One thing I have become even more aware of via the corespondence I've had concerning topics in my own blog and in others, is that there seems to be a problem in the European understanding of America's cultural, historical and value-based conditions and Americans' understanding of those of Europe. I say more aware because this has always been something that, at least in Sweden, one is constantly being reminded of, almost to the point of being nagged at in absurdum by the mass media. What I am trying to say is that we both have a certain nebulosity to deal with. In Sweden, you have to look really, really hard to find a Bush supporter or someone who (publicly) aligns himself on the same political plane. And in the States I think you would also have to look a while to find someone who unreservedly would want to apply the Swedish social democratic way of governance to American culture. So in that way we are, indeed, worlds apart.
•••
In Sweden, Bush has been demonized, ever since he appeared on the international scene. There are reasons for this. I list a few in no particular order:
* Bush is a strong proponent of the death penalty
* Bush comes across (is presented?) media-wise as being inarticulate and of an uncompromising nature, sort of an "America, love it or leave it" cowboy.
* Bush thinks guns are OK
* Bush hasn't done much from an international viewpoint in order to improve global environmental conditions
* Bush, at least at face value, is in deep cahoots with big business
Now all of these things are disturbing to the European mind. What Europeans do not understand is the deeply ingrained attitude to personal and civil independence that is the first and foremost trademark of the typical American. Europe, because of its war-torn and feudal history, has perhaps come a bit further in the (pseudo?)politics of co-operation. You relinquish some personal independence for the good of the community. That it can also become a dangerous weapon for politcal power can be demonstrated daily in both Sweden and other European countries where a political nomenklatura fostered in the correct ideloogy, can legislate in detail our long and ardous way from cradle to crypt.
Politicians will always talk. Kerry has talked, quite a lot, I presume. Bush talks, though not as much. It is an attractive situation where you deal with a politican who seems to do things and does more than talk. Here I firmly agreee that Bush is the better man. Bush does act. But he is, and I think all would agree with me, in a better position to do so than someone who is still an aspirant. Politicians at the UN have even more wind. They are grand masters at talking, and I agree with Kat and those others who have commented, that it often comes across as a pretty lame organisation. Now here is also where Sweden and the US have different approaches. Swedes are used to being talked to from above, so an organisation that talks a lot is, well, pretty good. Swedes say: "We have nothing else that is better." "The purpose and premises of the UN are just and right." Americans, on the other hand, perhaps see more clearly from a "put up or shut up" point of view.
The UN is toothless. And we all know that if you don't have any teeth, your daily fare is pretty bland. Now the big question is: Can the world community do something about it?
What Bush had attached to his back was his wireless DYMO
Now much of this discussion is about labels. Labels are neat things. You just pull off the protective piece of film and stick away! What is even neater is that you can push a few buttons on your labelwriter and create a new message with the same medium! I think Sweden has a DYMO-government - much more than the US, but if you look closely, even American politicans have something stuck up their sleeve. A politician who is politically incorrect, who says things that most people don't want to hear, isn't around for long.
Morals and religion are important
I may have been insuccint or insufficent in my previous blog. I also firmly think that all of our decisions and conclusions in life are related to our moral, religious and ethical framework, both privately and societaly. The problem is is that this can be stretched to the extremes. Invoking Allah when murdering innocent children by means of a bomb strapped to your chest, invoking God when dropping a bomb, however "surgical" it may be, or invoking some inflated politically correct ideology when turning away the needy from your nation's doorstep. Where is the unobscured "middle ground"?? It takes a lot of imbecilic chutzpah to think that any of us can be a spokesperson for the Divine. Who are we to know the will of God?
What is it that really guides us?
By studying horses you can learn quite a bit about human behavior too, such as flock dependency and emotions like nervousness, joy, desire for control and laziness. Subsequently, this blog is about the satisfactions of horse care and the vanity of politics. The blog is also about Castor, who was a strikingly impressive, black, large and self confident horse. Good qualities for anyone, I think.
6 comments:
Word!
But still, you miss a big point: One of the main reasons the U.N is largely ineffective in so many areas (but definately not the soul reason), is that the US so often fails to add its strength to the UN machinery, thereby leaving it hurt and bleeding...
first, a reply to Garbriel...
You may have noticed that the UN is the ultra-world political house. Generally, the idea was that all countries would come together and make good decisions on how to protect the world from rising threats like Hitler, agree on and protect specific human rights, obliterate preventable disease, world hunger and work towards eliminating poverty.
These are all grand utopian ideas. Unfortunately, these things are also dependent on the ability of countries to agree on how, who or when something will be done. Every country, not just the US, has it's own ideas and it's own interests to protect. no one, and I do mean no one, representing a country in the UN actually does so solely out of their great love for humanity. You may notice that man has a way of drawing a line, whether personally or politically, of how much he is willing to offer in exchange for their own comfort or security.
This is something that we may someday overcome, but it is not simply inherent to the US. Saying so means that one may not understand exactly how the UN works or the need for certain cooperation.
for instance, in reviewing the issues with Sudan, in order for any country to offer assistance there, or even the UN as a whole, other countries surrounding Sudan would have to cooperate and allow the UN to stage troops, materials, etc in order to assist.
Secondly, the missions of the UN have not included actually participating in a war as a group since the advent of Korea. Largely because all of the participants in the UN have grown aware of how such alliances can effect their relationships with both their people and the countries around them. Not saying that this is perfect or correct, but we are talking about the body politic. Therefore, the UN only authorizes "peace missions" and you might have noticed in Bosnia, etc that these peace missions don't always result in peace.
It was NATO as an alliance, and mostly with US power, that asserted "peace" in that area. The UN itself was unable to or unwilling to, do any such thing. Again, it's because the UNs idea of "missions" have changed quite a bit over time and not necessarily for the good.
It is also an issue of these political alliances. To go into Sudan and protect the one group against another, means that a "correct" side would have to be chosen. Otherwise, if both sides were subject to power from the UN, up to and including military power, then the UN is at war with Sudan.
Two things preclude that: 1) the UN, in its attempt to be apolitical, areligious and essentially amoral (or, if you prefer, applying the tenets of moral relativism; all sides are equal) cannot choose a side; 2) the UN, above human rights, above peace keeping, above all else, holds the sovreignty of a nation's borders to be the imperitive on the belief that it promotes stability.
In holding that sovreignty above all other considerations, the UN will only go into a country at that countries request. That request only comes when that country feels that they are either so insecure that they are in peril of disappearing or suffering a humanitarian crisis that would effect those in power or, those countries who are secure because they have been offered that security through certain deals within the UN or with neighboring or "parent" countries.
Usually these countries deny or make a request by political pressure from other countries. In the case of Sudan, they were eventually pressured by financial ties to France to allow the African Union to provide soldiers for the mission, but they put many restrictions (and are allowed to under UN law to prescribe or proscribe certain actions) on those soldier's movements and participation, effectively keeping them from performing a part of their mission.
This is the same thing that happened in Rwanda as UN mission troops stood by and allowed massacres to happen before their eyes because they were not allowed to take sides.
This is one reason that the US is often reluctant to provide soldiers on these missions because, the US soldier is sworn to protect, himself and those he is assigned to, and they would not standby and allow 100 people to be massacred in a church.
This we learned by our mission in the Balkans as well and is why the US pressured NATO to invoke it's inherent right to protection outside of the UN and effectively went to war against one side.
Problems with inherent sovreignty of borders was also apparent in Gulf War I, when we knew that Saddam had WMD at that time, where he had violated the sovreignty of another nation, where we knew he had already committed atrocities against his own people, the inherent right to sovreign borders precluded any UN led action to depose him in the name of continuing stability in the region.
In the meantime, every action or inaction has a reaction. The Shi'a were slaughtered. People were killed and "disappeared" for simply not paying due deference to the name of Saddam, or speaking out, or opposing in anyway. Mass graves.
The invoking of these sovreign border rights were also protected by other UN security council members, who, even today, we are finding out had political and financial interests to protect there. And those interests and the stability of the region were placed above the people.
In some sense, the UN has done it's job in attempting to keep another world war from happening. On the other hand, it certainly lacks the ability, as a whole and not just the US, to move beyond self interest to a common interest of the people of the world.
We find the same issue in Gulf War II. Aside from the issues of WMD (which most of the security council states' intelligence agencies believed he had), all of these countries had their own self interests to protect in either opposing Saddam's deposition or supporting it. In the US, it was about security and long term goals for peace and stability in the region. For other countries that opposed, it might have been about stability and peace, but we now find it was also for political and financial reasons as well.
When a country's leader(s) determine that their self interest is above those of the council, it will act unilaterally or with whatever allies it can muster. That includes Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Iraq and now we know France is in the Ivory coast and has been in Siera Leone, or china over Taiwan, singapore, North Korea, etc
The UN, in and of it's self, has it's place, but cannot act as the world's policeman because self interest usually comes before world interests and not just in the US.
The UN serves it's purpose, but it also serves the purposes of coutnries and groups. There is no perfection to be had there. In which case, that is why the US does not hang it's hat on the rulings of the UN. If we had, any number of things would not have happened and any number of other things could.
The UN is ambiguous and ambiguous entities cannot make change in the world. The only way certain things can be changed faster, like stopping Rwanda, Somalia or Dafur, would be to commit to either a more muscular UN, including willingness to use military intervention, or for countries to go outside of it and make pacts or take actions, unilaterally.
It will remain so until the UN evolves.
Peter,
You have almost nailed it exactly. There are certain things to be said for giving up certain rights for the good of the community, but you have definitely nailed it when it comes to why citizens of the US fear this above all other things.
Historically, and that is even recent history as you note, when people are willing to give up indivual rights for the good of the community, or the state, there is a danger that, even with the freedom to vote and elect officials, power in the hands of an elected official can be just as dangerous as power of a tyrant. In fact, history shows that elected officials often turn into tyrants (south America, Nazi Germany, Arafat even) comes to mind.
America's system of governance is built on redundant systems of government. The lowest level redundancy is the power that an individual holds. The rights of an individual are not GIVEN by the state as you point out, but are GUARANTEED. However one decides those rights are inherent, rather through the right of secular humanist or a divine being, man is not born into the slavery of law, but is born free and then laws are applied to guarantee that freedom and maintain order.
At least, that's how it works here. :)
Because the lowest level of redundancy for insuring freedom is at the individual's level, the constitution of the US guarantees the means by which the individual can protect his rights. That is the second amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. Of course, it does not guarantee the right to kill someone and that is why we have other laws about murder and assault, etc.
American's fear the removal of this redundancy because we have tasted it personally and seen what it can do to other countries. Just prior to and during the beginning of the revolution, besides taxes and representation, one of the most profound acts that the British government tried to do to eliminate opposition was to round up weapons in the cities, towns and villages that they came to.
One might also remember that one of the first acts of Hitler was not actually to start his "final solution" project, but it was to enact certain laws to restrict or make the rights of the people align with that of the state. And one of those acts was to demand registration or confiscation of weapons. This insured his ability to promote his way of government, regardless if any number of Germans protested, because they had no way to oppose him. That included the Jewish community and other "undesirables". The sad part was the number of people who were willing to give away the rights of those individuals for the good of their community/state.
In which case, we believe in learning lessons from history and that history demands that we do not give up our guns for the good of anything lest we become the oppressed without means to fight the oppressor.
Maybe that would appear somewhat "juvenile" to our European friends, but it may also be a sign of mature thinking. Thinking beyond the here and now and always prepared for tomorrow.
There are other lessons from history, which most of us tend to look on. Have you ever read "the rise and fall of the Roman empire"? Not that we are looking for empire. But, when you look at what became of the Romans, how their country changed from essentially a military power to being more of a power of politics and commerce, they became vulnerable. They weren't only vulnerable in the out reaches of their empire, but they became vulnerable directly at home.
This of course was also due to their over stretched resources of military defense. They were eventually over ran by the barbarians and had to morph their society in order to maintain even a part of Italy, much less empire.
These two things we are always leary of. While it might appear that we are everywhere, it is actually in our best interests to move and deploy to areas of threat as opposed to keeping garrisons in anyone area or by attempting to hold territory militarily. That is when the country is most vulnerable to attack.
And, it would be beyond imprudence not to recognize that there are plenty of countries that have their own interests or even plans of empire, that would attack the US or any of it's allies. It is simply how the world works.
Sweden is now protected by it's position within Europe, but was certainly vulnerable at one time to the USSR. It does not feel that vulnerability any more because the USSR does not exist. In which case, Sweden has limited interests or interest of any given Country. Including China or North Korea. What would they gain? It is the power of the United States that keeps these countries at bay. they certainly do not hold themselves in check. North Korea would certainly like South Korea and probably wouldn't mind a few other Asian countries under it's belt. It's held in check by the US and, in some regards China because it's interests lay in peace in the region to insure their continued financial stability and growth.
However, China could act and interact with any number of countries in the region. Empire, particularly for resources, would keep them moving from one country to the next. They have as yet bought into the total concept of Financial empire where buying and selling is better than taking. the only country able to offset China and protect these other countries is the United States. No other country, certainly not even the co-op of the European Union, could do so. And, if China was given half the chance, no offers of buying their civility would matter.
This is why, when all things are considered, the US, despite some European concerns about our power, retains and maintains it's ability and will not forsake them.
There are greater things than just living. One of them is living free. To live a slave, whether in reality or to an ideology, is worse than death from our perspective. I have wondered if our friends in Europe feel the same.
I've wondered this because Europe seems to have lived under any number of ideological, political or religious systems. Certainly, it has kept going and has evolved. But that is nothing more or less than one can say about basic human instinct for survival.
Having lived free my entire life and seeing what other men can do to those that they purport to represent or care for, to see people, still in the 21st century, live as virtual or actual slaves to a tyrant, ingrains my belief even further, that I would rather die fighting for this freedom than to live one minute in another man's slavery.
You can see by our vote here, that there are still a number of people that believe as I do. Not that they all voted for my same reasons. That would be too easy. But, Mr. Kerry had a few issues that did not resonate well with people across many walks of life. One of which was, while he tried to show himself to be a sporting man that believed in the second amendment, his own history of 20 years in the Senate and his votes pertaining to the same, did not support his alleged stance. He is an opponent of the 2nd amendment, or at least supports a radical change in laws to limit the second amendment.
As you note, US citizens are rather passionately attached to that amendment in regards to the absolute of individual freedoms.
When you talked about an aspirants ability to perform actions compared to that of an actual person holding the ultimate power, that is true in some sense. But, when a man has held a lesser seat of power and chaired many committees, he does have a record of sorts in what he would support or not support.
In the case of Mr. Kerry, some of his election promises could not ring true because his history in the Senate (20 years) did not reconcile to his campaign promises. In particular, things about taxation, very touchy subject here you know. We like to believe our money is our money and it's loaned to the government based on our needs and not because the government thinks something is good for the community.
His third, and nearly the most agregious, campaign issue was in his belief that the US should subjugate it's will to that of the UN. To a citizen of the US, again believing in individual rights above that of a state or other organization, that was tantamount to selling our soul.
Lastly, and I'm not sure of it's importance on the scale of things for all people, but he gave every indication of taking a quick road out of Baghdad. Now, the war with Iraq started for reasons of security and eneminity with the state of Iraq, mostly Saddam, but when it came time to rebuild and the premise of the reconstruction was based on the creation of a free and democratic state, this is an idea that rings with the American populace. Being free ourselves, we believe in the inherent right of man to be free as well.
Having started such an enterprise, and being people of certain beliefs including responsibility, it is a very hard sale to make us believe that we should abandon such a project for the any idea of moral or cultural relativism, nor simply to gain the respect of someone or some other country, when doing so would mean a loss of self respect and in a sense, the selling of our beliefs rather cheaply.
Those are my thoughts on how, I at least, made my decision on who I was voting for and why I support certain rules and oppose others.
A reply to Kat
Thanks for your long reply! Much of what you say is true, especially concerning the unwillingness or unability of the UN to take action at some points, obviously derived from the very nature of its construction. So rather than playing the role of Gabe the angry little dog, who barks at anything that moves, just let me say that I agree with you on many accounts.
Many accounts, yes, but… oh wow, wouldn’t you know it – there is a slight barking in the distance anyway!
A couple of things:
First, you might have noticed that the UN doesn’t always seem to be very effective, even when one of its bodys has taken a concrete decision in regards to a specific matter. This is not only because of the issues of realpolitik that you mention, but also because of financial woes. The US had a debt of 587 million dollars to the UN, which it only started to pay back after the terrorist attacks in 2001. That fact alone shows quite clearly how poorly the US has backed its own invention, thereby damaging its possibilities of being anything but a toothless tiger.
It might seem naïve to complain only about the doings of the Americans in the UN, seeing how it allows countries such as Syria to sit in the security council in recent history, but that is missing an important point: the US, as you say, still functions as a guarantor of western liberal ideals in the world, a protector when words fail. But that is precisely the reason why I expect more from it than the same kind of crap emanating from, for instance, China. The role of protector is not only a muscular one, it’s also moral, and by not showing strength in both regards I feel the US is shooting itself in the foot.
You write of the economic goals some nations had in trying to avoid a war in Iraq (I suppose you mainly refer to the massive French investments in Saddam’s regime). I find it a bit short-sighted to refer to US interests in the area as about “security and long term goals for peace and stability in the region”, claiming that only opposing countries had economic interests in the middle east. I don’t, as certain people do, believe the absurd notion that the US invaded Iraq for short-term benefits of oil supply alone, but I do believe it just as absurd to think it did it only under the banner of humanity, which is now being toted as the main reason for invasion.
Secondly, I wonder if you really believe, as you say, that the US army ”would not standby and allow 100 people to be massacred in a church”? Soldiers in the US army, just as soldiers in any army at war in the world, have not only allowed but instigated several massacres throughout history, and not acknowledging this is a bit rich. American soldiers are, after all, not more or less human than other humans, and they are prone to the same kinds of errors in character or judgement. Americans as a people are not excluded from the basic deficiencies of human nature.
In your reply to Peter, you mention elected officials as as prone to turn bad as dictatorial ones, and you mention south America as an example. The worst dictators in South America during the last half of the 20th century were installed by the US (see Pinochet, for example, or the case of San Salvador), and they were so not for issues of the rights of the people in these countries, but because of US interests in the area (more specifically a fear of growing socialism and communism).
Lastly, I just want to say that it seems a bit odd to suggest that Hitler’s rise to power could have been averted had only the people been allowed to keep firearms at home. Hitler enjoyed the massive popular support of the German people at the time, and believing that an uprising would have taken place had the people only had access to weaponry is certainly not based on historical facts but rather wishful thinking.
The reason I find it absurd for a people to have such easy access to such powerful weapons has nothing to do with the seemingly still-remaining fear of the English suddenly deciding to come back and claim the land which was once theirs (”the English are here! Quick, let’s form a militia!”), but more on the fact that there are a lot of weirdos out there. I mean, say what you will, but I’d rather have Benny the psychopath running after me, saliva frozen in the corner of his mouth, with a shovel or an unusually sharp spoon than an AK-47… Americans kill a lot more other Americans than Swedes kill other Swedes, and I don’t think it’s quite fair to blame this just on some kind of especially murderous trait in found Americans alone.
Or maybe just a little…
OK, time to eat breakfast and amend the constitution! Again, thanks for the long reply and giving me a reason to discuss matters like this, I enjoy it immensly!
All the best, hope you have better weather in Kansas City than we do in NYC today.
/Gabriel
Oupps! Sorry for some bad spelling in my recent post - my English might be getting better, but it still isn't perfect... But one day, when we've finally gotten control of the UN, the world will be all Swedish, and we will all be speaking Swedish! Muahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa...
Gabriel,
so sorry it took me so long to reply, but I've been a bit caught up in my own little world.
Replying backwards, we had some very tough whether for a day or two. Already setting records for the most snow before thanksgiving. But' it's warmed up a tad.
Peter...by the way, I feel for you on trying to get the turkey just right and getting celery. Not a staple over there I take it?
In regards to your comments re: UN. I will agree with you on a few things, but of course, I disagree just a smidge on a one or two items. Imagine that! :)
This is not only because of the issues of realpolitik that you mention, but also because of financial woes. The US had a debt of 587 million dollars to the UN, which it only started to pay back after the terrorist attacks in 2001. That fact alone shows quite clearly how poorly the US has backed its own invention, thereby damaging its possibilities of being anything but a toothless tiger. I agree on the problem of not paying that debt, but I might remind you that the lack of payment isn't all that difficult to track down. It seems that during our run to "balance the budget" we viewed this as an extra expenditure. I'm thinking that may have been a serious fubar. ON the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the US isn't the only one that has been remiss in payment. And, I'd like to add, considering the overhead that the UN sports, it seems to me that we were also remiss in demanding that our creation have some sort of accounting of it's expenditures.
I was just reading a long list of little endeavors and conferences of the UN and it's officials and I would say that anyone serving lobster and filet mignon at a conference regarding famine in Africa needs to be shot. (You can take that literally or not).
I am glad that we started paying, but, I really disagree that lack of this payment resulted in the "toothlessness" of the UN. When the UN requests peace keepers, the UN is not the person paying for it out of any funds the UN has. Of a purpose, it does not have a military budget or standing military arm. That means that the countries themselves who volunteer such forces pay for it out of their pocket.
That means "toothlessness" is not about money, it's about will. Will is not bought with money.
But that is precisely the reason why I expect more from it than the same kind of crap emanating from, for instance, China. The role of protector is not only a muscular one, it’s also moral, and by not showing strength in both regards I feel the US is shooting itself in the foot.Please advise as to what you feel is "shooting itself in the foot"? Because we told the rest of them to take a powder and we did it ourselves? This seems circular in argument since I am very, very positive that nothing we said would have convinced them otherwise. I'm also not of the mind to agree that the US was incorrect in it's actions in Iraq. Nor that we are creating "terrorists" since it is terrorists that create themselves, we aren't waving a magic wand and "poof" there's a terrorist.
What actions are we "shooting ourselves in the foot" with? I'll agree or disagree on individual items, but I won't agree to a generalization.
I don’t, as certain people do, believe the absurd notion that the US invaded Iraq for short-term benefits of oil supply alone, but I do believe it just as absurd to think it did it only under the banner of humanity, which is now being toted as the main reason for invasion. Well sir, I am one that agrees with you. I am not so naive as to think the US went in just to create a democracy and get rid of Saddam. I also know how much oil is produced there, how much is sold, to whom and what the projection is. In short, Iraq as an oil situation by itself is not sufficient. However, stability in the region is. Stability is to insure that the flow of oil is not interrupted from any number of other countries should a war erupt. Interrupted oil from a region that supports 38% of the worlds resources, would be a catastrophe for not just the US, but largely for countries such as China, Korea (N and S), a large part of Europe, etc. China and Korea both get almost 80% of their oil from the region.
War in that region means no oil for China. No oil for China means their economy goes bust. Bad economy means that China has to figure out how to relieve it. Relief may include things like military intervention in a region (ME) that supplies the whole world and then China holds the rest of us in it's palm. Or, it could mean war with other countries over other limited resources.
I understand that Iraq was a risky chance. France et al weren't just about their investments in the region. They sincerely fear, and are waiting to be proven correct, that we have opened a can of extremist Islam on the region that may result in the crumbling of otherwise stable governments (that aren't all that stable once you get past the facade) which also means interruption of oil flow, interruption of their economy, etc.
These things are all intermixed. When we are looking at short term goals of the US for security vs. France's idea, we are talking about approaching the same issue from two different angles. And, as for the US security, our security is not just about our borders. It includes US interests abroad. The same sort of interests countries like France, Germany, China, etc have. IE, no oil, bad economy, reduced ability to support military actions, makes vulnerable to the enemy or leaves us unable to protect other allies and we're not just talking the ones in the ME. We're talking Taiwan, Australia, Phillipines.
Frankly, I think we are one bad oil day from World war because none of these countries are going to sit around while their economy fossilizes for the lack of oil.
Soldiers in the US army, just as soldiers in any army at war in the world, have not only allowed but instigated several massacres throughout history, and not acknowledging this is a bit rich. American soldiers are, after all, not more or less human than other humans, and they are prone to the same kinds of errors in character or judgement. Americans as a people are not excluded from the basic deficiencies of human nature. Nothing rich about it. I'm not talking about individual errors, I'm talking about mode of operation and general orders. The US, particularly since the incident of 1983 and the barracks bombings, has been loathe to put US troops under UN auspices because of the limitations it places on it's operational abilities including taking defensive or offensive actions.
I meant no smear on the people who stood by nor a claim that anyone else wouldn't do it if put under those same orders and that same situation. I'm saying that the US does not do that anymore for exactly those reasons.
The worst dictators in South America during the last half of the 20th century were installed by the US (see Pinochet, for example, or the case of San Salvador), and they were so not for issues of the rights of the people in these countries, but because of US interests in the area (more specifically a fear of growing socialism and communism).Well sir, you hit it on the button. Self interests. However, I'm always interested to see people bring these subjects up as if some behavior in the past precludes the ability to behave differently today. Furher, in the interest of self interests, particularly security, the threat of the spread of communism and and the ability of the USSR to project power into this hemisphere and what it could do had we allowed it, was, for all intents and purposes, more important, if I can say that in a cold blooded way and not have you wince. LOl
Read the Monroe Doctrine? Monroe, for all his historical age, was a brilliant man. he of course was referring to the European proclivity to install governments in Mexico and south america, but it applied to the USSR in current days. In otherwords, better the devil you know.
Of course, maybe you are one of those folks that believe that communist regimes would have been much nicer to those poor south american folks?
Hitler enjoyed the massive popular support of the German people at the time, and believing that an uprising would have taken place had the people only had access to weaponry is certainly not based on historical facts but rather wishful thinking. Hitler didn't have ALL the support of ALL the people. Kritalnacht ring a bell? Why do you think he took those weapons away? It wasn't to keep his supporters supporting him, it was to protect against ANYONE taking up arms against him. I certainly wasn't implying that half of the German countryside might have done so.
He was extremely paranoid.
The reason I find it absurd for a people to have such easy access to such powerful weapons has nothing to do with the seemingly still-remaining fear of the English suddenly deciding to come back and claim the land which was once theirs (”the English are here! Quick, let’s form a militia!”), but more on the fact that there are a lot of weirdos out there.You're over simplifying again. Nobody is afraid that the British are coming back. This is about redundant controls for future governments or enemies, not the return of the Brits. More like China or Jerry Falwells great grandson. :)
And, duly noted you are living in NY where you have more than your fair share of the crazies, but honestly, when was the last time you heard anyone was shot with an AK47?
Post a Comment