Sun. Dec 01, 2002
Dissecting Anti-Americanism
Dissecting Anti-Americanism – Annette Schiffmann, of Heidelberg, Germany (who says she represents the Iraq-Congress-Bureau, which hosted a speech by Scott Ritter) came to my site via a search, and encountered an entry about Ritter, with a somewhat heated thread of comments that had run slightly amuck, mostly from a tangent about “terroristic threats.”
So she added her own 762 cents, written from her European perspective, and riddled with incredible claims about the US, put forth as fact. In my opinion, her comment points out the current TransAtlantic disconnect, so, of course, I must respond with my own 762 cents: “My main impression of these comments is: if all you people would invest half as much energy and rising emotion to avoid this coming war instead of slinging hate at one person, Scott Ritter, and his alleged motives – it would be most helpful.”
What you seem to see as an ”either/or” investment of energy is in fact freedom of speech in action. Mr. Ritter has the freedom to say what he believes, but that does not include a guarantee that his words will not be challenged or criticized. When in the span of four years, a man goes from declaring “Iraq has not been disarmed [...] Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months,” to exclaiming “There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror,” one has to wonder which is the lie, as both cannot be true.
Such a person should expect fiery debate about their words and their motivations when they make a 180 degree about face of their very strident position. At least, one should expect it in a country that allows free speech. This weblog is a part of that country.
“Whatever reason he possibly, probably, or whatever may have had to change his ways – did it ever as much as occur to you that even Marine officers and weapons inspectors might be human beings (a highly strange idea, I know) with all the possible implications such as being able to reflect their actions and behaviour, or having feelings of all kinds, including sympathy, or simply being able to change their view on things?”
In this case, it would mean the facts he declared as an inspector on the scene have suddenly been turned upside down, even though he hasn’t been on a fact finding tour in Iraq since 1998 (his recent appearance in Baghdad was purely for show and spin, not inspection). If he’s telling the truth now, then he was either incompetent or deceptive in his role of UN inspector. If he was telling the truth then, he is now operating under some new motivation, and has reconstructed arguments that don’t rest on the facts he presented as an inspector. He can’t have it both ways. It’s not a matter of becoming more tolerant of those you once hated as you “mature,” as this is not about “feeling,” this is a fact based conclusion.
“I’m not going to bore anyone of you with listing up what your famous, best of all democracies with all it’s free speach and great ideas on civil rights has done to millions of people around the globe, including inside your own country – but wouldn’t it be a good idea to use that freedom for coming up with creative proposals on ’how can we bring that wonderful system to everybody on the planet WITHOUT killing them first’?”
So, you think we are trying to go to war with Iraq simply to spread democracy? Then it doesn’t appear you’ve been paying attention. A short history primer to bring our motivations into focus:
Iraq lost a war with about 180 nations (the UN) in 1991, and in order to end the hostilities against them, they signed a cease fire agreement. It detailed what they had to do, and the penalties if they didn’t. Well, for 11 years they’ve been in violation, engaged in all kinds of shell games with the inspectors, and even attempted to kill a former President. The economic sanctions against them are a result of those violations. The UN has always said, when the cease fire agreement is lived up to by its signer, Iraq, and it can be certified that Iraq has no WMD programs (or the delivery systems, like Scud missiles), the sanctions would be removed.
For 11 years, Saddam played cat and mouse, rather than honor his signed agreement. Then, Sept. 11 happened, followed by the anthrax attacks. It became clear that third parties associated with no state could and would use weapons of mass destruction, from whatever source they could find them. Saddam is the biggest potential source of such mayhem on this planet. The cat and mouse game was no longer “a game” to us, it gained the potentiality of massive death in our homeland. His 11 years of violations has to come to an end.
However, the choices have always been Iraq’s. That is the only type of “democracy” we have tried to force on them … choose to save yourselves, by living up to your agreements. Iraq has chosen poorly, again and again, and throughout life, there are consequences for bad choices, as well as for failure to honor an agreement.
“I’m European, and I tell you what: you didn’t invent democracy, although you feel you did, and I confess: our democracies don’t work either – but most people here are pissed of what they experience as sheer supremacy. Oh yes, we had our Franco, our Mussolini, our Bismarck, our Heider, our Le Pen, and the one, even you may know: our Hitler. You had your Indians (nearly no one left), you have your black folks (almost a quarter of them in your prisons), you have your working poor (30% of your whole population), who cannot even pay their rent with one, two, or more jobs). But you’re the greatest, right?”
My, my, where to begin with the above paragraph?
If you want to compare the dictatorships, monarchies, expansionism, imperialism, and colonialism of the 19th and 20th Century by Europeans nations, to that of the US during the same time period, I think you’ll find we come up a Napolean and a Hitler short (not to mention two World Wars, and countless 19th Century wars between various European countries). By relative comparison during that time period, we’ve been isolationists, nearly pacifist. The primary exceptions have been to come to the aid of Europe (two World Wars and the Cold War that reunited your country). Or to fight one of her member’s (War of 1812, Spanish-American War).
But nevermind that comparison for now. Let’s look at your specific accusations against the US. First, “You had your Indians (nearly no one left)...” What you describe as “nearly no one left” is in fact a far larger number than all those blacks you claim we have in jail. And that’s not exactly “nearly no one,” is it? “The nation’s American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut population is projected to grow steadily, to 2.4 million in 2000, 3.1 million in 2020, and 4.4 million in 2050.” [source]
But what can we compare that figure to, for historical reference? It’s hard to find much consensus on the Native population in North America pre-1800, but on a page about the “Spanish Colonial System,” we find that “On the eve of the conquest, Indian population in central Mexico was estimated at 11 million. Severely affected by recurrent epidemics of European diseases (1519–24, 1529, 1545–46, 1558, 1576–79, 1588), the Indian population had no opportunity to recover, and by 1597 had plunged to 2.5 million.“ [source] 8.5 million dead Natives, before America was even born, caused by Europeans engaging in colonialism and building an empire.
The best I can find about what is now the continental US is mostly localized data, as “Native Americans (Indians) were initially not included in Census data. The Native American population in the South Eastern US alone was about 95,000 in 1650. The Native American population in California was about 300,000 when the Spanish arrived in 1769, but was reduced to 150,000 by 1834” [source] While there is no doubt that the US government at times waged near genocide against the Native population in the late 1800’s, much of the decline in population happened before then, at the hand of European empires. And it was also those same empires who first brought African slaves to this continent. Many of the things of which we are accused are indeed ugly pieces of our history, but they were bad habits begun by Europeans.
If you want to go back that far, historically, your hands are no cleaner than ours. But let’s try to be realistic. Is the Germany of Hitler in any way representative of today’s reunited Germany? Or should we judge Germany on its more recent history, say, the past 15 to 20 years? If you believe the latter is true, then you must give us the same consideration.
Next you claim, “you have your black folks (almost a quarter of them in your prisons)...” That’s a shocking number. Or, it would be if it were true: “Earlier 2000 census figures showed that more than 12 percent of the country’s 281 million people were black.” [source] We’ll call it 34 million. You claim that 25% of them, roughly 8.5 million, are in jail. However, even if we include the entire “nation’s adult population incarcerated or under community supervision [meaning, out of prison on parole or probation] ... federal statistics show … Almost 6.6 million men and women made up the correctional population at the end of 2001.” [source] The number of those actually in prison, of any ethnicity, is closer to 2 million. Is there a higher proportion of blacks in jail than whites? Yes, but to claim the US has put 25% of African Americans in jail is entirely false, and entirely colors the base argument.
Then you claim 30% of our population, a whopping 84 million people, qualify as the “working poor,” yet “In 2000, 31 million people, or 11.3 percent of the population lived at or below the official poverty level – 1.1 million fewer than in 1999. While the bulk of these individuals were children and adults who did not participate in the labor force, about 6.4 million were classified as the ’working poor.’ This was 445,000 fewer than in 1999, continuing a 7-year downtrend.” [source] Once again, your claim is entirely false.
If it was true, there’d be over 80 million homeless people in America “who cannot even pay their rent with one, two, or more jobs.” Again, it’s hard to find consensus on the number of homeless in the US, but this is closer to the reality: “The 500,000-600,000 estimate is sometimes updated by using a projected rate of increase of 5% a year to produce an estimate of over 700,000 people homeless on any given night, and up to 2 million people who experience homelessness during one year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).”
The claims you make are far far from factual. The over the top hyperbole of such claims degrades whatever point you’re trying to make. So let’s move on.
“If your nice freedom of speach would mean to tell everybody on earth that they are minorminded and should be like you – well, fine with that. But you prefer to go to war.”
Our media spent the summer debating our supposed war with Iraq (and leaking “war plans”), then Congress spent the month of September on it, followed by the UN in October, and inspectors in Iraq in November. I’d say that’s tremendous diplomatic progress. If we truly preferred to go to war, we’d be at war. Now. Today. You might consider the possiblity that our serious threat of war, both direct and indirect, has been the reason Iraq has finally, after four years, allowed inspectors back in.
“Once in the times the German people showed some sense of reason an voted for a chancellor mainly because he promised NOT to support war on Iraq. That doesn’t count for you.”
Yes, today, the German people seem to be oh-so-happy with their new Chancellor: “With the economy on the verge of recession, the chancellor’s popularity has tanked in the cold dawn of rising unemployment, stagnant growth and new taxes.” But who the German people elect has no more bearing on what America does than the election of George Bush has on what Germany does.
“The UN doesn’t want that war – it doesn’t count for you. You know what’s right, right?”
I have to question if you’ve been following events. The UN Security Council, which contains 5 nations who could veto the entire process all by themself, approved a strong new resolution demanding the inspectors be let back in. The Chief Inspector, a European, insisted it carry the threat of serious repercussions. Those “threats” got us where we are today; inspectors back in Iraq. And while our President was on your continent recently, he repeatedly declared that war was “a last resort.”
It’s a shame some Europeans either don’t hear, or don’t listen. So let’s try looking. Look, the President could have sent troops into Iraq without Congressional approval back in September. Look, he could have done the same without UN approval back in October. Look, we could be in a conquered Baghdad right this second, if that’s what we really wanted.
Now, look at the actual facts on the ground; a President who calls war a last resort, who sought Congressional and UN approval before doing anything, and for the first time in four years (or perhaps forever), UN inspectors are freely doing their job in Iraq.
Where exactly is this war you claim we want so bad, and what’s taking us so long to get it started?
Back to Ritter’s motivations: “Whatever reasons there may be for that – being bought by Hussein, being keen on celebrity, being personally offended by whatever – wouldn’t it be more useful to listen to the arguments and judge yourself, whether they make sense or not?”
And what indication do you have that I’ve done otherwise? The links to discussions of his arguments on the very page you left your comment? That, and the fact I said “After seeing Ritter several more times on a couple of newscasts today” should indicate to you I have heard his arguments, repeatedly. And after that (plus many more Ritter-ops since then) I have indeed made my judgement. I’m sorry you don’t like the judgement I made, but that does not change the fact I went through the very process you say would be “more useful.”
“Wouldn’t it be more useful to listen to the ’reasonable doubt’ against this war of many other people like Jan Oberg (www.tansnational.org), who has developed many good ideas about doing something for democracy EXCEPT killing people?”
You continue to see this as about some kind expansionism of democracy via military means. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s possible we are doing what we feel is necessary for our national security, to protect our citizens within their homeland. You see, we got attacked. If Al Qaeda follows through on their specific threats against “Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia,” you may come to realize that sometimes war isn’t about getting something, or spreading something, it’s about protecting what you’ve got.
Sometimes you have to wave the Big Stick in order to enforce agreements. Even if it never actually even taps anyone, you still have to swing it like you mean it.
“And my last point: as one of the organizers of a big international conference on Iraq in Berlin this November I want to let you know: Scott Ritter was invited, he came, he spoke, we listened, we had some big arguments about this and that – and I tell you a secret: he didn’t charge anything for his speach. Like many others. Because we didn’t have it. Like many others.”
“So if he gets rich by travelling around, it might well be the Iraqi government. Which has no money – except for their own palaces and corrupt politicians, that is – which you could know, if you know Hans von Sponeck’s informations.”
I don’t doubt that Ritter took no fee. But Iraq is not broke, it spends money where Saddam wants it spent: “Photographic evidence confirms that Saddam Hussein and his regime have sustained a non-stop program of palace building since 1991. Saddam has been spending billions of dollars on the man-made lakes, waterfalls, marble, and other luxuries that make up his palaces and those of his supporters.” He’s also paying Libya $3 Billion: “The sources said that in return for the $3.5 billion deposited in Libyan bank accounts, Colonel Gaddafi has agreed to give sanctuary to members of Saddam’s family and to about a dozen senior officials of the Baghdad regime, with their families.” [source]
But, of course, there’s never enough left from those documented Billions spent to feed the poor Iraqi children.
“But probably you don’t know him [Hans von Sponeck], since he’s one of those unimportant non-Americans in this world.”
I’d estimate his words are wider known that this lowly unimportant American. It was only by sheer chance and the power of Google that you encountered my views. Scott Ritter sits in a much bigger bully pulpit (as does Hans von Sponeck, relative to me), and his views have gotten the widest of airings, yet it is me you castigate for using my little (self-financed) bully pulpit to express my contrary opinion.
“If Scott Ritter is arrogant or egomaniac – which might be, but I don’t know – so are you, judged from the written e-mails.”
Ritter has not been denied any of the dozens of forums in which he has fully detailed his position. I’ve seen many of them. You helped provided one of those forums yourself. Yet you say I am “arrogant or egomaniac” because I dared put forth 320 words of contrary free speech in my little self-financed web log (as well as provide you with a forum to reply with your contrary thought).
So who is the one engaging in arrogance? Do you have a problem with people having a chance to read both views, and judge for themselves? I assure you that I don’t, or else you would have been denied the capability of commenting. If you have faith in your beliefs, and certainty of the error of mine, you should welcome the fact I’ve placed both in such clear juxtaposition.
Just as I welcome your comments in my web log.
Published 12:33PM, Sun, Dec 01 2002
Category: Iraq
Previous: «« Clear Intentions, Part One ««
Next: »» I Like Mike »»
Peanut Gallery
European anti-americanism is pure envy. It has nothing to do with American policy or any imagined European policy. It is painful to become irrelevant. Europe's response to its own irrelevance is one of illogical rage driven through extreme envy.
If Iraq is so poor, why do most die of diabetes and heart disease, well-fed diseases? And how about the 31 Billion in euros that the UN oversees in banks in which it refuses to ID? And the 30 billion in oil-for-food contracts? The UN CONTROLS more Iraqi money than its TOTAL budget. And again, for a country so poor, it seems he has no shortage of defense weapons, now, does he? We keep destroying them and they keep popping up, don't they? It's the 20s over there, like deja vu all over again. The Antwerp riots are only the beginning (yes, I know they were in Belgium). If you don't get your economy in order to get people working and start assimilating them, WWII will be considered a skirmish.
Photodude, that was masterful. Facts, sources, and cold logic. Bravo.
Thank you, Mr. Nough. Coming from you, I take that as high praise.
>>European anti-semitism is pure envy Envy of what? Poverty? Inequality? Violence? Misogeny? Homophobia? Racism? Cultural desolation? Most european tourists in my city (New York) come here and tour the Bronx and Brooklyn. What they see, the minute they debark in JFK (easily the world's most run down airport in a western country) is third world conditions. I dont; think any european tourist comes back to Europe and says "we want to be more like America". They come back and say "this is what happens in a country where economic profit and materialism are the only values. Let's make sure this never happens here". You will note that american-style economically "liberal" parties are discredited in europe. They gather less than 5% of the vote in country after country. That is because far from being the "envy" of Europe, America is seen as an example of what to avoid at all costs. I also note that many Americans that have visited Europe wonder why their country cant be more like Europe.
And yet, all the Europeans I have known who came to live in the US on temporary work assignments do everything they can to stay in the US when those assignments are over. Simple things like the quality of life (outside of New York's airports), the Bill of Rights, the choices offered in schools, and the absence of a class-oriented system have all been given as reasons they want to stay. By all means, we should be open to constructive criticism, but it would be useful if our critics would take off their dung-colored glasses first. Well done, PhotoDude.
McQuinn, Yes I often wonder why we can't be more like Europe, especially since they have no "Poverty, Inequality, Violence, Misogeny, Homophobia, Racism, Cultural desolation,..." Okay, maybe they do have good food, beer, wine, etc. and a few nice castles and cathedrals....they rest they can keep. I suspect they wont keep welfare-statism very long as conditions worsen. You're right that the "envy" argument is pretty inadequate but it can't be dismissed completely. There's a lot of other stuff at play too. Mostly ideological stuff. But Americans shouldn't be dismissive of Europe as a whole. The point is to debate and debunk the Guardianista types and make nice with the common everyday Joachim.
Oh yes, we had our Franco, our Mussolini, our Bismarck, our Heider, our Le Pen, and the one, even you may know: our Hitler This stupid, ignorant, backwards American has indeed heard of all of them, and especially Jorg Heider. Jorg Heider belongs to the Austrian Freedom Party. He used to head it up, but resigned because of comments he made. The comments were praising some non-genocidal aspects of Adolf Hitler's government. There was an uproar in the European Union, which threatened to levy economic sanctions against Austria in the event of Heider becoming the PM, which is not very democratic of the EU. That is from memory, so it might not be correct, but I'm trying to show off here. This, however, I know to be correct: she's misspelled JORG HAIDER's name. So much for pretensions to being less ignorant than people like me. you have your black folks (almost a quarter of them in your prisons) You've already demolished this stupid statistic, but it's worth pointing something else out: Black Americans on average earn more than the average European in many countries.
I should also second E. Nough's praise, this wasn't just a nice fisking, it was a well-researched one.
Actually, New York is a socialist state in European fashion, so that doesn't really prove anything except that Europe-style liberalism just doesn't work here. All my friends from New York who went to Europe came back talking about how dirty it was over there, so Europeans shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to things like that anyway.
To Annette I lived in Germany for a year in Saarbrucken. I met a lot of nice people, learned some German (mostly hausfrau-deutsche), and ate a lot of good chocolate. After picking up my son from the preschool (state funded) I would take him to the local park to play. On the edge of the park was a Jewish graveyard. The graveyard was weed-infested and dirty. Gravestones lay on their side, hidden in the overgrowth. Although it was part of the park, it was abandoned and covered with graffiti. Strangely enough, the other areas of the park were very thoroughly maintained. I met many Turkish immigrants there. Some were concerned about the attacks against Turks by German neo-Nazi groups. Most of these attacks occurred in Berlin. Some immigrants had been beaten. One man was murdered. Many Germans, mostly students, objected to the American military presence in their country. They were sure that their own culture was superior - after all, they offered social services that Americans could only dream of (like my son’s state funded preschool). Pretty soon I realized that if we weren't spending so many taxpayer dollars on our military presence in Europe, we could afford better social services for Americans. I agreed with the German students, that we should cut off all military support, and I offered to write my congressman. They were horrified. The idea of paying for their own defense did not appeal to them at all. While Germany, and most of Europe would like to distance themselves from the Holocaust, and those millions of dead, they should never forget that it is their actions that are directly responsible for the situation in the Middle East today. And, speaking of the Bronx, according to recent UN statistics, the crime rate there is probably about equivalent to Germany’s. While Germany may be cleaner (except around the unmaintained Jewish graveyards) the graffiti is terrible. Apartment buildings in Berlin have more scribbles on them than the average D train. What’s up with that? So, unfortunately, when it comes to moral and ethical arguments, Germans do not exactly have the high ground. That’s why we don’t listen to you. Tschuss, Annette
Perhaps my comments were a bit polemical but I wanted to debunk the apparently widespread (and mistaken) notion that European anti-americanism is the result of "envy". My point is that many Europeans who cannot be suspected of irrational anti-americanism sincerely believe that America is not an example to emulate. And this belief is not a result of ignorance of the United States. On the contrary. Also, and this may come as a surprise, most Europeans are not anti-american (this is not to say rabid anti-americanism does not exist -where it does exist it is quite comical). In fact, there is a distinct uneasiness about speaking out against the US. But there is genuine incomprehension (or more accurately dismay) about many of its policies and "cultural trends". In the case of Iraq, for example, there is genuine and widespread disbelief that the United States, whose military and economy absolutely dwarves those of the rest of the world, would think for even one second,or one split second, that Iraq, a country with an economy the size of a third rate American city, represents any significant threat to its national security. Or that the imminence of this threat is such that it can only be dealt with through an armed intervention that is morally questionable and jeopardizes the moral standing of the US and its allies in the eyes of the rest of the world. The more George W. Bush lashes out against Iraq, the more they see a gap between his rhetoric and the facts on the ground. The truth is simply that Europeans cannot believe that Iraq represents any real threat to the US. It is for them a source of bewilderment that has little to do with anti-americanism. They would in fact prefer to follow the US lead with no reservations. Their uneasiness is compounded by the acute awareness that their own nations lack the political will and military power to assume any kind of leadership. As a side note, the type of nationalistic and paranoid rhetoric that our president spews out on a daily basis, with American flags everywhere, as backdrop and on lapels, is discredited in Europe. At best it appears as demagoguery. At worst comical, absurd. Surreal. Anachronistic. Something out of Charlie Chaplin's "The Dictator". So there is a language and communication problem here. Europeans have to make an extra effort to ignore or interpret the way the message is delivered before they can ponder its significance. This said, there is also recognition in Europe that Pres. Bush was patient before going into Afghanistan and that he went to the UN on Iraq. They observe that his actions do not always match the rhetoric. Also Colin Powell is very popular in Europe. So Europeans are perfectly willing to follow the US lead if the message is right, and if it is delivered in a manner they can relate to. >> And yet, all the Europeans I have known who came to live in the >> US on >> temporary work assignments do everything they can to stay in >>the US when >> those assignments are over. Simple things like the quality of life >> (outside >> of New York's airports), the Bill of Rights, the choices offered in >> schools, >> and the absence of a class-oriented system have >> all been given as reasons >> they want to stay. My experience is the reverse. Most europeans I meet in NYC stay a couple years and then go home. They like the intense city life while it lasts but never feel quite at home. I think it is fair to say that most western-europeans do not feel comfortable in the United States. This has more to do with the fact that the sense of community belonging is strong in Europe and that Europeans are not very mobile than with living conditions in the US. And I don't think anyone has ever stayed for the Bill of Rights. Opportunity is definitely a factor for a handful of entrepreneurs, however, as high taxes and labor laws have stifled entrepreneurship in France and Germany. A few French entrepreneurs have fled to California in the late 90s (incidentally, Northern Califormnia is one location where the French do not feel too much out of place). Many more have started businesses in the UK (close to home, many actually commute to Britain on a wekly basis). As far as schools go, there is general belief in Europe that American schools are inferior, up to the undergraduate level. American universities are another matter, and their openness and easy-goingness and flexible curricula and generally high-level international faculties make them attractive. >> All my friends from New York who went to Europe came back >> talking about >> how dirty it was over there, so Europeans shouldn't be throwing >> stones when >> it comes to things like that anyway. My experience is that there is more attention in European cities to urban planning and architecture and urban quality of life. Large cities tend to suffer from the ills of large cities everywhere but mid-size cities and small towns that dot the countryside from Portugal to Slovakia are usually extremely well kept and delightful. Certainly better managed than American urban centers. >> Many Germans, mostly students, objected to the American >> military presence in >> their country. They were sure that their own culture was superior >> after all, they offered social services that Americans could only >> dream of (like my son's state funded preschool). Pretty soon I >> realized that if we weren't >> spending so many taxpayer dollars on our military presence in >> Europe, we >> could afford better social services for Americans. I agreed with >> the German >> students, that we should cut off all military support, and I offered >> to write my congressman. They were horrified. The idea of >> paying for their own defense did not appeal to them at all. s There is no doubt that by choice Europeans are reluctant to see their money go to defense spending and that their social programs are in part funded by military dollars they were able to save as a result of US protection. But it is also by choice that Americans spend so much on the military rather than on social services. This is an American preference, culturally and historically well-established. >>While Germany, and most of Europe would like to distance >> themselves from the >>Holocaust, and those millions of dead, they should never forget >> that it is >>their actions that are directly responsible for the situation in the >> Middle East today. Very debatable. A troll? >>And, speaking of the Bronx, according to recent >> UN statistics, the >> crime rate >>there is probably about equivalent to Germany's. Crime rates may be rougly equivalent but violent crime rates are much higher in the US. But burglaries, pick-pocketing and car thefts are common in Europe. Crime rates are have actually come down quite considerably in France since the start of the year. Whether this is a long-term trend remains to be seen. >> While Germany may be cleaner >>(except around the unmaintained Jewish graveyards) the graffiti is >> terrible. >> Apartment buildings in Berlin have more scribbles on them than >> the average D >> train. What's up with that Yes and its interesting that this graffiti is often violently political or blatantly sexual, something not known here.
I just like to stress this one fact as it seems to be the one fundamental mistake most warblogger make again and again: Europeans who criticize the present US policies aren't necessarily anti-American. Nor are they envious. They just strongly disagree.
Europeans rarely seemed to be envious of Americans - sometimes they disagreed with us - and sometimes, their facts were just wrong, as Photodude pointed out.. According to a recent study, violent crime (mugging, burglery, robbery and assault) is highest in Finland and Britain. Germany's rate is slightly lower than the US. I also thought it was a fact that Europe's actions during WWII, including the Holocaust, were responsible for the formation of the state of Israel, as well as the borders that were drawn in the area. I may be wrong, I'm no student of history, but I hope that doesn't make me a troll.
Well, John, if your friends' only experience of the US is New York City then I can see why they think that the US is awful, or at least more than they can handle. Of course, there is more to the United States than one large city, and much of the rest of the US is nothing like New York. If I were their friend I would have tried to educate them on that matter, but if you are a New Yorker then maybe you share their abysmal ignorance and disinterest in the other forty-nine states. As for Europe, I have been there too, though it was quite a while ago. I would never think of using one country (Germany) to judge the entire continent. For instance, I believe that Paris is not as clean, well-maintained, or "safe" as German cities -- for instance, there are the "zones" around major French cities of low-income housing which are full of unassimilated immigrants, where the police dare not go without heavy weaponry, or so I have read. And in any case, re "Anti-Americanism," I believe that the countries of Eastern Europe, which are no longer under Communist rule, in part due to the much-derided actions of the US, have quite a different attitude towards Americans than the rather spoiled countries of Western Europe.
I thank you for so many answers and for your efforts to discuss the matter. Right now I was going to answer Reid and Ron, who wrote me e-mails to answer me, but only now I realize how many people responded to my letter. First things first: I allowed myself to be carried away with some heated emotions – that doesn’t serve the arguments I wanted to make and I apologize for that. No – I do NOT think Americans in general are hypocrites and arrogant and feel superior and what not. I’ve been to your country sometimes, I’m very glad to have some very good friends there, and I met many, many kind and thoughtful and well-informed people there. And yes, I’m painfully aware of European and especially German responsibility in history, of OUR crimes and of the horribly unique crime of MY grandfathers (the ones I actually knew and liked as a child) against the Jews – and of course I’m aware of the American role for our chance to develop a democracy again after Worldwar II. And I belong to that 68 generation who questioned their relatives time and again about what they had been doing and why the hell they didn’t oppose. Or oppose more than they did. So there’s no reason whatsoever to be just proud of our country for us in many respects. All I wanted to say was: not for you either. More or less it’s always the same: you have a country, you have people, you have a history, and you have a government. Which allegedly represents the people, but in many important respects does not. And of course I simplified and thus exaggerated the numbers I quoted to make my point, which isn’t helpful, I agree with that. The real numbers are for the blacks: one third of the adult black population in the US has been or still is once, twice or more times in prison or on parole. Right now they make up 61% of the prison population of 2.1 million people. You can look for that numbers on the websites of Human Rights Watch and some others. And for the working poor of course it’s the grown up population as well, and I very much reccomend the book of Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed, Granta Publications, 2/3 Hanover Yard, London N1 8 BE, publishing number 3579108642, to verify that. For the Natives I apologize my polemic argument – probably they are more today than they used to be in the 16th century – but that’s not really the point, and you know what I mean – they are still second class citizens, and many of them living in reservations, controlled by their own and the State police. The point is – I didn’t mean we were better. What I meant was – there is a kind of US-American thinking mirrored on that website, that YOU are better than the rest of the world. Of course I know that many Americans don’t feel that way, but some of the letters on the website had exactly that impetus. I thank Mary and some others for the point: it’s not envy what this is about. We can learn something from you, as you can learn something from us. As all of us can learn many things from many people all over the world, including Iraq. This is NOT about who is better. It is about who has the right to tell everybody else on the globe how they should behave and how they should rule their countries. It is about power. About supremacy. About unilateralism. About Imperialism. And I know perfectly well that our government belongs to the Imperialistic states as well. I am a left and a peace activist, and I critizise my government for that as well and have been doing so for thirty years now. We (my government that is, against my and many other’s declared will) went to war against Yugoslavia two years ago – with devastating effects as well on the population as on democracy there: no democracy yet, but everything damaged. And nobody cares today. We (my government and etc) went to war against Afghanistan – same thing. Bin Laden obviously still alive, Al-Qaida still alive and more than ever, not surprisingly, and nothing won. And now we are on the verge to go to war against Iraq against all reason and WITHOUT any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who gives us the right to do so? Some of you (and many others) say, this is about self defense. Please answer me that question – and I am grateful for John’s arguments to this point – who of you is in danger by Iraq? Who of you could be attacked by Iraq? If anybody were in danger at this point, it would be Europe, isn’t that so? "Your" president connected the horrible attacks against the World Trade Center with Iraq – but there’s no reasonable evidence whatsoever for that point. It’s sheer playing with fear. The self defence thing is where Scott Ritter comes in, and you quote his different evidences. And you are right – this is disturbing. But many people including me asked him about that contradictions, and he said: look, I should have added then (in 1998) that this could happen, if we leave the country now, we cannot start this and not finish it. I said that to compell my government to let us stay and finish the job. But they simply didn’t want to. They wanted to bomb Iraq. They withdrew the inspectors, because they wanted to have their Desert Fox, and they had it. And THAT was Ritter’s turning point., as far as I get it. He still gets furious about it, when he talks about it – he felt that his beloved government of law and justice had used the inspectors to do that job, and while he (and many others) were taking it seriously, they realized at that point that they had been used as justification to bomb the country before the job was finished. It was only then that he realized that it was about regime removal, NOT about disarmament. So – and Bush says it in the open on a daily basis – this is about power, about getting Saddam Hussein out of the way. Which is not about democracy of course, but about control I think I need not tell you that Bush’s father and his government spent literally Billions for the armament of the very same Hussein and his awful regime, which was fine as long he fought Iran. It’s American (and German) tanks, weapons of all kind - equipment for nuclear and biological and chemical armament included – that allowed this horrible dictator to build an army of 1.2 million soldiers, compared to the about 80.000 he had some 15 years ago. How come? This is about war. It’s about the ugliest thing you can do to people, your brave American soldiers included. Who is going to die? Saddam Hussein? His willingly serving advisors? The rich and decadent ones in Iraq? You? I? I’m "only" 48 – I never experienced a war, and I urgently hope I never will. But I grew up with a father without hands, with uncles without legs or arms - or with all limbs left, but unhealingly damaged in their human feelings, unable ever to speak about what they had seen and done. And that’s another point of Scott Ritter. What he demands is: get the inspectors in. Compell the Iraqis to comply. Negotiate. He’s been a marine, he knows what war is all about, he knows what it does to the fighting people and to the victims. So there MUST be other solutions to conflicts – even if they were really threatening - than going to war and killing people who are NOT the government. You have thousands of corageous Vietnam-veterans around, ask them about it. And when it comes to conflict-management and possible solutions – I very much reccommend the website of the Swedish Peace Research Foundation: www.transnational.org It’s enlightening, thought-giving and able to broaden the horizons. Thank you for the website. Annette
I, for one, say we do what Germany does. Let's chuck all the military. We can save, what, $300 billion a year. Wow. We could plow that into social programs, preschools, parks, etc. We can offer universal heathcare. We can provide long unemployment benefits. We can be compassionate. Let's let Switzerland host the UN, paying, what, 25% to 50% of the exorbitant costs. Let's be like Japan, compete head on for increasingly greater shares of business, but hide behind our constitution when the world's problems arise. If someone complains alot, maybe we can send a motorboat or something. Let's be like Canada, gut the military, label a Girl Scout troop as "special forces", give it a neat acronym like JTF3 (sorry, we cannot tell you what it means, it's top top secret), and when a world crisis erupts, let's turn up at the Security Council, insist everyone pay attention and listen to us complain about no one trying to model themselves after us, and then begrudgingly offer the Girl, er, JTF3. When a real power's leader forgets to call asking for our, um, troops, well, we'll call him. We'll persuade him to allow us to hitch a ride so we can sit back at the basecamp and enable our reporters to take photos of us in our forest green "camoflage" uniforms and write profiles of us trying to hitch a ride on some other country's helicopter to the front. "Well, we almost got on the Black Hawk, but I think they waited until we were almost there before they took off. Probably didn't see us waving our arms". I say let some other chump country handle the world's problems. For us, let's keep the cash and buy something good for us for a change. Ron
Annette: You said "This is NOT about who is better. It is about who has the right to tell everybody else on the globe how they should behave and how they should rule their countries." That's true. We shouldn’t tell Germany, or any other nation in Western Europe how to run their internal affairs. In return, they should offer us the same favor. Some Americans do feel that Saddam is a threat to us. Some support the war. If America does decide to go to war, and Germany decides not to support us, that’s their right. In return, they should realize that we should not feel any need to support Germany in the future. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I don’t make policy – if I did, we’d already be withdrawing support from several Western European countries. Thanks for the link to the Swedish Peace Research foundation. (www.transnational.org) I noticed that they had a link to information about civilians killed in the war in Afghanistan. The report was compiled by Marc Herold. His inflated estimates of the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan were severely inflated, more than three times the number given by Human Rights Watch. I have a hard time trusting anyone who quotes his thoroughly discredited results. There are two themes offered by the ‘peace’ movement that I don’t really understand. On the site, Jan Oberg claims that the overthrow of Saddam should be done ‘by the Iraqi people’ Exactly how are they supposed to do that without any outside military help? Didn’t that kind of action already kill thousands of Kurds? The other alternative is to leave Saddam in power. Are those protesting against the war willing to take responsibility for the fact that Saddam will continue to abuse his own people for as long as he stays in power. He would probably stay in power for a very long time, if peace activists had anything to say about it. Oh, and I found this interesting bit at the end of Oberg’s essay. I’ll just quote here: “Could the US then do exactly like we suggest for Iraq: free, fair, open elections for a new president of the United States. If the American people wants George W. Bush that is their privilege, but given that the United States has a global reach, some new mechanisms should be provided that citizens around the world could also vote for him - or some other candidates.” Citizens around the world vote for our president – because the US has global reach????? Pardon my French, but WTF?? Are these the goals of the European ‘peace’ movement?
“I thank you for so many answers and for your efforts to discuss the matter.”
Well, isn't that the wonder of the Internet, that we can even have such a conversation? I've enjoyed that aspect of having this weblog, and when I've had the chance to engage someone from Europe, one on one, I find it far more illuminating than any 45 second news story through some media outlet. I try to be illuminating in return.
“Right now I was going to answer Reid and Ron, who wrote me e-mails to answer me, but only now I realize how many people responded to my letter.”
You might be surprised how many people have seen this. This page was linked by Instapundit on Monday, and between the surge in traffic that generated and my normal load, I'd guess about 4,000 people have seen this page in the first four days it was up.
“I allowed myself to be carried away with some heated emotions – that doesn’t serve the arguments I wanted to make and I apologize for that.”
Understood and accepted. That's why I tried not to be heated in reply, as I truly would like for you to understand at least this One American's view, even if you don't agree with it. You and I are just two individuals with little or no “control” over the actions of our respective governments, but just the same, we are a microcosm of the disconnect developing between our continents. In some ways it's just as important that people like you and I have these conversations as Bush and Schroeder. Perhaps especially if we don't agree, so that we can find exactly which are true concerns, and which are false.
“The point is – I didn't mean we were better. What I meant was – there is a kind of US-American thinking mirrored on that website, that YOU are better than the rest of the world. Of course I know that many Americans don't feel that way, but some of the letters on the website had exactly that impetus.”
As I said in a somewhat similar exchange with someone else from Europe, “There is no doubt that none of us on either side of the Atlantic are served well by distorted, biased, or narrow media, served up in 30 second bites. Let's face it, the majority of both populations have not been to 'the other place.' We get a distorted media view of you, and you get a distorted media view of us. But please don't assume by watching some talking head like Bill O'Reilly that all Americans are like that. I'd be moving. We are a very very diverse lot, but I have to tell you, in my almost 44 years, I've never seen any event [Sept. 11] unite that vast swath of diversity so completely, in such a powerful way. Whatever 'sameness' you see among us, it is likely the result of that.”
There is a definite strong wave of what you might view as nationalism in America since Sept. 11. But it's not nationalism of the expansionist variety. Something that I almost know innately may be difficult for you to fully understand; in times of crisis, local or national, the vast diversity of this country pulls together in an amazing way. And, yes, we get proud of ourselves, collectively, when we pull together as we did to pick up the pieces after getting a collective sucker punch. It hurt, bad, but we took it, and got back up. Now, we're not inclined to sit back and take a second blow.
From the outside, through whatever window you have on the US, this might appear to be some kind of superior attitude. The truth is, we just want to be free of the threat of another terror attack as bad or worse than we've already seen. And meek words won't do the job. If we come across as tough and bullying to you, keep in mind we're not trying to bully or attack Germany, France, Britain, or Italy. Are we trying to persuade them to join us? Sure. Some may, some may not. But the "tough" attitude is meant for others. Call it our new poker face.
Judge us by our actions. The physical acts America takes towards Iraq. So far, we have ... done ... nothing. Yet much has been accomplished. A lot of it by determined attitude.
“I thank Mary and some others for the point: it's not envy what this is about. We can learn something from you, as you can learn something from us. As all of us can learn many things from many people all over the world, including Iraq.”
No, it's not envy. At least, it shouldn't be. Compared to the lowly average standard of living on this planet, Americans and Western Europeans all live like royalty. But there are clear differences in the way we see the problem of Iraq, as well as the solution, and particularly US intentions.
“This is NOT about who is better. It is about who has the right to tell everybody else on the globe how they should behave and how they should rule their countries. It is about power. About supremacy. About unilateralism. About Imperialism.”
I think you would admit, if we wanted to invade Iraq and topple Saddam, no one could stop us. The UN could condemn us, all of Europe could spout and shout, but we already have anough bases and allies lined up to logistically allow us to launch the war. We could stick our fingers in our ears and just do what we want to do. We have that physical “power” and “supremacy” you mention.
Why haven't we?
Bush the UberCowboy didn't even really have to wrangle with the US Congress (unilateralism applies on a sub-national level as well), nevermind the UN. But he has. Certainly, he has also used every available forum to strongly make his case for confronting Iraq. But what you may see as telling countries “how they should behave” is the high stakes game of diplomatic persuasion. Sure, he's going to make the case that's best for the US, it's his job to convince you why it's the best for your country, too. In that way, yes, he's going to tell you what you should do.
But, how many nations have to agree before it stops being called "unilateralism" (remembering that a true unilateral policy would see us in a conquered Baghdad right now)? Should the members of the UN Security Council count towards some multilateral brownie points? They voted unanimously to create a new resolution, one that has just begun to be enforced. All via diplomacy, however hardnosed.
Again, judge our physical actions. Unilaterally, we have so far ... done ... nothing.
“And I know perfectly well that our government belongs to the Imperialistic states as well. I am a left and a peace activist, and I critizise my government for that as well and have been doing so for thirty years now.”
As a frame of reference, I think I'm just a few years younger than you (44), and I'm no right wing Republican. Long time readers and anyone who pokes through the politics catogery of this weblog can attest that I criticize the Bush administration regularly, and strongly. Historically, (since long before Sept. 11) I've been fairly liberal on domestic policy and social issues, in fact, you and I would probably have far more issues in common than not in that arena. But I'm surprisingly hawkish on foreign policy and defense issues. Some people call me a centrist, but that's by mere averaging. I've always been a student of history in general, military history in particular. I'm well aware of the ugliness of war has woven throughout time. I don't believe in wars of conquest (that's why Iraq had to be thrown out the first time), I don't believe war should be anything but a last resort in a matter of national security. But I believe there are rare times that war is the right thing to do. But Sept. 11 definitely fed my Inner Hawk. It's bigger now.
However, as more evidence of the differences in the way we each see the world, on this one, we're 180 degrees apart. So much so, now I must try not to be heated: “We (my government that is, against my and many other’s declared will) went to war against Yugoslavia two years ago – with devastating effects as well on the population as on democracy there: no democracy yet, but everything damaged. And nobody cares today.”
Oh, I assure you, I do. I cared enough a decade ago that I was personally willing to be the point man in the effort to break the siege of Sarajevo, if that's what it took. Anything to get someone to do something. I was appalled to watch a quarter million people be killed and a million made homeless (including a third of a million children) by the near genocide known as "ethnic cleansing" ... all in Europe's backyard! And no one did anything. Until we did worse than nothing. We created UN “safe havens” that were then abandoned to the murderous will of the Bosnian Serbs, and watched 7,000 be slaughtered in just five days in Srebrenica. It is in my opinion the worst moral stain on the West since WWII. I cannot bring forth the words to convey the pure moral anger I felt as I saw the Europeans, the Jews, the Muslims, the whole damn world sit back and watch genocide happen again in Europe. And do nothing! The phrase, “Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it” must surely have been coined with Yugoslavia in mind.
As I said, you and I have divergent views of the same event, even outside of Iraq. For example, “We (my government and etc) went to war against Afghanistan – same thing. Bin Laden obviously still alive, Al-Qaida still alive and more than ever, not surprisingly, and nothing won.”
Bin Laden first; some don't think he's alive, a Swiss firm determined the latest audio tape was not a voice match. I don't know, and frankly, I don't much care. I think it was a mistake to place too much focus on one man, it's the organization, top to bottom, that is the priority. Granted, he's the public figurehead ... or, he was. You see, that's part of the “nothing won.” Osama made a video appearance roughly once per month during the fall of 2001. He used his bully pulpit pretty much at will. But his face has not been seen in a new video for nearly 12 months now. If he was their PR Guy, he's been shut down in that role.
18 months ago, Al Qaeda not only had the run of all Afghanistan as their leaders residence, for their training camps, and hideouts, they also had effective control of the Taliban government. That's a substantial base and mode of operation.
All gone poof.
Is Al Qaeda now back in the news with new attacks? Yes, but they were awfully quiet for quite some time, busy utilizing their energy and resources towards simple survival. They didn't have that problem in Afghanistan. Now their operations require another level of logistics, just to survive from operation to operation. And we have a vast sea of information on them from the significant number of mid to upper level detainees we have, and from the info captured in Afghanistan. Like the fact they sought and planned to use chemical and/or biological weapons if they could get them.
As a German, you may feel there was “nothing won” in Afghanistan. As an American, I feel it was a decisive if incomplete victory in the first big battle of the war on terrorism. There will be more, big and small, but I truly feel safer today because Al Qaeda no longer has a country they control and use as safe harbor. Oh, and the Afghans seem to be glad the Taliban is gone, too. I think maybe those a bit closer to the death those fundamentalist bastards caused, here and there, are a bit more satisfied with the results.
“And now we are on the verge to go to war against Iraq against all reason and WITHOUT any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who gives us the right to do so?”
“Some of you (and many others) say, this is about self defense. Please answer me that question – and I am grateful for John’s arguments to this point – who of you is in danger by Iraq? Who of you could be attacked by Iraq?”
Two very different questions. Do I have a realistic fear of an attack on America by the Iraqi Army or Intelligence Service? Not really, though it's possible they might launch some form of terror if/when we finally come to war. But, do I have a realistic fear of being “in danger by Iraq?” Yes, ma'am, if you'll excuse my bold emphasis added. Al Qaeda has made it clear they'd love to use weapons of mass destruction. It's clear from the evidence found in Afghanistan, and Osama has said it would be a religious duty to use such weapons ... if they could get them.
Now, hold that thought. Why has Saddam been in hot water since Iraq signed the cease fire to end the Gulf War? Why has Iraq suffered under sanctions, and restrictions on their oil sales? Because Iraq has done everything it can to confuse and obfuscate any effort to remove the weapons of mass destruction they agreed they had, and agreed to give up. For 11 years this effort has gone on, and Saddam has defied the inspections and won over and over again. He clearly loves his such weapons. Why else would he deprive his country and its people of the relief from sanctions?
Now, we add to that already ugly mix ... a third party. Al Qaeda would purely love to have and use whatever potion Saddam might serve up. One can also easily imagine Saddam would love the relatively untraceable mischief he could generate. He is most certainly the best possible source of such mayhem.
As an American, I'm sorry, the potential for 50 Al Qaeda suicide “bombers” arriving in the US, freshly exposed to smallpox with orders to rub shoulders with the masses (or something equally horrific) is a potentiality real enough that it must be eliminated.
Thank goodness for the waving of a Big Stick, and the resulting UN inspection program, eh? But if it fails, those weapons will still be eliminated. I don't want it to end up that way, but I don't want it to end up the other way, either; with the final proof of Saddam's WMD: 2 million dead Americans.
“If anybody were in danger at this point, it would be Europe, isn’t that so?”
Oh, don't be flattered, it's only because you're currently a softer target, but, yes, you're right. Al Qaeda has specifically mentioned half the member nations of NATO (including Germany) as specific targets.. Of what, who knows? But what if they get enough of Saddams's Special Potion to make a multi-continental biological attack?
How old is your smallpox vaccination?
“ 'Your' president connected the horrible attacks against the World Trade Center with Iraq – but there's no reasonable evidence whatsoever for that point. It's sheer playing with fear.”
I'm not going to argue that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. But this isn't about past attacks. It's about future attacks, of the worst kind.
Ritter said, “I said that to compell my government to let us stay and finish the job. But they simply didn’t want to. They wanted to bomb Iraq. They withdrew the inspectors, because they wanted to have their Desert Fox, and they had it.” But I think you have to look at the greater context leading up to those events:
06 July 1998 Iraq seizes from UNSCOM documents suggesting it may have 6,000 more bombs left over from its war with Iran than it had admitted to.
5 Aug 1998 Iraq says it will no longer allow UNSCOM to inspect new facilities
14 Aug 1998 US Senate passes a motion declaring Iraq to be in 'material breach' of its obligations.
09 Sep 1998 UN Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 1194, suspending sanctions reviews.
31 Oct 1998 Iraq bans all remaining UNSCOM activities
14 Nov 1998 Clinton delays his planned strikes on Iraq by 24 hours, in hope of lastminute deal.
15 Nov 1998 A deal is delivered, as Iraq agrees to rescind its ban on UNSCOM activities. Diffuses crisis.
15 Dec 1998 UNSCOM weapons inspectors withdraw from Iraq, saying Saddam has not delivered the unfettered access he promised, rendering the team unable to perform their mission.
16 Dec 1998 Operation Desert Fox begins.
You say, “And that’s another point of Scott Ritter. What he demands is: get the inspectors in. Compell the Iraqis to comply. Negotiate.”
Sounds to me like the man got his way. It took a lot of what you might see as “warmongering,” some heavy talk, in order to “compell the Iraqis to comply,” and get inspectors in the country. But that's where we are, just where Ritter (and I would assume, you as well) desired.
Again, you must judge us on our actions, not what you think you hear us say through the window of the media, not what we could do because we have the power, but simply on our actual acts. Remember in the first days after Sept. 11? There was some genuine fear about the US response, with people talking about us nuking Kabul, and certainty that Muslims in America would face some modern lynch mob mentality.
None of it actually happened. It was people's talk, and their fears, and, yes, the potentiality. But our actions were mild compared to what we could have done. They were reasonable, compared to the other options we had.
Today, you hear lots of talk about war with Iraq, and what we could do there. But as of now, we have ... done ... nothing.
Except get inspectors into Iraq for the first serious work in ages. Mr. Ritter should be pleased.
Wow. I'm finally getting the time to read a little of this, and all I find is more disconnect, like the article Mary pointed out from Jan Oberg: “Could the US then do exactly like we suggest for Iraq: free, fair, open elections for a new president of the United States. If the American people wants George W. Bush that is their privilege, but given that the United States has a global reach, some new mechanisms should be provided that citizens around the world could also vote for him - or some other candidates.” Gee, there's just a small 225 year old problem: The United States Constitution. It dictates Presidential elections every four years, not when other countries get fed up with our elected leader. And only US citizens can vote in it, not every Anti-American in the world. When other countries allow us to vote in their elections, then maybe we'll think about it. Until then, I'll just laugh hysterically at that incredibly naive concept. “Opinion polls measuring where the American people stand right now tell us that 30 - 40 % are against a war now against Iraq. The Bush regime should not call itself democratic and then go to war.” Hmmm. What kind of dictionary are you using? In your country, if 60 to 70% of the people are in favor of something, or vote for it, what is that called if not democracy? If you seek 95 to 100% agreement on any course, you'll be sitting still forever, even when it comes to deciding what's for dinner. Democracy involves a simple majority, 50.1% or more, not a plurality, not a unanimous consensus. When someone has such grade school level problems understanding the basic concepts of the US Constitution and the definition of democracy, I have a problem giving their position much credibility. Here's other views of Transnational Progressivism: The Ideological War Within The West, by John Fonte Transnational Progressivism, by Steven Den Beste.
If Frau Schiffmann truly wishes to understand why we are about to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein, she should read "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" by Kenneth M. Pollack. He explains how the current sanctions regime has broken down due to smuggling, etc., that deterrence of a potentially nuclear-armed Saddam would be much too dangerous, and that neither covert operations to remove Saddam (assassination or assisting a coup) nor an Afghanistan-style air war to assist Iraqi proxies are likely to be successful. He makes the case that only a full-scale invasion can solve the Saddam problem once and for all. If we temporize and do nothing, Saddam WILL have nuclear weapons within a very few years. He has uranium in Iraq, he has the know-how, all he lacks is the fissile material, and given enough time, he can make it or come up with it through other black market means. Time is not on our side. If Saddam gets nukes, HE will be able to deter US. He will be able to attack and conquer his neighbors with impunity, being able to threat the use of his nukes on Tel Aviv or the Saudi oil fields if we try to stop him. He could end up with almost a quarter of the worlds oil supply if he were to conquer the other Arab nations of the Middle East. At that point, he would have us by the short-hairs, since he could threaten to shut off the flow of oil in order to get his way. And yes, he would do something like that; he did something like that in April of this year. Saddam delenda est.
Judge us by our actions. The physical acts America takes towards Iraq. So far, we have ... done ... nothing. Yet much has been accomplished. A lot of it by determined attitude. You seem to be forgetting the 2 million or so Iraqis that have died as a result of the US/UK sanctions. It's this American attitude that says less than 3000 Americans dead is a big deal but 2 million Iraqis dead is nothing ... this attitude (and it's widespread) labels Americans as arrogant, ignorant and evil.
I'm sorry, I think you misspelled "UN sanctions," as well as missing the reason they're in place, and the fact Saddam has spent documented BILLIONS of dollars on his presidential palaces and his potential asylum, while it is the supposed fault of the evil US that Iraqi children have starved. You've also missed the relative success story of the Iraqi's who live under the Northern no-fly zone, in the areas dominated by the Kurds. They're not starving and dying by the millions, as you allege. They are allowed by the UN to manage their own fund allocation from oil sales, and unlike Saddam-controlled areas, they seem to have plenty of money to take care of their needs. And you hardly gave a source for your claim of the figure "2 million," or the supposed means by which they died. As the entire exchange on this page points out, it's easy to throw exaggerated figures around; it's much harder to document them. It's even easier to debunk the exaggerations.
Here is a column debunking the "millions of dead Iraqi children" myth. Go ahead, DavidByron, read it. It won't bite.
I guess you decided you didn't like being judged by your actions after all. I am refering to the US sanctions not the UN sanctions. The UN sanctions don't block food medical and humanitarian supplies - as even the source above says. That would be illegal and immoral. it would also contradict the UN charter and its very reason for existence. The US sanctions block medicine and food and humanitarian supplies deliberately (the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure by the US since 1991 was seen as merely the logic extension of that) with the aim of mass murder. The article above that is supposed to debunk the mass murder figures actually doesn't even question the UN's figures. In fact it repeats them and has no other set of figures to set against them. No other figures except another three estimates that also give very large numbers dead -- similarly dismissed by the article and by you. So what is your basis for denying genocide by the US? Are you claiming America deliberately murdered only -- say -- a half a million instead of 2 million? How many deaths did America cause occording to your view please? Are denying that America blocks food and medical supplies and other humanitarian products to Iraq in contravention of the UNSCR and international law? (not to mention common human decency). The other, far more credible source of the 500,000 number is a pair of 1999 UNICEF studies that estimated the under-5 mortality rates of both Iraqi regions based on interviews with a total of 40,000 households. That's from your own source. That's ONLY the under 5's. And that's for a period of seven years, not the 12 years the sanctions have been applied. Are you sure this document is supposed to be debunking the "myth" of millions killed? Perhaps the high level of ad-hominem attacks in the article is what persuaded you that it was fair? Maybe you didn't see this line either, and this remember is from the article that is "debunking" the "myth" of mass murder. Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Again those figures only represent under 5's. So let's say there's a range of figures from 500,000 to 2,000,000 dead by America's bloddy hand. Hey, what's a million or two dead arabs to America? Let's remember Madelaine Albright's famous comment once again,
Thanks for that link btw Andrea. Evidence from "the other side" is usually more convincing. Probably a better cite than the UN page itself. It even contradicted a few of PhotoDude's comments.
“I guess you decided you didn't like being judged by your actions after all. I am refering to the US sanctions not the UN sanctions.” Please provide me to a link for these solely US (or even US/UK) generated sanctions. They'd have to be Congressional law or a Presidential directive, wouldn't they? (we won't even go into how the US and the UK might find a way to create joint sanctions via their respective legislative bodies, when we can rarely even get Republicans and Democrats to come to consensus) When I search for "US sanctions" Iraq, I find a host of pages filled with US-bashing, but the only sanctions they talk about are actually UN sanctions, even though they title the page "US sanctions." That's because every resolution proclaiming enforceable sanctions has come from the UN Security Council. Does the US government deny US companies the right to trade with Iraq, especially in high technology? Yes. But there's no way that a US sanction of any type could stop other countries from selling food and humanitarian aid to Iraq. Only the UN, and Saddam, could do that. “The UN sanctions don't block food medical and humanitarian supplies - as even the source above says. That would be illegal and immoral. it would also contradict the UN charter and its very reason for existence.” The UN started the Food for Oil program in 1995 ... four years after the war ended. Again, I can find no reasonable explanantion for the belief that the US, as a member of the UN Security Council, has supported the Food for Oil program (after all, we could simply have vetoed it), yet at the same time has its own unilateral sanctions denying Iraq the food and humantiatarian aid that the UN Food for Oil program provides. It defies logic. “The US sanctions block medicine and food and humanitarian supplies deliberately (the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure by the US since 1991 was seen as merely the logic extension of that) with the aim of mass murder.” How could US sanctions overrule the UN Food for Oil program? The answer: it can't. How can the US block the billions of dollars in oil proceeds Iraq has been allowed within this program? It can't. The only way it we could deny Iraq food and humnaitarian aid would be by blocking the Food for Oil program within the UN Security Council. So, how can the Iraqis be starving and dying if the UN is overseeing a program by which they can sell oil to fulfill their needs? Should we look closer at that program before we cast blame, especially on non-existent "US sanctions"? From Claudia Rosett: “The process is simple. Iraq contracts to import goods, and the U.N. gives the outside vendors cash collected from the oil sales. The U.N. has approved about $34 billion in such deals so far. The money it hasn't yet doled out -- at least $21 billion -- sits in U.N.-administered bank accounts. U.N. officials refuse to divulge much information about these accounts--not even the countries in which they're held. Measured in dollars, this is by far the U.N.'s largest program.” Did you catch that? The UN has $21 Billion sitting in an account ... collecting interest, to be sure ... while you tell me of the starving and dying Iraqis that the US is mass murdering. By my calculations, that works out to about $1,000 per Iraqi man, woman, and child. Sitting in the bank, not in Iraqi stomaches. So, should we blame the UN, or should we look even deeper? “Under the Oil-for-Food deal, it is not the U.N. but Saddam who decides what is needed, who in Iraq gets what, and which countries he should contract with. He must submit his proposals to the U.N. Security Council, which can turn them down. But the bulk of his requests are approved. The U.N. then disburses the cash from the 'Iraq accounts' and monitors the delivery, trying to ensure it follows Saddam's plan.” “The result is that U.N.-approved aid goes to reinforce Saddam's control over what is already a Soviet-league state-run economy. Part of what helped Saddam rise to power in the first place was Iraq's embrace in the 1960s of Soviet-style central planning, which by rationing goods and controlling people's livelihoods serves as a powerful tool for political control.” “Today, with private business largely smothered, except in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, the only significant source of foreign exchange is oil. All oil in Iraq belongs to the state. Saddam decides who will benefit from its sale, and who will be deprived. 'The government of Iraq has the sole responsibility for allocating the money,' says an official of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. 'We cannot tell them, we only advise them.'” Saddam invaded a neighbor, for which his country was attacked by about 180 nations, and part of the cease fire agreement he signed stipulated sanctions ... by the UN ... until he surrendered all weapons of mass destruction. He brought his country devastation via an aggressive war, and violated the resulting cease fire agreement for a decade, resulting in the continuation of the UN sanctions. His actions brought those specific preordained consequences. In addition to the billions of dollars Saddam's spent on an extensive Presidential Palace building program since 1991, and the billions he gave Libya to ensure a safe hidey-hole for his family and firends, we have tens of billions sitting in a UN bank account, and “The government of Iraq has the sole responsibility for allocating the money.” Yet you blame some mysterious US sanctions for the sad fact Iraqis have died from deprivation. They have been deprived, deprived of tens of billions of dollars over which the US has no control, money that is now in Saddam's places, Libya, and interest bearing UN accounts. And it's most illuminating that you, all by yourself, have ascertained that the actions of the US, through three Presidents and multiple Congresses, are solely done with “the aim of mass murder.” It's as if we descended on Saddam out of the blue for no reason at all 12 years ago, while he was out helping old ladies cross the street, and started killing his citizens by carpet bombing Iraq, for no reason and no intent other than “mass murder.” To me, that just a wee bit simplistic, and ignores the laws of cause and effect, as well as the history of Saddam, the murderer of a million Muslims. Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, “considered one of Germany's leading authorities on human rights in Iraq”, was asked, “You have said that estimates are that Saddam has killed approximately one million of his own citizens since 1979.” “Yes, that would include Kurds, Shi'ites, Christians and Sunnis. There were two huge massacres. There was the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurds at the end of the 1980s when 4,000 villages were destroyed, and about 100,000 to 150,000 persons were killed, some with poison gas. Up to a million people were sent into internal exile. The other big massacre was in the south in the 1990s, where the regime has killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the last 10 years. In addition, there have been enormous massacres against communists over the past two decades.” “The estimate of one million killed only includes civilians. A million Iraqi soldiers were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. A half-million Iraqis died of hunger or disease because of sanctions on Iraq, and more were killed in the Gulf War. Some 1.5 to two million people have been internally displaced, and 4.5 million Iraqi refugees are scattered across the globe. Ten percent of the Iraqi population has been killed or deported during the rule of Saddam Hussein. That is the essence of his regime. It is not an accident. It is systematic.” ---o--- So it seems pretty clear to me just who the “mass murderer” is.
You said judge America by its actions. That is exactly what people do. Now you are weaseling out. Worse you are blaming the victim for the campaign of genocide against Iraq. Oh Iraqis just kill themselves. They don't; America murders them. That is why America is hated and rightfully so. Believe these lies if you must. Know that no other country beleives them. I said that the UN sanctions explicitly couldn't restrict humantiarian aid. You didn't comment. Shall I get the link to the UNSC resolution for you? Here it is. resolution 661 (made before the Gulf War by the way - not after as you suggested). http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/11/IMG/NR057511.pdf?OpenElement Apparently you simply don't beleive that the US (not the UN) makes it a crime to give medical aid to dying Iraqi children. Well let's see... at least one person has been charged with this crime so far.... and their name is Bert Sacks so you can look that up. Here's a story on him (first Google hit). http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/74924_sacks17.shtml The United Nations imposed the economic sanctions on Iraq on Aug. 6, 1990, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The United States government also has imposed sanctions on Iraq. Under those sanctions, it is illegal to take any aid into Iraq without government approval, a violation punishable by stiff fines and jail time. 12 years in prison for giving medical supplies to children. That's against international law and it's immoral of course. You actually admited you were wrong in your own post but then I guess just forgot that you knew you were wrong: Does the US government deny US companies the right to trade with Iraq, especially in high technology? Yes. Yes. It blocks food medicine and humanitarian aid which is a criminal act and as you say America is judged for it and the millions of deaths it causes. You admited it but then for some reason went on to choke your own words for another page or so. Of course America blockaded food aid to Afghanistan as the first act of war against that country too, so there's nothing suprising about criminal starvation tactics by genocidal America. Now in the case of Afghanistan the blockade wasn't anything to do with the UN and was a military blockade that effected NGOs and anyone else trying to get food into Afghanistan, is that also true of Iraq? You complain that even if America is murderously trying to prevent food medicine and humanitarian aid to Iraq (which you conceed it is) that other countries can ignore the US. For example much the same way that other contries circumvent America's criminal sanctions against Cuba for the last few decades. One difference is that America is maintaining a military blockade of Iraq but not Cuba. there's no way that a US sanction of any type could stop other countries from selling food and humanitarian aid to Iraq. But that's not actually true, is it? America and the UK have been interdicting Iraq for 11 years in illegal "no-fly" zones (although they don't just block flying). They constitute a criminal blockade of Iraq. No UN sanction allows this,. It is an open act of war against Iraq. Do you deny this? You didn't deny that UN sanctions don't allow the blockade of humanitarian food and medical suplies. So how is it they don't get through? The UN oil for food program seems to have been set up as a compromise between the rest of the world who was concerned about starving Iraqi kids under the US genocide sanctions, and murderous America who wanted more control of Iraq and more oil. Deal being that Iraqi kids only half starve and America gets to steal Iraqi oil. As usual America reneged on the deal and proceeded to set up blocks against medical supplies to Iraq even under the program. Your source suggesting Saddam has killed one million (not millions) of Iraqis gets that figure only by including children starved by America not Iraq. So shall we agree that America has murdered about 3 times more Iraqis than Saddam? (and Saddam killed almost all his toll while he was a US armed dictator)
Sorry. This quote, The United Nations imposed the economic sanctions on Iraq on Aug. 6, 1990, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The United States government also has imposed sanctions on Iraq. Under those sanctions, it is illegal to take any aid into Iraq without government approval, a violation punishable by stiff fines and jail time. was all from the newspaper article, not by me.
Dammit. Bold doesn't go across paragraphs huh? Obviously an American plot....
First you throw around phrases like “campaign of genocide,” and “genocidal American,” (can you just go ahead and call us Nazi's and get it over with?) then you start missing and distorting what I said. This has become a pointless exchange. “I said that the UN sanctions explicitly couldn't restrict humantiarian aid. You didn't comment.” Gee, I quoted that exact section, and wrote something below the quote. If you can't figure out the connection, I'm sorry. But then, in a separate e-mail, you claim that in our talk about food, humanitarian aid, and the UN, the 34 Billion dollar Food for Oil program is not relevant, even though it provides Billions of the food and humanitarian aid you claim the US blocks. Your further claim that the US uses it to "steal oil" shows you don't even understand how the program operates. You and I appear to have a complete logic detachment. “Shall I get the link to the UNSC resolution for you? Here it is. resolution 661 (made before the Gulf War by the way - not after as you suggested).” OK, we're not even out of your first paragraph, and you're claiming I said things I did not, and missing the things I did say. I said the Food for Oil program (the $34 Billion program you've deemed irrelevant) began in 1995, after the Gulf War. I said nothing about resolution 661, or when it was passed. It seems clear we're not going to change each other's mind, despite your 1100 words of effort. We don't appear to even be using the same rules of logic. So be it. Thank you for your opinion.
You said judge America by its actions. Even your own side admits at the VERY VERY LEAST America is responsible for 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq. Probably 20 times that figure. Aren't you going to echo Albright and tell me you think the price is worth it?
Recent Comments
- Stanley (Is That Really Amish?)
- John (Falcons Explode Expectations)
- mark (Is That Really Amish?)
- Jessica (Is That Really Amish?)
- Reid (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
- elburro (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
To Annette Schiffmann, of Heidelberg, Germany It really saddens me to hear a German National "ONCE AGAIN" turn a blind eye to evil... as they did with Hitler. I guess you guys really are the suckers of the world..? Saddam is no better committing genocide against his own people.. and we should once again turn a blind eye as we did with Hitler after WWI and let this monster build up his arms.. have we not learned anything from History? You bashed America, but let me remind you that if it were not because of America, Canada and Britain during World War II, you may not be enjoying the same freedoms you now have.? America may not be 100% perfect, yes there are many, many poor, lots of racism, murders... but I guarantee if you had the chance to move here legally you would be on the next plane. I am glad to see Americans so passionate and proud of their Freedoms that they want everyone to know... there is nothing wrong with that. Although in Canada, Britain and Germany they call Americans obnoxious for this behavior.. It's just so sad that Canadians, the British or Germans don't have that same zeal and fire. ... and for any of you Canadians out there that wish to ho hum at what I just said.. all I hear is about Quebec Separatist, taxes are to high, dam the Free Trade agreement, and I want to keep my Free Medical care..! But never, dam I am lucky to live in a country that has great social programs, or I am dam proud to live in the largest, cleanest country in the world.. In short, if you not willing to fight for the Freedoms you now enjoy.. you don't deserve them. It was once said by Patrick Henry: Give me Liberty or Give me Death.. Just remember the lives of the proud soldiers who have given their lives for your freedoms from many Nations... ... less we forget.