What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


So....what's your government doing to enact that?

Yeah right. If we so much as advocate an approach contrary to the US position, your Senators start calling for higher duites on softwood lumber, or slowing things down at the border. Not to mention having your media figures lambasting us, and implying we're perpetrating some evil communist plot. We have no choice but to keep as quiet as we possibly can, thanks to your countries hegemony in ours.

"And they call it democracy!"

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

The "removal from within" has been tried and failed. Saddam put it down. We refused to get involved, so it failed.

Well it isn't our problem that they didn't have the guts to see it through. Why should the rest of the world be so eager to fix your own mistakes?

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

The "removal from within" has been tried and failed. Saddam put it down. We refused to get involved, so it failed.





-Arrian

didn't the US government incite the Kurds to revolt against Saddam with promises of support which failed to materialise once the revolt actually began and Saddam's forces put it down?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Willem.....just how do you propose to remove him?

If not with guns blazing...what? You gonna ask him nicely?

Com'on Vel, we know that Bush wants to remove Saddam not because he is a dictator or he has CBN weapons. That is just an excuse.

[Velociryx]

Willem….I see what you’re saying, and I partly agree, and partly disagree.

I think that you misinterpret what you are seeing. Most (not all, but most) Americans LIKE new ideas. We thrive on debate (and usually, the louder and rowdier, the better!)

What we DON’T particularly care for is when people (read: other nations) sit around on their duffs, wringing their hands about a problem, acknowledging that it is indeed a problem, and yet, refusing to take a stand or do ANYTHING about it, and then, when WE do something about it, the hand-wringers jump down our throats for not doing it “their” way.

If they want it done “their way,” then to our mindset, perhaps they should have….I dunno….done it themselves?

Since this thread opened, I’ve been thinking about exactly WHY the European mindset is markedly different from the US mindset, and I don’t even pretend to have a complete answer for that, but IMO, part of it lies in the following:

My grandfather moved from Texas to Oklahoma in a covered wagon. In those days, the west really was still “wild.” Untamed. Now, he didn’t have to hack his new home out of the wilderness with a hatchet, but HIS father did. That’s only three generations removed, and it’s still very much in my blood.

From the first day we became a nation (and even before then, really), America has been a land of action.

You don’t like something? You have an idea to make something better? You get in there, roll your sleeves up, and get it done! You make stuff happen.

That’s a very individualistic mindset. The notion that one guy getting in there and working away at something can make a difference.

I don’t see that in the Euro mindset.

The European continent has been tamed for centuries. You’d have to go back LOTS of generations to find ancestors that hacked their homes out of the Euro-Wilderness….I have family pictures of mine!

Also….look at our heroes.

In Europe, the heroes that get all the press all seem to have titles…Lord Such-and-So….King Blah-D-Blah….and so forth. Regal. Aristocratic. Divine-right-of-Kings stuff.

Here, we get Daniel Boon, Davy Crockett, and George Washington. Simple guys. Rugged guys. Guys with every day, practical skills, and again, guys who knew how to roll those sleeves up and DO stuff (as opposed to guys who had their six gazillion servants do stuff for them).

Very different.

Now….it can be fairly said that Americans tend to oversimplify stuff, and this is borne out, even in my post here….but I think it’s illustrative of an important point.

Since our earliest days, in the US, one guy’s hard work and ambition could change the face of the country.

In Europe….no such creature, unless you’re a Lord or King. Regular guys never had a chance, but it’s the regular guys who get in there and do the back breaking work!

America is full of “regular guys.” Mostly, they were guys that the elite in Europe tossed out and threw away.

That’s cool….and I think we’ve done pretty well for ourselves.

Bottom line is….if we see something that doesn’t sit right with us, our first inclination is to go do something about it.

In Europe (from this American’s perspective, anyway), the first inclination is to talk about it or pretend it’s not all that bad, in hopes that it’ll go away.

I was born and bred on the former, and I do not understand the latter.

All that to say, yes! Debate and argue and yell at the top of your lungs in wild, lively, democratic debate with us!

But don’t scold us for doing something, when you’re sitting on your duff not doing anything….

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

That sounds like the stereotypes one expects from some nationalist indoctriniation.


"In Europe, the heroes that get all the press all seem to have titles…Lord Such-and-So….King Blah-D-Blah….and so forth. Regal. Aristocratic. Divine-right-of-Kings stuff.

Here, we get Daniel Boon, Davy Crockett, and George Washington. Simple guys. Rugged guys. Guys with every day, practical skills"

Andreas Hofer and a couple others for my part of the woods, the scots have some interesting heros too, Jeanne d'Arc was not exactly nobility, nor was the girl of zaragoza, Robin Hood (most likely a myth, ok) didn't have much of it, and I'm sure I could find more if I could be arsed to think it through.

"Now….it can be fairly said that Americans tend to oversimplify stuff, and this is borne out, even in my post here…."

That's not oversimplified, that's a fantasy.

"In Europe….no such creature, unless you’re a Lord or King. Regular guys never had a chance"

Nogaret, just to go very, very far back. I don't know, what did you learn about social mobility in the middle ages and early modern times?

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The European continent has been tamed for centuries. You’d have to go back LOTS of generations to find ancestors that hacked their homes out of the Euro-Wilderness….

While your entire post is just plain stupid this might be the dumbest part. you clearly have no clue at all and lost all credability.

[DuncanK]

Vel,

No disrespect, but Americans would be just as awkward at hacking their homes out of wilderness as Europeans would be. There are differences between Europeans and Americans but I don't think this is one of them.

[Arrian]

didn't the US government incite the Kurds to revolt against Saddam with promises of support which failed to materialise once the revolt actually began and Saddam's forces put it down?

That's exactly what I was referring to. I did not say it was done well. I said that the "take him down from within" route was tried and that it failed due to our refusal to assist from without.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

But don’t scold us for doing something, when you’re sitting on your duff not doing anything….

As much as Willem's post earlier pretty well summed up non-American views on Americans, I think this is a good example of the other side of the coin.

-Arrian

[HolyWarrior]

[quote]Canadian wimps

- Canadian Wimps?
Them vs. U.S.

Star-Telegram ^ | Jan. 19, 2003 | Robert Sibley

The headline in a recent National Review magazine was certainly an attention-grabber: "Bomb Canada: The Case for War." But such rhetoric was perhaps justified by the magazine cover, which showed four red-coated Mounties on horseback above a banner that read "Wimps!"

Naturally, I bought the magazine to find out about "Canada's whiny and weak anti-Americanism."

I didn't take the article too seriously. I took statements such as "nothing would be better for Canada than a rabble-rousing, American-style democracy" and Canada is "not a serious country anymore" for what they were: a sardonic poke at the sanctimoniousness of Canadians who, even as they pretend to be a moral superpower, shelter beneath the U.S. military and economic umbrella. But then along came prime ministerial spokeswoman Francoise Ducros and the "moron affair."

It was not just the intellectual inanity of the Ducros remark that made it so embarrassing, but the intellectual obtuseness it reflected. In calling President Bush a "moron," she implied that the United States is somehow wrong to defend itself as it sees fit against terrorist attacks, and, indeed, that it is somehow at fault for those attacks.

But to hear such an inherently anti-Americanist sentiment at the highest levels of the Canadian government was disturbing not only because of the ignorance it betrayed but because such attitudes can lead to policies harmful to our relationship with the United States.

There is nothing new about Canadians' anti-Americanism, of course. Historically, "not being American" is a cornerstone of our identity. Resenting Americans allows us to feel good about our inadequacies.

Throughout the Cold War, many Canadians were convinced that the United States would be responsible for starting a nuclear war. (Why nobody thought the Soviets equally or even more likely to touch off the nuclear holocaust always puzzled me.)

The anti-Americanism we see now, however, seems particularly virulent and widespread. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that the image of the United States is increasingly tarnished everywhere, but especially in the Middle East and in Central and Southeast Asia. Considering the high Muslim populations in these regions, such hostility is understandable, if misinformed.

But why would someone like British playwright Harold Pinter declare the United States "the greatest source of terrorism on Earth"? How those who know better can regard the United States as an evil empire when the weight of historical evidence shows such views are unwarranted is an intellectual obscenity.

The anti-American intelligentsia conveniently forget it was the United States that stopped the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans while Europe's politicians dithered. That same intelligentsia warned that the Russians would never accept NATO expansion, yet NATO now includes nearly every former Soviet satellite. All the best minds mocked the anti-communism of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. And where's the Soviet Union now?

As British journalist Brian Appleyard once observed: "The Americans saved Europe from barbarism in two world wars. After the Second World War, they rebuilt the continent from ashes. They confronted and peacefully defeated Soviet communism, the most murderous system ever devised by man."

Muslims might argue that none of this applies to them, that the United States has always been hostile to Arab countries. But this, too, is a distortion of history.

When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, the United States intervened to stop Britain, France and Israel from overthrowing the Nasser regime. During the Cold War, the United States supported Islamic regimes such as Saudi Arabia against radical Arab nationalism.

In 1973, the United States came to Egypt's rescue when it forced the Israelis to accept a cease-fire that ended the Yom Kippur War. Today, the Americans supply Egypt with billions in aid, asking only that it keep the peace with Israel.

In 1982, the United States even saved Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from Israel's wrath by arranging to get him safely out of Beirut. When Arafat backed Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, the United States continued to sponsor him as the only one who could negotiate a peace with Israel. Finally, the United States aided Muslims fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

As Middle East specialist Barry Rubin writes in his book Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East, "Arab anti-American radicals have distorted the record, ignoring all the positive examples and focusing only on U.S. support for Israel."

So why, against all sense and evidence, is anti-Americanism so prevalent? Oddly enough, French intellectuals provide the most credible answer.

Jean-Francois Revel, in his new book L'Obsession anti-americaine, and Philippe Roger, in his book L'Ennemi americain, argue that anti-Americanism is not necessarily connected to anything people fear the United States might do, but rather to their own inadequacies. The inability of Europe to repeat the economic success of the United States, the failure of European social policies, the fracturing of national identity in the face of immigration and a post-imperial malaise born of waning global influence have all engendered an inferiority complex among European intellectuals. For them, the economic and military supremacy of the United States is a discomfiting reproach to Europeans' presumed cultural superiority.

Revel argues that the geopolitical rise of the United States is directly linked to Europe's abandonment of its responsibilities to defend Western values. "American unilateralism," he writes, "is the consequence, not the cause, of the reduction of power in the rest of the world."

Arab leaders also readily adopt anti-American attitudes as a way to divert attention from their own economic and political failings. As Rubin says, "For years now, anti-Americanism has served as means of last resort by which failed political systems and movements in the Middle East try to improve their standing."

However, anti-Americanism also exposes a deep anxiety at the heart of Muslim culture. Throughout the Middle East, modern ideas and practices are perceived as a threat to traditional ways of life. Notions of privatization, equality for women, institutions of civil society and freedom of speech run counter to deeply rooted patterns of social conduct and religious verities.

Not surprisingly, such modern ideas are associated with the United States. Thus, anti-Americanism is a protest of modernity, a response to the conflicts of a world in which long-established values and concepts no longer protect people from a sense of rootlessness and loss of meaning. As sociologist Paul Hollander explains in a recent essay in The New Criterion, "Much of what people fear or dislike about American society and culture is synonymous with modernity."

So what should the United States do about this? The answer is: nothing. The fact is that nobody likes a hegemon. The city-states of ancient Greece objected to Athens' overlordship. The Roman imperium was hated by subjects even as they enjoyed the security provided by legionnaires fighting on the frontiers. Even the British Empire, which offered the most enlightened imperial rule ever seen, was often resented.

Now it is the turn of Americans to suffer the consequences of resentment and envy. Presumably, they are sufficiently confident in their cause to take the anti-American posturing for what it really reflects: the congenital inability of others to examine their own self-inflicted failings.

In truth, "American imperialism" offers the Arab world a better future than anything available to them from their own leaders. It is well to recall that in the months before the Afghanistan campaign in 2001, the so-called experts warned of an explosion in the "Arab street." What actually happened was that the Arab world went very quiet at the demonstration of U.S. power, while on the streets of Kabul, Afghan women greeted American soldiers as liberators.

Given this, it would a mistake for the United States to fret about its unpopularity. As Middle East analyst Fouad Ajami writes in Foreign Affairs, "It is the fate of great powers that provide order to do so against the background of a world that takes the protection while it bemoans the heavy hand of the protector." What matters in the end is whether the United States, in pursuit of its own valid interests, furthers the cause of global security such that all people ultimately benefit.

Even whiny Canadians. [quote]

Robert Sibley writes for the Ottawa Citizen.rsibley@thecitizen.southam.ca






And Willem--like what was said in 'Die Hard'
"Yippie ki-ay, mutha****er"

[Demerzel]

argh essays like that are hard to read, after line 4210 it all kinda blurs together and I give up

[Velociryx]

Yep....that's even higher octane gas than mine!

-=Vel=-

[Chris 62]

The Euros are complaining THEY are trolled?

They have GOT to be fu*king kidding!

Face it, when the axis of weasel speaks for you, you know your in trouble, don't blame the US for not loving the Paris/Berlin axis.

[Velociryx]

Chris!

I still think Willem said it best. It's YOUR world. You can choose to live in it, or talk about living in it.

You know what gets us jazzed up more than anything on this side of the pond?

Results.

Not talking about results, not mightabeens....just results.

It's not hard to get results, you just gotta go DO something.

:: shrug:: Or...not.

If all you wanna do is talk and wring your hands when the boogy man comes to town...hey! If that's your bag....enjoy.

If you'd rather go the appeasement route...great! It worked so well in WWII, I can certainly see the attraction of trying it again with every other nutball that comes along. We could just cave into the demands of every two-bit dictator with some bombs and see where that gets the world....give 'em money like it's candy. Give 'em sweet business contracts. That'll make the poor, misunderstood dictator come around...surely! (just don't hold your breath waiting for it).

If you'd rather adopt the "not our business, not our problem" then I think it's fair to say that you're not really living "in" the world cos if you were, you'd see it as everybody's problem, but again...that's your gig. Stay home if you wanna. Bury your head in the sand if it suits your fancy.

But don't be overly surprised when somebody else steps in and starts acting like they mean business....starts *doing* something, rather than just talking about it. And odds are good that their plan will differ markedly from the one that you "would have" put into action. Hey....you snooze, you lose. If you wanted to do such-and-so....maybe you shoulda???

Of course, it's easier to sit back and watch the show, criticizing the players from a safe distance....that way, you don't risk anything, and you don't have to really DO anything, and you can keep that smug sense of arrogance that your plan would have been vastly more successful (if you had ever gotten around to actually implementing it).

But there's nothing stopping anybody from "playing the game" as it were.....the will to act is all it takes.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Well if the US position were "We want Saddam to disarm, as a last resort we'll go to war", that would cause a lot less problems. But the Bush admin chickenhawks have been searching an excuse for attacking Iraq since they came to power, so the assurances from Bush and co carry zero credibility. Especially if their scenario for after the war is "We'll hold hands with jubilating Iraqis and will pump happily ever after".

Ya know, Roland, this whole cross-pond who bashes who more crapfest just won't work as well if we keep agreeing with each other.

[Garth Vader]

Bottom line is….if we see something that doesn’t sit right with us, our first inclination is to go do something about it.

In Europe (from this American’s perspective, anyway), the first inclination is to talk about it or pretend it’s not all that bad, in hopes that it’ll go away.


Do you want it done right or do you want it done fast?

You are saying you want it fast.

A Simpsons quote is in order

Homer: There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way.

Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?

Homer: Yeah, but faster!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well the way I see it:

Reasons for war

1. Saddam has WOMD
2. Saddam is an evil dicator like Stalin isn't bothered to kill anyone who he does not like that makes him suitable to use WOMD first as he has done in the past against Kurds and Iran
3. Iraq should be made into a democracy, and stop the suffering of Iraqis as they have suffered too much in the last 10 years
4. More oil in the marketplace and better control of it

Reasons against the war (without UN backing)
1. Do WOMD's really exist, and we would need some proof that they do before we go to war, as that would be clear breach of the UN resolution - Iraq lied knowing the consequences. Let weapons inspectirs dig and find the proof as they did when they worked up to 1998 (give the intelligence if US/UK have any), so don't go before some prerequisite for war is fulfilled.
2. If war is started without UN approval that is a precedent for other major nations to just say bugger off to UN, further eroding of UN authority.

3.. The war and especially an unsuccesful one will promote terrorism more than OBL could ever do.
4. Possible thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, as they are starving already and will suffer even more in a war that will target the infrastructure again.
5. Possible ME catastrophe if the war doen't go to plan (like Saddam WOMD's Israel, Israel nukes Baghdad, and all hell breaks loose or similar).

So basically under reasons against 4 and 5 will have to be ignored as the country leader Saddam is responsible for that and that is the risk factor, he has to be removed if #1 is fulfilled. And reason 3 is a very real threat and to counter that US and Europe have a chance in Afghanistan showing the ME that we have good intentions however it seems that both are passing up that chance to proove that they mean well. So basically what I don't like US policy at the moment for is jumping the gun after so much waiting (10 years+) and pushing its agenda based purely on newlyfound US will to disarm Iraq without proof that Iraq has WOMD's. We all wait for that wonderful evidence and there is nothing conclusive yet.

This is just from the top of my head but that is what I can think of at the moment. What pisses me off is that political PR talk and blah blah blah we are the peacelovers a white knight going to kill and evil dictator bollocks, and some fun strategies like putting 300 mill USD to advertise the war etc...

And that is the short story... as for American Imperialism, well if you count all the people killed because of it, and just a point do not forget that Saddam is a child of it, so please it cannot be good, but we cannot escape it, basically as this is human nature. Still to say

In truth, "American imperialism" offers the Arab world a better future than anything available to them from their own leaders

is utter ignorance. For the beginning US could leave the region and let the Arabs fight it out among themselves one thing is for sure, if you have done this nor Saddam nor Mubarak, nor tha Saudi Royal family would be where they are today. However it is in US (and European too I would expect) interest to keep governments up that are cooperating, and there are many lesser people who suffer because of it and they see US as evil (as US is the main player) because they cannot get rid of their own dicators as the US and US troops in the countries effectivley stop them.

Pehaps if there was no US there, ME would be like Africa that noone cares about and they are slogging it out amongst themselves. But because US and the west in general have the interest in ME - oil - they are there to protect the interests becoming the enemies of many commoners in the process making them into fanatics, so here you have the imperialisim and 9-11 as the consequence (with more likely to come to all of us).

As for the war I am for it after the UN backing and some conclusive proof that it is neccessary, not before.

And for other reasons for anti-Americanism, well you are filling the history books for reasons for it. As we know all major powers were using their power for their own interests casusing pain and suffering in other parts of the world. US is no different in that respect, and the reasons for anti-american sentiments are valid. Just go over last 30 -40 years and count all the dictators US has propped and all the people that have been killed where US tipped the power in the hand of the dictators, and severe anti-americanism came after the dicators were disposed as in Iran and Greece, and there are others like Vietnam, Cambodgia, Iraq (and installation of Saddam), Congo (Mobutu), Chile(Pinochet), Panama, Grenada...

Britan was not well liked during their Imperialist phase either, (and check out Hollywood movies these days, after Nazis and Soviets are gone Brits are the main baddies for their past crimes ) and there were good reasons for it too, but what did post-colonial Britan do as a difference while getting out of colonies was making sure that every country had democrtic process in place when they got out. As a consequence there is no general bad feelings towards UK today in those places even though many are in civil wars or such... but they are fighting it out amongst themselves not having one powerful country sponsoring one side and making them win, which is what US did since WWII. So Brits seem to have learnt their lesson and that is what US needs to do, especially if it is true (what some here claim) that we can all get along without ME oil. But that directly opposes the US involment policies. On the other hand what I would propose is that US starts leaving democracies behind instead of propping leaders that suit their short term interests like Saddam was at the beginning.

Bushes idea of a democratic Iraq is cool, but can he deliver, and what happens if an pro-Iran and anti-US party wins? And that is very likely.

[Velociryx]

Garth:
Well....it's not as though we simply have knee-jerk reactions to things going on around us (if that were the case, then the planes would have been flying the hour after the WTC attack), but yes...at some point, you gotta quit talking and start doing....and if you don't, then it should come as no great shock when nothing changes....true?

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

True, but many long term festering geo-political debacles have been caused by jumping in too fast and not thinking about the long term ramifications.

There has to be a middle ground between sitting on your thumbs, and jumping in without thinking.

I'd just like to Mtg's post.

War shouldn't be the first club out of the bag, but you shouldn't leave it in your trunk either.

[Velociryx]

I agree....knee-jerk response is, in many cases, worse than no response at all....what gets under my skin tho, are the folks who talk a *really* good game when it comes to pointing out the flaws in somebody else's plan, and yet....don't have the guts to put their own (supposedly superior) ideas into action.

The best plan is the one that accomplishes the goal....not the one that gets talked to death.

Want a real life example?

Done! From my own personal experience....smaller scale of course, but the principles are the same.

I was disenchanted with Civ3 when it came out. Such good potential, left hollow by what I thought were bad design decisions.

And...I was not alone, either. There were a chorus of voices outlining all the things wrong with Civ3. Good, smart people in that mix.

The *difference* was....I got so fed up with it, and so disenchanted, that I decided to make my own d@mned game.

A lot of people thought that was a pretty groovy idea, and volunteered to help out. People from all over the world, actually (several countries in Europe, Australia, and in many cities in the US).

A lot of other people scoffed at the idea, and told us it was a fool's errand.

Yeah...maybe....but we were determined to try, and set about doing that verey thing.

We're getting close to releasing our public beta, and when we do, I have no doubt that some of the people who scoffed at us along the way will look at what we put together and have something negative to say about it. "Well....I could have done it soooooo much better, cos I would have done this, and this and this."

And you know....maybe he'll be right....but the fact remains that he didn't, cos after all, it's easier to bust up someone else's plan than it is to enact your own.

It'll happen. I'd bet my last dollar on it.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Chris!

I still think Willem said it best. It's YOUR world. You can choose to live in it, or talk about living in it.

You know what gets us jazzed up more than anything on this side of the pond?

Results.

Not talking about results, not mightabeens....just results.

It's not hard to get results, you just gotta go DO something.

:: shrug:: Or...not.

You mean like the rousing string of well thought out and executed American foreign policy actions such as the US response to the Cuban revolution, to the Bay of Pigs, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Vietnam, US support for dictatorships in Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Allende assassination and coup in Chile, support for the Shah of Iran, "constructive engagement" in South Africa, support of unpopular represssive monarchies throughout the middle east, kissing Israel's ass over the USS Liberty incident, protecting the Marines in Beirut Airport, Somalia, US building up and supporting Saddam Hussein when we thought he was our boy and when he was convenient for dealing with the Iranians, Ollie North's "arms for hostages" deals with the Iranians while we were helping the Iraqis, all nice and publicized so that both sides knew we were double dealing, etc. etc. etc.? Yeah, yay for the results of American action. Foreign policy competence R US.

If all you wanna do is talk and wring your hands when the boogy man comes to town...hey! If that's your bag....enjoy.

That may not be so much worse than creating or supporting the boogey men, then getting pissed out of proportion when they decide to bite massa's hand and no longer be our boys. Like Noriega and Hussein. Or getting our asses handed to us when our lackeys get overthrown by obvious popular movements (whether misguided commies or otherwise) who are magically hostile to us for no apparanent reason, just because our lackeys, are not competent enough to retain power and popular support) like Thieu, Somoza and the Shah of Iran.

If you'd rather go the appeasement route...great! It worked so well in WWII, I can certainly see the attraction of trying it again with every other nutball that comes along. We could just cave into the demands of every two-bit dictator with some bombs and see where that gets the world....give 'em money like it's candy. Give 'em sweet business contracts. That'll make the poor, misunderstood dictator come around...surely! (just don't hold your breath waiting for it).

There's generally a range of policy option between outright appeasement and half-assed invasion with no thought out policy for nation building or regime imposition on the occupied populace. And the US has no problems supporting murdering dictators when the US thinks that they're our boys, like Hussein, Noriega, Batista and the Shah. We gave 'em money, sweet business deals, military aid, and look what we ended up with in the long run?

If you'd rather adopt the "not our business, not our problem" then I think it's fair to say that you're not really living "in" the world cos if you were, you'd see it as everybody's problem, but again...that's your gig. Stay home if you wanna. Bury your head in the sand if it suits your fancy.

We do that all the time. Somalia wasn't our business (despite the fact we armed half the "technicals" there when Ethiopia tilted commie and we were playing SLOC control games with the USSR), then it was our business, then it wasn't. Gee, make up your minds already. Same thing with the balkans, Lebanon, Afghanistan for the last 24 years, etc.

But don't be overly surprised when somebody else steps in and starts acting like they mean business....starts *doing* something, rather than just talking about it. And odds are good that their plan will differ markedly from the one that you "would have" put into action. Hey....you snooze, you lose. If you wanted to do such-and-so....maybe you shoulda???

Just because one power is inclined to randomly run amok like a kid whose mommy forgot to give him his daily Ritalin dose, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. Maybe instead of running amok with half-assed "we've gotta do something" policies, or "appeasement," it would be real interesting to see if the relevant parties in any given trouble spot could come up with a consistent and rational approach for dealing with the problems. Or not contributing to them in the first place.

Of course, it's easier to sit back and watch the show, criticizing the players from a safe distance....that way, you don't risk anything, and you don't have to really DO anything, and you can keep that smug sense of arrogance that your plan would have been vastly more successful (if you had ever gotten around to actually implementing it).

Or it's better to parade your balls around in a wheelbarrow, and telling the world "well, we didn't have any coherent strategy, and we didn't have any clear cut goal beyond immediate regime change, but at least we did something."

But there's nothing stopping anybody from "playing the game" as it were.....the will to act is all it takes.

The will to act is one thing. The brains to act (in whatever manner) in a coherent, consistent way that reflects some strategic vision and maturity is another.

[Nubclear]

Instead of debating this....How about you ponder and give me an answer about the following situation.

Side A is right.
Side B is right.

Both sides cannot be right. But both are right. Therefore, which side is wrong?


If you still haven't guessed, its side AB.

[Velociryx]

Hey MtG! And I will be the first in line to admit and agree that we've made more than our share of mistakes in areas that pretty well span the globe.

Absolutely Noooooo denying that!

And yep....some of our mistakes have *included* making boogey men who come back to haunt us later on (and in fairness, we inhereted a couple from Europe too).

All true.

But because it *is* true, that doesn't mean that we should simply throw our hands up and give up trying.

(Nor does it mean we should do the "no Ridilan thing" and run around helter-skelter without a coherent plan, but that has never been a thing I advocated anyway! )

What gets my goat is that when nobody else is willing to touch a given problem with a ten foot pole, if somebody jumps in to do the deed, and you're not willing to help....that's cool....but stay the heck out of his way and let him do what he can.

Kinna like a member of the bomb squad trying to disarm a bomb in some office building. Either help him, or stand the hell back....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Tass...as I see the issue, it's not about "right" or "wrong"....it's about a willingness to DO something. To act.

I contend that if you're not willing to roll up your sleeves and act on your convictions, then you have zero room to complain when someone else does.

Appeasement is not "acting on your convictions."

Ripping apart someone else's action-plan without getting in there and trying to prove that yours is superior by acting on it is not acting on your convictions.

If you make a wrong choice, you make a wrong choice. That's a risk of taking action.

The risk of not acting, however, is almost always worse than a possible mistake.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

"Back-seat bombsquadding!" I love it. Good image, Vel.

MtG, , as usual.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Thanks man!

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Want a real life example?

Done! From my own personal experience....smaller scale of course, but the principles are the same.

-=Vel=-

I admire that kind of initiave, since I am lazy beyond my desire to describe

However, I think you will agree the decision to create a computer game, where failure is measured in time and money, and the one to engage in war, where both failure and success is measured in lives, are quite different.

Just noticed this

Kinna like a member of the bomb squad trying to disarm a bomb in some office building. Either help him, or stand the hell back....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

What if it's one of your fellow office workers who decided something had to be done and was going to disarm that bomb himself. "Damn bomb squad is taking too long to get here"

[Velociryx]

Very different, Master Vader....quite true. However, I have no military examples from my own life, and so I had to make use of what was available....

And in the case of an office-mate trying to disarm the bomb vs. a member of the bomb squad, I can tell you that in NEITHER case would I be standing over his shoulder b*tching at him.

In the former, I'd be as far from the building as possible (EDIT: after trying to convince him that the better course of action would be to leave it alone till the pros arrived, and join me at the evac point), and in the latter, I may be a bit closer, but still well outside...

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Velociryx

And in the case of an office-mate trying to disarm the bomb vs. a member of the bomb squad, I can tell you that in NEITHER case would I be standing over his shoulder b*tching at him.

In the former, I'd be as far from the building as possible (EDIT: after trying to convince him that the better course of action would be to leave it alone till the pros arrived, and join me at the evac point), and in the latter, I may be a bit closer, but still well outside...

-=Vel=-

Neither would I. Unfortunately our real world situation does not have a bomb squad, nor an option to leave the building.

So we are left trying to convince the impetuous bomb disarmer to listen, hoping that many heads are better than one