WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

george

I always wonder, why this wonderful concept doesn't seem to exist as right of other states as well.

Oh, of course, everyone else has to accept the super-power USA.

Indeed, Walter. We're the ones who wouldn't sign into the concept of world justice. Naw, we except ourselves. I think this will haunt us -- is already haunting us.

As I listened to yet another report this morning about another incident in Iraq resulting in the death of yet more military, I picked up on the vocabulary of the report. Those who killed the soldier were "terrorists" and "insurgents," and I tried to imagine how we would feel if...

Well, imagine a nation loaded with WMDs and the capacity to unload them onto others at the slightest whim. Imagine that nation had an arrogant leader of dubious mandate hated by the rest of the world and by 51% percent of his own citizenry (loved only by supportive members of his own party, corporations which profit from his leadership, and religious zealots), a nation which is illegally keeping foreigners penned up in a military base, indefinitely, with no access to legal support.

And then imagine that some countries in the rest of the world decide that this is an illegal leadership, cruel,arbitrary, and dangerous, and they banded together and invaded. People from Ohio to Arizona and beyond tried to get rid of the invaders. Are they terrorists? insurgents?

Walter,

I don't believe you really mean that. It seems to me that both France and Germany have amply shown their ability to act independently on issues of grave import to their allies, and in open defiance of the superpower that supposedly dominates them.

Further, I believe the degree to which we 'accept' the differing policies of each other is about the same on both sides of the Atlantic. Finally, the willingness of the United States to 'tolerate' differing views during its moment in history has so far been far greater than that of any of the European powers during theirs.

I'm deeply afraid that American exceptionalism is such an inextricable component within the worldview of so many Americans that it will take a crushing event to balance this very dangerous hubris.

It is in the context of this this grandiose self-identity that a political philosophy such as that which the admirers of Strauss hold to might go unnoticed by so many. 'How could we be that wrong? We are America! We have the Constitution and God! Our leaders know what they are doing! And anyway, who better than us?!'

Meanwhile, a billion Muslims turn their eyes to Palestine, and to Iraq with its oil, and to America with its bombs and its wealth and jiggling tits on tv.

I think it's the jiggling tits that did it for me. Particularly as there is something about our culture which doesn't allow other body parts to jiggle publicly. I hope those Muslims succeed, and I hope a sensible decision is made in the new Muslim world about jiggling... and hypocrisy.

Blatham & Tartarin,

Well you two have certainly exposed your underlying beliefs. Blatham hopes for a "crushing event" to break down our hubris and points to the spector of a billion Moslems, envious of Oil, Palestine and whatever. Tartarin hopes for the victory of these Moslems and implies that they will be less vulgar and hypocritical than we.

I am however mystified by the mutual streak of Puritanism in the focus on jiggling tits on TV. My impression has been that you both oppose traditional restraints on such license. Have I missed something?

The views you expressed are OK by me, but don't expect most Americans to do anything but seriously oppose them. Frankly I find the suggestion that a mostly backward Moslem culture, despite its former glories, has much to offer us now to be both absurd and oddly contradictory to your expressed views with respect to Christianity..

Well, we won't make you wear a burka, George. Though some kind of tickling device to remind you what it's like to laugh might be imposed.

george wrote:


Now george,

Blatham did not say he hopes for a "crushing event," he said:



And I'm afraid of this as well. It's one thing to be talented, enjoy an abundance of resources, to be gloriously successful, and to have nice tits to jiggle, this is fine when it happens, and I personally hope to be able to achieve this for myself (especially the tits), but it's another thing to rub it in the faces of those who are struggling and worse yet to bully them around as if we're better than they are.

george

You really miss pretty much everything I said.

I don't WANT a crushing event...I deeply fear such a thing. It is so sadly unnecessary. But it increasingly seems inevitable, in precisely the way that such a thing always is for ego-maniacs or bullies (and let's not forget that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld likewise 'hoped' for some event similar to Pearl Harbor).

Mai Lai (sp?) was an ugly and deeply humbling truth, but a necessary awareness.

My reference to jiggling tits didn't reflect some Puritanism in me, it spoke to the sort of disparity between two cultures, a disparity which is daily becoming less benign and more dangerous to the west and to the world. One can continue to insist that we have it all right and they have it all wrong, and walk along a path to a new Hundred Years War.

It doesn't have to be this way. The US doesn't have to follow the path of Ariel Sharon, they could look to Tutu and Mandela.

But I don't think you will. I think it probable that we are at the outset of a period of enormous travail - of increasing world-wide terrorism, of increasing broad and arbitrary military response, of consequent economic disruption, and of consequent loses to individual liberty.

And I believe, along with so many in the rest of the world, that no entity is more responsible for what will come than is the US, because you will not allow the best in you to arise, for that will necessitate facing the worst in you.

I wouldn't mind see a teensy weensy crushing event, selective...

Well If I failed to detect the presence a sense of irony and even humor in Tartarin - and I have indeed failed to detect it - then, if it is there, I do apologize. I really mean that.

My view of jiggling tits is that much depends on the tits and on the jiggler. What kind of tickling device do you have in mind?

Insurgents, I think. <nods>



<winks>

"A free people ought not only to be armed and
disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms
and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from any who might attempt to
abuse them, which would include their own
government" George Washington

You truly have a sick sense of humour Tart-----I hope you are deeply ashamed of yourself I just realized that a knee-jerk liberal extremist would have no shame.

I don't know whether the "jiggling tits" or the "wired up tickling device" stopped this thread dead in it's tracks but I would likd to provide some input along the lines of Blathams worries about the accountability of the US.
For some time now I have been complaining that the UN charter is out of date mainly because the current charter establishes a sacrosanct value to any nation state that comes into existence. By legitimizing and making the borders of any sovereign state sacrosanct it promoted and allowed an unforseen consequence. Currently any thug who can sieze power suddenly becomes a legitimate ruler of a sovereign state and therefore untouchable in the eyes of the UN. In support of my contention the following polical essay is presented for your opinion and comments:


http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/rkehl.htm#incredible

This is the pertinent excerpt:

Recently, the question of personal responsibility of rulers has become increasingly topical because of the cases of extremely brutal and extremely repressive despots with their shameless disregard of international conventions have become more frequent of late (perhaps only because their activities have become better known thanks to the mass media and improved means of information). But international bodies assert that it is impossible to take action against them because they could plead the sovereignty of the state. This is also something which the rulers exploit ruthlessly by emphasizing again and again that, according tothe present reading of Art. 2 clause 7 of the UN Charter, international bodies have no right to interfere in the so-called internal affairs of other states.

For these reasons, the legal concept of sovereignty under international law is a decisive point in the whole debate.

Well, as long as the UN oversees our next few elections...

Stop that right now! People will start accusing you of being an NRA puppet. You know full well the Democratic Party has been telling us for years that the thought of individuals needing firearms for that very purpose is preposterous. No no. Only the STATE can have firearms.

Not all Dems, Fishin', not by far. That's one of those myths, labels, misconceptions that has been blown up for political purposes by the right wing. You'll notice that I'm accused of being a lefty, but that I also oppose gun control. And I'm far from being alone in this.

Yes. I therefore consider it a good development that, ever so slowly, the "holy" concepts of national sovereignty and territorial integrity have become a little more questioned and relativated.

The War Crimes Tribunals take up jurisdiction over crimes despots have committed, even if they committed them on their "own" territory against their "own" subjects. The International Criminal Court was set up by a majority of world countries even though it explicitly takes on some overriding authority when it comes to prosecuting crimes against humanity. Judges in Spain and Belgium are using the fate of the odd countryman that ended up in the hands of a military dictator to bring such dictators to justice even when they considered themselves safe within their "own" country.

Military interventions like those in Kosovo were not triggered by a violation of state borders by the aggressor, but instead justified in terms of intervening on behalf of victims of war crimes; and can, considering the scarce strategic/economic value of Kosovo, indeed be said to actually have been motivated by such considerations, too. In general, those who launch wars or interventions pay at least lip service to the notion of international law and some kind of overarching authority of the UN.

More and more countries are accepting election observers from international organisations and - to just jump up a level - more and more countries are accepting the relativity of their national auhority in accepting conventions and procedures that come with CoE, OSCE, EU membership (and that's just the European alphabet). From the UK to Moldova, Iraq (jawohl) and Indonesia, processes of devolution and decentralisation have these past ten years relativated national authority vis-a-vis degrees of local and regional self-government. Et cetera.

In fact, the problem you sketch may still be one of the most acute ones of the modern world, but perhaps looks less dire now than at any time since the days of Cold War and decolonisation.

Still ... that text you linked ... I'm a bit of an internationalist and slightly less of a peacenik - but those proposals go waaaay too far even for me! ;-)

And then there's me - I support gun control and I'm a rabid right-winger.