mean our motives were nefarious. Our presence in Vietnam was similarly motived to our presence in South Korea.
Iraq next. Which one? Gulf I or Gulf II? We went into Gulf I, with the support of the world, to remove Saddam from Kuwait. I have no doubt there was the added motive of protecting the world's oil supplies (and ours), but the well being of the global economy depends on oil, like it or not. Without oil, poverty and starvation become epidemic. Tractors run on oil. Freighters run on oil. Without oil, corn and wheat become too expensive to plant, grow, harvest, and ship from the fields and too expensive for the poor to afford. Removing Saddam was not just in the interest of Americans, it was in the interest of the world. We did not go there to claim territory, colonize, or steal resources. We did not send tankers of stolen oil back to America.
And, we will be gone shortly.
The Cold War next. The American involvement in the Cold War was simply motivated to keep Western Europe free from Soviet expansion. We've had this discussion before, and I don't want to rehash it again. I know you think you lived in fear and misery, thinking American nuclear weapons would vaporize you at any instant, and Americans are entirely to blame for that fear. But, I believe there are plenty of Europeans who are glad the US kept the Soviets on their side of the Iron Curtain. It has led to one of the longest, most peaceful, most prosperous periods in European history.
I guess you would have to ask the Japanese, Koreans, and most Western Europeans that question. Scoff all you like. Makes no difference to me.
I've never said that. I don't know what you're even talking about.
I want my wife to be twenty years old again, blonde, and with a flat spot on top of her head so I have a place to set my beer. That ain't gonna happen neither.
'The concept of “nation” was necessary for the kind of democracy we have had. But I see the concept dissolving. Economic power in times of globalisation has nothing to do with nations. If you stick to nation as the basis for political decisions and democratic control, you are accepting that economic decisions are not subject to democratic control'
Momo,
The concept of nation, whatever that is, is going nowhere, rest assured of that, sorry to break the bad news to you. Not surprising, however, that this current type of thinking is being expressed mostly by those living in the EU, where so called 'progressive' thinkers have managed to delude themselves into thinking that Europe has somehow managed to reach the next zenith of human progression/civilization. Ironic too, given the economic and political pressures of the last year on Europe's social experiment, that more of you aren't awakening to the fact that you are destined for failure, but then pride doth come before the fall. This too is Ironic, considering how you feel and think about Americans, and their pride.
Chris,
I don’t delude myself about the direction our ruling classes have taken. The EU and all other supra-national institutions are being used for the disappearance of democratic control.
There are no longer the borders of nation states for capital and goods, and that means they are outside of any legislation. If we want a legislation that protects social rights (as I do), we need democratically controlled entities beyond the nation states that match the economic reality. I have no illusions about the difficulty of democratising the institutions we have, but building new ones will be even more difficult. The alternative: going back to nation states would be un-realistic and dangerous.
Momo,
I can't believe you could even get the phrase "ruling classes" past your lips without gagging. Such a term is anathema to Americans and their beliefs.
It's a psychological condition called denial Alan. The US has quite a rigid class system. Someone born poor in the US is far more likely to die poor than someone born poor in any other Western country. If you want class mobility you need to go to Sweden.
Ah yes, we used to have quite a lot of expressions that were taboo, too. Some still are. I’ve always managed not to be gagged though. Some beliefs can be shaken simply by unveiling them.
Momo,
I think the illusion is in thinking that Europe isn't a group of nation states, and that the danger is in thinking that democratizing all your institutions is the way forward.
Momo,
I think the illusion is in thinking that Europe isn't a group of nation states, and that the danger is in thinking that democratizing all your institutions is the way forward. Isn't working for America, perhaps you ought to consider that first.
Chris,
I wasn’t aware that there are attempts to democratise America. Good news.
Of course Europe is a group of nation states, but the nation states are losing importance, and they must re-define themselves accordingly.
Only because they are being forced to, in order to survive the absorption into our evil, capitalist, American, global hegemony.
I blame Europe for it’s share in that project too, Alan.
Alan,
“Regardless how it turned out, we did not go into Vietnam to conquer territory, set up colonial rule, or steal resources. Perhaps the French did during their colonial period, but we did not.”
What complete nonsense. Modern colonies have pro forma their own institutions, but they are no less dependent on the colonising power. And if they are in danger of democratically choosing representatives who represent their country and not the American embassy, there will be a coup.
“Our motive was to keep the people of South Vietnam free…”
Oh dear. The better dead than red stuff. The people of South Vietnam weren’t free. They lived in a brutal dictatorship, but it was the dictatorship you favoured.
(The complaint about the Vietnamese not apologising was a Bush quote. It wasn’t noticed as something er, strange in the US, but elsewhere it made people gasp.)
Same with the cold war: even if you believe in the Soviet wish for expansion, it wasn’t a fight for freedom and democracy. Ask a Greek. Or a Chilean. How you can call the cold war “peaceful” beats me. An overdose of Orwell, perhaps.
“We did not go there to claim territory, colonize, or steal resources.”
Of course you did. You can’t, because you’ve lost that war. It’s a comforting thought that the US have lost the ability to win their wars.
“Removing Saddam was not just in the interest of Americans, it was in the interest of the world.”
Possibly. And who said it was your business?
As expected, Iraq is worse off after the invasion. Even if your aims had been what you claim they were, it would have turned out like that.
Firstly there is something doubtful about the universalism of values, and then you can’t export them, least of all by war.
Post new comment