I'm inclined to think that nationalism isn't a bad thing in-and-of itself, so long as it is tempered by the knowledge that living peacefully with other nations--when those nations are willing to do so--is almost always in one's best national interests.
possibly. but that sounds more as a patriotism to me. it becomes nationalism when things are done in the name of one nation, as a rule against some other nation, or minorities living in the territory. be it on the level of symbols, open rhetoric, or violence.
tresspassers - Aznar told Spain in a speech that Spain would not be sending troops or arms to Iraq. It is felt that all the protest marches throughout Spain, and the fact that over 80% of the people are against this, had something to do with him rendering this speech. This may explain, in part, why Bush was so angry after that brief meeting in the Azores, as reported on CNN and elsewhere.
And that's an interesting statement you make about nationalism - that it isn't a bad thing in itself when tempered by the knowledge that living peacefully with other nations - when other nations are willing to do so........ How come, in this instance, when so many other nations wanted a more peaceful solution, were willing to make the effort, that we saw that as a bad thing? In this case, we were definitely in the minority, but exhibited the kind of nationalism that does not admit of other nations' willingness, but insists that other nations are wrong and we ourselves are right. That goes beyond the bounds of nationalism into an arrogant sense of self.
trespassers will wrote:I'm inclined to think that nationalism isn't a bad thing in-and-of itself, so long as it is tempered by the knowledge that living peacefully with other nations--when those nations are willing to do so--is almost always in one's best national interests.
To me a nation, like a person, is defined by its actions. And my feelings of loyalty both to persons and nations are definitely affected by what I think of their actions. My feelings about this particular nation we live in are much too complicated to slap an easy "ism" on, and call it done.
mamajuana wrote:And that's an interesting statement you make about nationalism - that it isn't a bad thing in itself when tempered by the knowledge that living peacefully with other nations - when other nations are willing to do so........ How come, in this instance, when so many other nations wanted a more peaceful solution, were willing to make the effort, that we saw that as a bad thing?
The nations you name are not unwilling to live peacefully with us, they simply disagree with us as to whether Iraq is. I believe our national interests demand toppling Saddam, no matter what other nations may think. Being in the minority does not necessarily mean you are wrong. There have been those in this country that have opposed our involvement in every military action since the revolution by which we became a country. Their reluctance to use war to move us from an untenable peace to one we saw as better did not make that move wrong, nor in most cases did those protesters accurately predict the outcome of said action.
trespassers will wrote: I believe our national interests demand toppling Saddam, no matter what other nations may think.
Well, that's nearly a quotation of what some Germans said, more than 60 years ago.
I asked my professor European Law if there is a way to throw some nations out of the EU. H esaid there is no such procedure. There isn't even a procedure if a nation wants to quit. So we are stuck with them damn Brits for the rest of our lives. Hell on earth!
Walter Hinteler wrote:trespassers will wrote: I believe our national interests demand toppling Saddam, no matter what other nations may think.
Well, that's nearly a quotation of what some Germans said, more than 60 years ago.
Perhaps, but then you are pretending that the situations are the same, and they are not. The one word response, "Yes", can mean very different things depending on the situation. Pretending we are acting as did Hitler merely diminishes your argument, and the esteem in which I hold you.
Terry Gross's interviews on today's (3/20) show are particularly good accounts of our relationships with the UN, the EEU, Afghanistan and other countries in the run-up to the attack on Iraq. I highly recommend a listen when the audio comes up online, later today, if you can't catch the show on the air today. These are calm, considered and knowledgeable interviewees. Here's a description:
Journalist Elizabeth Neuffer is the Foreign Affairs/U.N. Correspondent for The Boston Globe. She recently returned from Iran and was in Iraq earlier this year. She has also reported on the war on terrorism from Afghanistan. She's also the author of the book, The Key to My Neighbor's House: Seeking Justice in Bosnia and Rwanda, about the war crimes tribunals and the efforts of victims to find justice.
Staff writer for The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch. He wrote a recent profile in the magazine about U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the United Nations. Gourevitch is the author of We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda and his most recent book, A Cold Case.
http://freshair.npr.org/
frolic, if you don't like us damn Brits giving euroland a load of grief and hearache because our opinions are at times different, I for one would quite happily split from Europe right now.
I have read/heard though that we are tied to Europe by some legal red tape. C'est la vie.
By those Damn brits in dont target the citizens but the politicians. From Tatcher over Major untill Blair! Why join an organisation if u dont like it?
Since the UK joined, the European Union has become an ever unmanagable, overgrown, burocratic, monolith. A self perpetuating, job creation, money wasting endless pit for pen pushers & number crunchers. The cast offs who caouldn't survive in the real world, yet they think they know best and tho they don't, they still try to uniform everything and create a load of zombies who'll simply obey orders and do as they are told. Now others have tried that game and got short thrift and sent packing.
Just who was the European Union created for ? The benefit of the Consumer or the Mad Polititions and Civil Servants.
um, you sound angry. but i haven't read much in the way of arguments, oak. perhaps you'd like to elaborate more rationally and coolly on why exactly the EU is in your view an inefficient failure? for in my impression it is doing quite well, considering that only a few years past since maastricht and the euro is in circulation for a year and something.
oldandknew wrote:Just who was the European Union created for? The benefit of the Consumer or the Mad Polititions and Civil Servants.
Ask Spain, Greece, Portugal or Ireland what the EU is good for? They managed to climb out of the club of underdeveloped countries, mainly through financial support of Germany, France, Holland and some others. And what do we get in return? A Stab in our back!
Aznar his country is what is now because of the EU! The same for Ireland!
And then Great Britain Joined! The Iron Lady with her handbag shouting "
I want my money back!!"
True, frolic. And in the long run that will benefit the strong members of the EU equally as those that had a chance to develop by accession. They do know that. Otherwise they would not expand so eagerly. Already now the most important companies in the East (for that is the region I know best) are owned, almost without exception by the German and French companies (oh and by US Steel). The bigger and stronger the market, the better for the economically strongest members. Great Britain still has strong markets outside of EU, but I don't believe this will last for long. I believe UK will join the 'euroland' as it was called here in less than a decade. In any case the euroland does not seem to be terribly hurt by the abstention of britain and is doing jolly well.
Dag, I'm not angry, just pissed off and cynical. I have no problem with a common currency. No problem with free trade, measurements, metric instead of imperial. Motor vehicles being built with the same technical and enginerring considerations. Uniformity is often of great benefit, traffic laws, consumer protection for example. But not everything.
Europe is a conglomeration of a large number of very different countries. All with their own cultures, languages, life styles.
Uniformity in everything is not needed nor is it desirable, the power brokers and their minnions want a bunch of zombies.
We have a continuous series of endless battles about what is good for Joe Public, not what Joe Public might prefer. Is everything to go into a vast melting pot, so that THEY can then formulate our lives around the most convenient common denominator. One of the joys of Europe is being able to go the say France, Italy or Spain knowing that you were going somewhere that was totaly different from the UK and having a great adventure. You still can but on a much smaller level.
When it was first formulated the EU was intended to be a free trade market place, fine. Its gone on to become a vast all embracing strait jacket., that's what I object to.
In the UK we have local government and national government that works well, not perfect, but it beats the hell out of most systems.
We don't need the Brussels Monolith wielding the big stick over every aspect of our lives. The cost is phenominal and the overall body very complex.
So I ask the question again, who gets the benefit ? Joe Public or the Power Brokers ? From where I'm sitting it seems I'm being ripped off.
There was a joke going round when the UK first signed on to the EU, that the French and the Germans would prohibit us from playing cricket.
Last year a market trader who ran a fruit and veg stall sold his produce in pounds and ounces, for the simple reason that the bulk of his customers would ask for their purchases by the pound weight. The local council took him to court coz it was against EU law. Of course they won their case. Now his customers are being needlessly told what they can and can't do.
If it wasn't so funny, it would be laughable.
Sadly it's not funny and we have another war going on, only a mere missile's flightpath from downtown everywhere.
okn
Until 1871 we had about 35 different meassure systems in Austria and Germany. That damned unification of Germany and creating of Austria changed it.
And it worked, even, when the Germans got a new currency additionally to all that!
walter, ever so nice to see you again
Wallter, yes I know that the various States in Germany were united into one Nation and a similar procedure took place in Italy.
I've agreed that systems of measurement, engineering standards, curency and many other things should be standardised. I do not have a problem with any of that.
The problem I have is too much GOVERNMENT.
Within the UK, both Scotland and Wales now have 4 levels of GOVERNMENT.
#1 Local/City
#2 Scottish and/or Welsh Assembly
#3 Whitehall/London
#4 Europe
All spending vast amounts of our money.
This is money spent on beaurcrats, that would be better spent on education and medical care for example.
So who should be the primary beneficiary of all of this government action, The Consumer or the Power Brokers ???
I am amazed that Europe allows Britsh shops too open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
