If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Fourth, Folks!
"Frode Berg"
wrote:I was just trying to be funny. Well, ya got me!! My wife sez the same thing from time to time!! Oh well, some day I'll learn!! Thx, VL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Frode Berg wrote: PS: Feel free to flame me about "someone who learns about other countries from cartoons". Should be an interesting discussion..... Well yeah. If you're going to learn about us from cartoons at least watch King of the Hill. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My responses below:
I spent literally DAYS waiting in large, suffocating (because smoking is allowed in public, or at least allowed to government employees), uncomfortable waiting rooms waiting to get one piece of paper or another stamped by some "official". many things changed dramatically in many parts of Europe. Well, I can only speak for Austria. But in many areas, smoking was prohibited, esp. in government buildings. I think this is going in the "right" direction, and I hope that soon Europeans will enjoy the clean indoor public air that Americans have been enjoying for the last fifteen years. Last time I was there, there actually were "no smoking" signs in the public buildings, but apparently the officialls took that to mean that no one but them could smoke. When I pointed out the no smoking sign on the wall right by the official's ear, I just got a laugh and the comment "this isn't America." A talk with this person's supervisor (and it was really difficult to figure out who was in charge) yielded the same result. bureaucracy is a serious problem, but they make many efforts to move up to online-services etc. - the system is only as good as the people behind it. This is good, but I think the "official" mentality is much more pervasive in Europe than in the US, and is likely to remain this way for a good long while. It's like the FAA was running EVERYTHING :-) What really turned me off from the ideal of "free higher education" is the state of the universities in Germany. There is absolutely no comparison but you stand right. it is free (or with a small annual fee now), so you don't have to take care. bad habit. The "it's free, so stop complaining" attitude is 100% expected, and nothing can be done about it. It just comes with the territory when you give something away for "free", and has to be accepted by a society that idealizes free higher education (or free anything else, for that matter). When you get something for free, you have no ownership, and ownership is what keeps things nice. On the whole, take a look at a random sampling of renter planes and then owned planes. Guess which ones will be nicer? That's the difference between socialized education/medicine/whatever and (for the most part) the American system. Unfortunately, the same things that plague the German free education system .... seems that the German electorate and parliment are absolutely unwilling to do anything about it. they are trying, but many lobbies try to prevent it. doctors and pharmacy industry will do everything to prevent changes. Joe Everywhere has no chance to stand up and point out his needs. I have found that Germans are on the whole very resistant to change, and very risk averse. This probably explains the attitudes that have created the current system, and why they can't change it. Hopefully they'll do it before it becomes a real crisis. The other thing that bothers me about the socialist ways of European whenever we hear socialism we tend to interpret it as a "not-any-more communist situation". So in most european ears socialism is associated with the former DDR or Russia. Socialist is the best word to describe the German, and most European systems, IMHO. You're right though, it does have that "former soviet influenced" conotative baggage with it, and that is not what I mean by it. I'm using it in the way that many German political parties use it, a la Social Democrats. This is really a thing that one can't learn. Europeans can't learn the US system and vice-versa, because it is a feeling you have to be grown up with. For Germany it was a tough decision to send German UN (!)-troops abroad. Because it ment sending German soldiers abroad. Within Europe. 50 years ago, German troops where also there, .... - hope you see my point. Good points. I think this is about the time that the dialog needs to intensify and that Germany needs to start getting over the trauma of its past. Likewise, the US should probably be a little more sensitive to the European mindset. I've always thought that diplomacy is lacking in the current US administration, and that is one of the things hampering relations. However, both sides need to be more understanding of the other. I had many conversations with Germans about this topic, and it seems to me that they just don't understand the American position that it is important to maintain a strong army to keep peace in the world. see above. you have to be raised with this situation. I have visited the Titan II missile museum near Tucson, AZ, 2 or 3 times. They display a intercontinental ballistic missile. A guy about the age of 70 explained everything. In the command room he explained a launch with words like "if we receive the lawful order of the president of the United States..." and explained the power of destruction, it only needs 3 of those well placed over the US to destroy the whole US and they had about 50 of those, etc. etc ... well ... I felt uncomfortable and understood within a second the cold war, Cuba crisis, etc ... it was normal business for the guy. He was raised within a climate that allowed this. OTOH, we are raised in another climate that allowed other viewpoints. Again, very good point. An army may not be needed right now, but you never know when you're going to need it. See? Just like I tried to explain above. yup. The last position you want to be in is to NEED an army and not have one. These things are expensive, and Germans (and indeed many other countries) have been benefiting from the United States bearing the brunt of these costs for a long time. This is a product of history and I'm not complaining that the U.S. has done this, nor am I looking for any sort of profuse gratitude. Simply an acknowledgement, that is all. yes. OTOH, many Germans complain about the US airplanes training at the bases within Germany. I can't say anything to this issue, because we don't have any foreign bases here. This is always a point of friction, since military jets are LOUD. If Germans grow up thinking that military stuff is for someone else and that they don't need it, then I could see how they could be annoyed by it. Intrestingly, the same sort of sentiments have been brewing in South Korea, with proud Korean nationalists shouting for the Americans to go home. When Rumsfeld hinted that the US would be happy to accommodate and pull out, they shut up, all of a sudden realizing the consequenses of removing the US from the Korean equation. The North isn't getting any friendlier... looking for jobs, artificial early retirement programs, generous disability status, and impossibly long student status. These are numbers that I got from the economic research I did while studying there, and are accepted by many economists versed in the German economy. but true, the official rate is higher and the method of calculating the official rate is strange. Strange to say the least... Since the education system is controlled from the top - i.e. the education ministry decides each year how many slots will be available for computer science each year-, there are always much greater disparities in Germany between labor supply and demand. Since the curriculum is typically taught in an academic setting very far removed from industry (a problem everywhere, but particularly acute in Germany), new graduates have to be retrained at many things changed dramatically within the last years. This would be very positive, and I hope this can truly change. However, knowing what I know about the system and the motives of those in charge of the universities, something tells me that it will be a VERY slow process. great cost. Finally, AFAIK, you have to take whatever person the union gives you, and unlike the US style unions, you really have little choice the Unions have more power than they deserve, IMHO. But right now they have big troubles because they lost a fight with employers. That's what I hear. It took a hell of a long time for them to get to this, though. They really got to the edge, pushing industry to the brink. I said I was carless, but I did rent cars. Conclusion; the Autobahn is AWESOME! No other road compares. You are Driver in Command, and whatever almost everybody I speaks to in the US loves the Autobahn and wants to take a car out there and drive th hell out of it. :-)) Did that with an Audi A4 and loved it! :-) you and your machine can handle that day goes. When the traffic is high, it's like everywhere else. If you wake up early, it's faster than a Cessna 172 :-) It is not unlikely to drive 200 km/h (or faster) - in Germany. In Austria we have a limit at 130 km/h. The Audi would go 200km/h straight and level, and 210km/h downhill. Took forever getting there, but it's really not bad for a 1.6 liter engine! I got to go on the Nurburgring as well, and did 3 laps with the Audi, and then got a lap with a Porsche GT3. We hit 280km/h :-) I admire the way that Germany has proactively been protecting people's privacy. I don't admire the historical events that have led to necessitating those strong protections, but I'm glad to see that Germans are very cognizant of the importance of privacy and limitations on government surveilance. This changed a lot. Surveillance is a big issue on many privacy concerned lists and groups. government is able to put up many restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism and for higher securtiy ... :-/( It's at least debated more over in Europe. Citizens everywhere should be on the alert! Then there is the food. Especially the bakeries. There was a lot of For me, buying bread in the US was always a pain in the ... - you know. I have to check out, well, german bakeries next time. yup. It was reverse culture shock for me coming back. pleasure in picking up some fresh rolls and maybe a pastry on the way to work. Good wine and cheese are really easy to come by, and pretty cheap too. I have seen a change in advantage for Europe in terms of cost of living within the last 6 or so years. This is influenced, among other things, by the Wal Mart effect. Wal Mart keeps inflation really low in the United States by keeping its suppliers (mostly in China and elsewhere abroad) under tight price pressures. Aldi in Germany does the same. Apparently that has had an effect on European economies. There are little bars and restaurants everywhere to go to lunch at, and generally there was life on the street that constrasts with the American style zoning that isolates "working" and "shopping" areas from "living" areas. I like the European approach more, but then again I grew up with that sort of lifestyle in Israel. I think there's a trend here to allow more blended zoning here in the US now too. I was once in a steak-house in Phoenix. There was a family of about 10 coming after us and leaving the restaurant before us. Come in, order, eat, pay, leave. We tend more to stay a little bit, have a coffee, chat a bit, ... It's definitely a slower pace of life in Europe. Good? Bad? Just different? Depends on your values. Then there is the Bier. Enough said :-) and coffee. 'nuff said. :-) you'll probably need a prescription in the US to drink that coffee :-) Many people here have become quite the coffee connoisseurs, including my wife. It's one thing that Europeans and Americans have begun to agree on. There are a bunch more things I could touch on, but this has become a long enough core dump... Suffice to say that there are great and not so great things about both countries and both continents. I prefer to stick to this side of the pond, but I love visiting all of my European friends every once in a while. you have put it very well. thanks. I hope I was able to point out my viewpoint well enough ... well, my english gets worse every day ... It's nice to see that we were able to discuss this so civilly. Usenet is so much nicer when people can simply appreciate other people's viewpoints and keep things on an intellectual level. We all learn a lot more that way. Oh, and your English - it's just fine. You elaborated your points well. Cheers, Aviv |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hehe, OK, thanks I'll check it out!
Seriously, I really like the US, and love to visit your country. Take care, Frode PS: Can't really think of any cartoons to learn about Norwegians....hmm....maybe someday.. "Newps" skrev i melding ... Frode Berg wrote: PS: Feel free to flame me about "someone who learns about other countries from cartoons". Should be an interesting discussion..... Well yeah. If you're going to learn about us from cartoons at least watch King of the Hill. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
... My responses below: I spent literally DAYS waiting in large, suffocating (because smoking is allowed in public, or at least allowed to government employees), uncomfortable waiting rooms waiting to get one piece of paper or another stamped by some "official". many things changed dramatically in many parts of Europe. Well, I can only speak for Austria. But in many areas, smoking was prohibited, esp. in government buildings. I think this is going in the "right" direction, and I hope that soon Europeans will enjoy the clean indoor public air that Americans have been enjoying for the last fifteen years. I wouldn't bank on it. Last time I was in La Rampa, a touristy but still pretty good restaurant tucked under the Spanish Steps in Rome, there was an entire page of the menu given over to the notice (not verbatim, but something like): "To our British and American customers - we regret that by Italian law we are not permitted to ban smoking in our restaurant". You can sense the pressure they are under, and the resignation that things aren't going to change. Good points. I think this is about the time that the dialog needs to intensify and that Germany needs to start getting over the trauma of its past. Likewise, the US should probably be a little more sensitive to the European mindset. I've always thought that diplomacy is lacking in the current US administration, and that is one of the things hampering relations. However, both sides need to be more understanding of the other. Beware how you pitch your arguments. Some say that the current administration doesn't understand how to be diplomatic, or is clumsy at it. I think the fact is that they understand diplomacy very well, and have positively repudiated it as not being in the US's interests. I think (if you believe in diplomacy) you should address your complaints at American Exceptionalism, not incompetence. -- David Brooks |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Frode Berg" wrote in message
... Hehe, OK, thanks I'll check it out! Seriously, I really like the US, and love to visit your country. Take care, Frode PS: Can't really think of any cartoons to learn about Norwegians....hmm....maybe someday.. No need for cartoons - just listen to Garrison Keillor to understand all you need to know about Norwegians. (for the conservatives among us, Keillor is... oh, never mind). -- David Brooks |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
My comments below:
snipped a lot here The Germans are very confused about this. For years and years we told them they couldn't have anything resembling an army of real power. They agreed, in fact embraced the idea that they would never have to go to war again (who wouldn't?). Now all of a sudden we demand that they send troops overseas on our initiative and are upset when they don't. Yes, I think you and Martin are right. People have been growing up on either side of the pond with very different values with respect to the military. However, I think it's about time for Germans to begin to become more responsible for their own defense and using some military power where necessary around the world keeping the peace, so that the US doesn't have to do everything by itself. IMHO, it will be in the interest of everyone to share this burden. snip I said I was carless, but I did rent cars. Conclusion; the Autobahn is AWESOME! No other road compares. You are Driver in Command, and whatever you and your machine can handle that day goes. When the traffic is high, it's like everywhere else. If you wake up early, it's faster than a Cessna 172 :-) It is a real pleasure to drive in Europe in general compared to the US. Drivers actually pay attention to what they are doing and what is going on around them. On this last visit I drove from Germany through Belgium into France and back. Not once was I stuck behind a slower vehicle in the fast lane for more than a moment (while they passed someone). But for me the real fun is not the Autobahn, it's the highways between towns. Roads that are (mostly) billiard table smooth that wind through scenic country and passing is (usually) easy. The curves are challenging and the speeds are high enough to really give a thrill to anyone who enjoys driving. Yes, driving in general is a blast in Europe. In my opinion, after driving all over the place, Germany has the best roads and the best drivers. Germans displayed lane discipline no one else did. Crossing over into France, I felt less safe at slower speeds because of the way people were weaving in and out of lanes. I found it amazing that the German freeway system beat, hands down, the French toll system. I agree with Jay Honeck that tollways are just a bad idea that stifle movement and commerce. snip Then there is the Bier. Enough said :-) Ummmmmm...Bier! There are a bunch more things I could touch on, but this has become a long enough core dump... Suffice to say that there are great and not so great things about both countries and both continents. I prefer to stick to this side of the pond, but I love visiting all of my European friends every once in a while. Cheers, Aviv Thanks, nice post. You are absolutely right that there is good and bad on both sides. I think Americans could do a much better job seeing the good sides, collectively we tend to dismiss anything foreign as inferior. Yup. Unfortunately. But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we see ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it. Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are naturally suspicious of our motives. The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations, does what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our actions are interpreted that way. Everyone in the world has an opinion about what the U.S. should do and not do, and they get upset when the U.S. does or does not do what they want. That's life, and I don't see how the U.S. could possibly concoct a foreign policy that pleases everyone. I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is somehow exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has pulled more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they may have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations" weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they be better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American corporation'? The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards of living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff. This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration as a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look for some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When they don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be trusted absolutely. Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi Arabia, democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said, countries do what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100% consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but no one should expect fascist style consistency. We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others. There cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it ruins our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught that until all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that today. You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights. However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph for human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently and consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights people were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life. This is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S. got there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are, what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO. Decisions about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic, since there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that would satisfy everyone. We seem to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to apply a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly) hold so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US passports. Realpolitik aside, I do agree with you that the United States and its people ought to strive for the ideal and keep pushing for a better world. I believe that EVERY president of the United States has attempted to leave this country and the world better off. They could all have done better, but they are constrained by all sorts of parameters, including public opinion. So, if public opinion can be swung in the direction favorable toward human rights and disfavorable toward abuses of human rights, we'll be helping to move things in the right direction and live in a better world. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue. This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to be made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and who they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human rights. It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term, a whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady state, so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep it on the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you alluded to before. How many other countries would invade an oil rich country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by its leader. I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was, since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done, and the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better life to look forward to, eventually. Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as they would if it happened to them. Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ. There are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are downtrodden and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant to minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to give some perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low intensity. So far in the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have been killed, spread over almost three years. The Rwanda conflict probably killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it. Just some perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water. Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many. One of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and Iran are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At least Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care of by the U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The United States would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm not kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army and air force. That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both sides and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This hardly counts as "most of America's troubles." Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always good to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults and striving to correct them. Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people are free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is number one. -Aviv |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Aviv Hod wrote:
Frank wrote: Much snipped But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we see ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it. Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are naturally suspicious of our motives. The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations, does what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our actions are interpreted that way. Perception is reality.... I think you are falling into the same trap I was trying to illustrate (well kinda anyway). Coercing other people to do what we want based on "our military and economic dominance" IS a definition of a "bully". And let me add here that I am not refering to protecting ourselves. I am refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease, but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to find a way to justify our actions. snip I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is somehow exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has pulled more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they may have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations" weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they be better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American corporation'? You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an "Amercian" corporation. The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards of living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff. Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to address: It costs money to do the right thing. Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards they are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst cause harm. This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration as a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look for some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When they don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be trusted absolutely. Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi Arabia, democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said, countries do what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100% consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but no one should expect fascist style consistency. I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that since they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in the case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient. We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others. There cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it ruins our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught that until all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that today. You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights. However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph for human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently and consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights people were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life. I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here. I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I supported the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people. But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the source of a lot of opposition. I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do think that war should always be a last resort because of this consideration though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started. No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you would agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying". This is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S. got there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are, what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO. Decisions about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic, since there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that would satisfy everyone. I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new heights and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous". So not everyone gets to make up their own mind (here or abroad) based on good information. Somewhat tongue in cheek, I now say "You are _not_ entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own _informed_ opinion.". We seem to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to apply a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly) hold so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US passports. snip Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue. This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to be made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and who they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human rights. So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of concern? Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis have the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here and armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will. It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term, a whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady state, so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep it on the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you alluded to before. This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the situations were reversed? How many other countries would invade an oil rich country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by its leader. If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly. We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we endured. I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was, since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done, and the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better life to look forward to, eventually. Agree 100%. Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as they would if it happened to them. Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ. I would differ along with you.... Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better. What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is *illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine conflict. And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last 20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of suicide bombing. But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied basic human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them in their cause. There are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are downtrodden and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant to minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to give some perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low intensity. So far in the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have been killed, spread over almost three years. I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over a longer period than the last 3 years. The Rwanda conflict probably killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it. Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever be one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Just some perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water. I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I tell it to do!) Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many. One of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and Iran are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At least Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care of by the U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The United States would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm not kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army and air force. What you say here is absolutly true. But the argument is no longer relavent. No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that eliminating Israel is not an option. If any of the countries you list were to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force. What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the point where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed. That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both sides and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This hardly counts as "most of America's troubles." Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just to use the same yardstick everywhere. Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always good to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults and striving to correct them. Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people are free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is number one. -Aviv Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't written this much for a long time. -- Frank....H |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
(for the conservatives among us, Keillor is...
Fabulous! Signed, Conservative-but-love-NPR... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Comments interspersed:
And let me add here that I am not referring to protecting ourselves. I am refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease, but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to find a way to justify our actions. It is my position that corporations, U.S. based or otherwise, operate under the laws of the country in which they do business, and they should not be expected to do anything nicer than what is legal. If there are abuses, then it is the responsibility of the host government to enact and enforce laws that ensure their populace's well being. I am looking at this from a macro scale, meaning that as a CEO I would not tolerate any unethical business practices, but my individual actions would change the situation little because my competitors will more than likely be happy to carry through the unethical but legal business practices that I shunned. Doing business with a country that wants my business more than they want the same standards as the workers get in my country is not bullying in my book. It's just business. I mean, should Europeans shun business with U.S. firms because most of our workers don't get the kind of pension guarantees and healthcare as in their countries? I contend that each country must be held responsible for its own rules, since who else is qualified to set these standards? snip You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an "Amercian" corporation. I didn't mean to dichotomize so surgically. Of course there are many shades in between, and that proves my point even more. People who work for "greedy American corporation" probably have a choice of working for domestic firms, for themselves, for the competitor of the corporation, etc. My conclusion is that they decided to work for GAC because that is what makes most sense for them financially. Couple this conclusion with the reality that most U.S. firms pay better and have better working conditions than the average wage in the area, and the judgmental 'greedy' moniker fades a bit. It's only greedy if you judge the wages/ conditions in first world terms. Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to address: It costs money to do the right thing. Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards they are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst cause harm. This is Deja-vu, I tell you. I've been discussing this moral vs. legal issue with my wife for the past few weeks. Again, I think that the only thing that is able to make a difference is appropriate passage and enforcement of laws. If there is a market opportunity that is legal but morally dubious, you can expect at least two things, IMO. First, that many people will evaluate the opportunity, and decide they're not willing to go there on moral grounds. Bravo for them. Secondly, however, there will ALWAYS be someone willing to go there. So all of the Good Guys that decided not to go there are hurt by their competitor's lack of morals. Is that moral? Is that desirable? Did it change anything for those on the butt end of the deal? My conclusion is that if there is anything to blame, it's the lack of legislation that created an uneven playing field for competitors that want to do the right thing. In the meanwhile, nothing changes. influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100% consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but no one should expect fascist style consistency. I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that since they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in the case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient. Agreed. I wish there was more respect on the part of the current administrations for past commitments. However, this is the political reality. I will take this (and a hell of a lot of other issues) in the next election and vote for someone more diplomatically savvy. consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights people were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life. I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here. You should take exception. I don't normally use absolutes. I should have specified "all the human rights people that I've met here in Iowa City..." I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I supported the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people. But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the source of a lot of opposition. Agreed 100%! I was actually for the war, but I did think the administration put on a poor show. It made me more than a bit uncomfortable. Just not more uncomfortable than the thought of Saddam pushing the envelope even more and becoming more confident that he can get away with whatever he wants. We've all seen what he's shown to be capable of when he thinks he can get away with it... Since the U.N. didn't seem keen on enforcement, I supported the war. I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do think that war should always be a last resort because of this consideration though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started. No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you would agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying". I always saw this current war as simply a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War, and so had no problem with 'preemption' since I don't think it was really preemption. IMHO, it's not bullying when one wrongdoing is punished, and then the punishment escalates when the first punishment is not served. point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic, snip I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new heights and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous". snip I am disturbed by the way all of this transpired as well. The current administration has done some very scary things with respect to civil liberties. I do everything I can to voice my opinion on those issues. I have the office numbers of my congresscritters on speed dial. I talk to people about the issues, and I carry a battered copy of the constitution with me at all times. I've had it since 6th grade, and I'm quite smitten by the document :-) Next election I'll be voting for the person who has the most respect for it (it ain't Bush). snip So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of concern? Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis have the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here and armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will. I'm so glad that you can see that I DO see the hypocrisy, that it makes me uncomfortable, but that I only justify it temporarily based on some judgment of the reality of the current situation. Your point that not enough Americans see the connection between their civil liberties and others' abroad is well taken. Indeed, it's my opinion that not enough Americans see the connection between THEIR civil liberties and the laws and actions that are taken by their government. It's scary how little people know about their own constitution. This is where a battered old copy of the Constitution comes in handy. :-) snip This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the situations were reversed? In this case I actually think it's for their expediency as well. Also, it's a stretch to compare the two countries and situation so directly with respect to guns, given the very recent history of Iraq. Would we tolerate it if the situation were reversed? Interesting hypothetical. I don't know. Probably not. But this would take into account that the baseline is way different for each country, i.e. if you disarm Iraq, you're disarming the group collectively known in the region as the Saddam Henchmen (since no one else was allowed to carry), whereas in the U.S. you would be disarming the populace at large. Of all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the second is the one that can most drastically affect the others in times of turmoil, and it is based on the idea that firepower should not be too concentrated. In the case of Iraq, firepower is concentrated so that it is necessary to do something about it in order to move forward. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by its leader. If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly. We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we endured. Time will tell. You may be right, but it will be a judgment call since not all of the benefits (and costs) of the invasion have been tabulated, and they may never be tabulated. How do you measure the relative worth of the loss of trust with Germany versus the Syria's pullout from Lebanon and the diminishment of Syria's Baath party's power? Read about Decree 408, recently passed in Syria, he ( http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=519 ) Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ. I would differ along with you.... Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better. What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is *illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine conflict. Whew... I'm glad that this is the case. This clarification puts everything in a whole new light. I was a bit thrown off by the original statement because it seemed way out of character in an otherwise reasonable and thoughtful post. I responded to it in the way I did because sometimes people become very emotional when discussing the middle east, and all of a sudden an enlightening political discussion becomes, well, less cerebral. And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last 20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of suicide bombing. Good. I wish that more people would unequivocally condemn suicide bombings. I've spoken to Amnesty International folks that are completely consistent with respect to human rights but somehow refuse to condemn this most heinous of human rights violations. It's just so strange how emotional people can get about this conflict, and how often they throw their moral compass out completely. But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied basic human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them in their cause. The Palestinians are in a bad situation, no doubt. But I think that enough people realize that this is a complex, multidimensional story that has everyone involved suffering terribly, not just the Palestinians. At this point, many people would like to help the Palestinian cause for statehood. However, a large minority of Palestinians are not fighting for this cause. They are fighting for the destruction of Israel first, and an Islamic Palestinian state second. No red-blooded American I know supports this. And in fact, the difference in the various Palestinian faction's causes is the crux of the problem on the Palestinian side, and supercedes all others. Abu Mazen needs to bring all of the factions and terror organs under control if he hopes to lead his people to statehood. This is what's spelled out in the roadmap, and nothing of the sort has happened so far. IMHO, more red-blooded Americans should be demanding that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist organizations that keep killing innocent Israelis and in effect stopping Palestinian aspirations for statehood. The Bush administration apparently is being slack with this stipulation of the road map, and allowing the Hudna (tactical cease-fire) to substitute for it. It soon will be evident how critical a mistake this is. I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over a longer period than the last 3 years. Agreed, but the last 3 years have been the most deadly. And all of this after the rejection of a plan for a real Palestinian state. No matter what you think of the 2000 Barak proposal, would the differences between that and any future Palestinian state have been worth more than 3,000 lives? Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever be one of the most shameful episodes in our history. I agree, but why are WE the only ones that feel shame? What about the U.N.? Germany? France? The U. K.? Also, if we would have gone in, would we not have caused the same sort of bad feelings as we got when we went into Somalia or Kosovo? Philosophically speaking, how do we know when it's OK to intervene? Just some perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water. I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I tell it to do!) OK, understood. kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army and air force. What you say here is absolutely true. But the argument is no longer relevant. No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that eliminating Israel is not an option. Israel surely doesn't feel that secure. Do Hamas and Islamic Jihad know this? Does Iran know this? What about Hizbollah? If any of the countries you list were to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force. Again, Israel doesn't feel that secure. A supersonic flight from Damascus to downtown Tel Aviv would not last one tick of the Hobbs meter. Then it's already too late. Wars over Israel are quick, and wouldn't allow 6 months for a coalition to gear up like in the Gulf war. That assumes that someone would be willing to fight for Israel, and many Israelis are no where near convinced that they have enough friends in the world to rely on. What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the point where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed. The United States is putting pressure on both sides to come to an agreement and orchestrating with others a plan to reach for a Palestinian state. I don't see how that is not neutral. Just because the support comes with pressure to stop operations of wholesale slaughter in pizza parlors and hotels? Seems reasonable to me. Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just to use the same yardstick everywhere. The precise position of neutral is debatable, so let's jut agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't written this much for a long time. These topics always strike a nerve with me. So when I find a fine interlocutor to discuss the issues dear to my heart, I spend the time to compose my thoughts, even when I should be working on my thesis... This has become way off topic for a flying forum, but it's been fun in any case. -Aviv |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Survey - 3 blade prop conversion- Cockpit vibration, happy or not | Fly | Owning | 20 | June 30th 04 05:32 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Happy Holidays | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | December 25th 03 06:47 PM |
happy, I think? (OBS problem reprise) | Snowbird | Owning | 2 | August 20th 03 03:36 PM |