You're either with us or against us? Ok then...
August 10, 2004 7:43 PM   Subscribe

You're either with us or against us? Ok then... Two British citizens have travelled to Najaf to serve in Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. "We went to fight last night. It was quite fun, actually . . . It was dangerous," however. Reuters raw video has an interview with one of the two British on their site.
posted by insomnia_lj (121 comments total)
 
Looks like there's a better interview over at the Guardian, btw.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:48 PM on August 10, 2004


I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:53 PM on August 10, 2004


I'm agaisnt 'you' but I don't think I'd put my life on the line over the issue.
posted by sycophant at 7:57 PM on August 10, 2004


At some point, the gloves have to come off on this devil. Why are we waiting so long?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 PM on August 10, 2004


Both were at pains to point out their disapproval of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network and insisted their presence in Mr Sadr's militia did not amount to terrorism, because they were fighting against uniformed soldiers.

I agree with them. No big deal this, IMO. If they want to go and fight Marines, by all means. They're not terrorists, just enemies of the Iraqi, American, British and many other governments in the middle of a war zone. I hope their citizenship is revoked, and that they don't bring anyone else down with them.
posted by loquax at 8:47 PM on August 10, 2004


I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.

"Oh, no! pray don't take me. I'm too little, that I am," said the billy goat. "Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger."
posted by srboisvert at 8:57 PM on August 10, 2004


I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.

Unless they trip across your armchair, I guess that's not going to happen, huh.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:04 PM on August 10, 2004


This is the intellectually lighweight flypaper theory in action right?

Proponents of this theory must be grateful that these men (with UK passports) have gone to the trouble of taking the fight to your soldiers.

Surely for every instance of this, it must be considered that some of the targeted 'flys' would conclude the easiest and more effective course of action is instead a one way plane trip to the US of A.
posted by Tuatara at 9:15 PM on August 10, 2004


Is joining the ranks of the enemies of your country (or enemies of your allies) in the middle of a war zone by any chance considered an act of treason in that place called Britain?
posted by VeGiTo at 9:45 PM on August 10, 2004


Back off, Armitage Shanks. I feel exactly the same way as PP, and I happen to be sitting in my "armchair" at the moment, but I also happen to serve on active-duty in the military. Just because someone is stateside -- in either a military or civilian capacity -- does not negate the validity of their wish for death for enemies of the United States.
posted by davidmsc at 9:47 PM on August 10, 2004


Enemies CREATED BY the United States, it should be noted...
posted by rushmc at 10:07 PM on August 10, 2004


No, it shouldn't.

Not only is it not true, it is also irrelevant in terms of the interpretation of treason.
posted by VeGiTo at 10:11 PM on August 10, 2004


and you just can't wait to nail someone for treason can you, veggiehead?
posted by quonsar at 10:37 PM on August 10, 2004


And this is different from the thousands of Britains who fought the fascists in Spain how? Hemingway was a hero for this kinda lunacy.
posted by jmgorman at 10:48 PM on August 10, 2004


Sounds like treason to me. Last time I checked, there were British forces still in Iraq. Or did I miss something about these two revoking their British citizenship?

"They were wrong to come to our country. They said they came for chemical weapons and they didn't get permission from the UN, so they attacked Iraq for no reason," said Abu Turab.

No comment about the ousting of a brutal dictator that their families appear to have fled:

Though the two men were born in Iraq - one in Najaf, the other in Baghdad - their families took them to England as children.

Why is it that they only deem Iraq worthy of fighting for now?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:09 PM on August 10, 2004


<wanker> Just because someone is stateside -- in either a military or civilian capacity -- does not negate the validity of their wish for death for enemies of the United States.</wanker>

Truly, you are Oz, the Great And Terrible.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:14 PM on August 10, 2004


"Why is it that they only deem Iraq worthy of fighting for now?"

Because the ability to fight for a cause is historically contingent. Its a bit like asking why did no Czechs fight the Communist party in 1967 or 1987, ignoring the necessity for support and collective action.

Of course Iraqis are pissed off, no water, electricity and no jobs while western soldiers and contractors are well fed, well paid and are shooting them.

If the Americans want to calm Iraq down they should seduce it as they did W.Europe post 1945. That means spending money on water electricity food and jobs and not air bases, embassies and Halibuton transporting air. Then PP and the rest can have apoplexy over something else.
posted by lerrup at 11:29 PM on August 10, 2004


Because the ability to fight for a cause is historically contingent.

Or perhaps because they are extremists who are much more interested in lashing out at the Great Satan than they are in the actual welfare of the Iraqi people, as they claim. But even if you are right, it still makes them hypocrites.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:01 AM on August 11, 2004


Just because someone is stateside -- in either a military or civilian capacity -- does not negate the validity of their wish for death for enemies of the United States.

O' beautiful, for spacious skies
But now those skies are threatening
They're beating plowshares into swords
For this tired old man that we elected king
Armchair warriors often fail
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales...

Yeah, nothing quite as nefarious as assisting a people whose country has been invaded....assisting in a fight against the invaders....against the occupiers....yeah, I can see why you'd want people like that to suffer...see it from the safety of your armchairs.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:07 AM on August 11, 2004


I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:53 PM PST on August 10

At some point, the gloves have to come off on this devil. Why are we waiting so long?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 PM PST on August 10


Hrrmmmm. These 2 Brits are taking action based on their beliefs. So far all I've seen ParisParamus do is whine on a Internet message board. The 2 Brits are willing to bet their lives.....what has ParisParamus done other than posture on Metafilter?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:07 AM on August 11, 2004


This thread was shat on rather quickly, wasn't it?

Why is it that they only deem Iraq worthy of fighting for now?

Indeed.

Not really off-topic, but, Robert McNamara's Lessons from "The Fog of War" are haunting me lately.
posted by jaronson at 4:10 AM on August 11, 2004


in the name of responding to the little lie imbedded in this thread: EVERYONE thought there were WMDs in Iraq on the eve of the War (and I believe they're either still there, or were shuttled to Syria or Lebanon while the UN fiddled last year), including the corrupt governments that opposed an invasion.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:16 AM on August 11, 2004


EVERYONE thought there were WMDs

*I* Didn't think there was.

And the memory hole is there to remind us:

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...


Nice attempt at revisionist history from your armchair ParisParamus.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:24 AM on August 11, 2004


I disagree that the above says what you purport it to say. Moreover, Powell ultimately concluded Iraq did have them, and supported the war.

And of course, you haven't offered anything to rebut my contention.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:31 AM on August 11, 2004


Heck, if the BushCorps manage to mediajack their way to power again this fall, I'm startin' my own Al Qaeda cell.

And we're comin' for you, Paris! For you, you pussy!

[Not really, but it's fun to poke the scared, weak and stupid who bluster about murder.]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:58 AM on August 11, 2004


That you need a seven syllable nom de Mefi speaks volumes about your intellectual dwarf status.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:05 AM on August 11, 2004


Starvos: I imagine you in some basement, with Metafilter the closest you come to a life. Or, perhaps it's an attic.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:06 AM on August 11, 2004


Hold up a mirror, friend. Hold up a mirror.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:10 AM on August 11, 2004


I wonder how often MemoryHole posts quotes by John Kerry, pre-campaign, favoring invading Iraq.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:13 AM on August 11, 2004


I disagree that the above says what you purport it to say. Moreover, Powell ultimately concluded Iraq did have them, and supported the war.

And of course, you haven't offered anything to rebut my contention.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:31 AM PST on August 11


I understand your interest in the middle east, but it is misplaced. When you were told you are living in "The Nile" you mis-heard it. You live in denial, not "The Nile". You are doing better than most Americans, you at least knew to look in the Middle East to find the Nile river.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:33 AM on August 11, 2004


That you need a seven syllable nom de Mefi speaks volumes about your intellectual dwarf status.

that you once mowed the lawn on a tuesday speaks volumes about your predilection toward bestiality.
posted by quonsar at 5:46 AM on August 11, 2004


I'm pretty sure I remember some Dartmouth Review-ers travelling to Afghanistan to aid the Muhajadeen in the 1980's. Wow. Does that look like a bad idea in the light of day.

These Britons are Iraqis by birth, however. I'm not surprised that they felt compelled to fight for their birth country. That's sort of what expatriates do. They're just less successful than, say, Ahmed Chalabi, at dragging other nations along with them.

I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.

I'd happily contribute 5 or 10 bucks to send you to Iraq if you want to go. It'd be like MeFi's own Reality Show. I'll bet we could send you. You'd have to arm yourself, of course.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:55 AM on August 11, 2004


That you need a seven syllable nom de Mefi speaks volumes about your intellectual dwarf status.

So does this mean that I'm 2.5 times as clever as ParisParamus but only half as clever as c?

I imagine you in some basement, with Metafilter the closest you come to a life. Or, perhaps it's an attic.

You have to be different don't you stav? Why can't you just not have a life and be in an office like the rest of us?
posted by biffa at 5:58 AM on August 11, 2004


My soul's in the basement, my balls are in the attic. It works for me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 AM on August 11, 2004


No, wait, I got that backwards....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 AM on August 11, 2004


Yeah, nothing quite as nefarious as assisting a people whose country has been invaded....assisting in a fight against the invaders....against the occupiers....yeah, I can see why you'd want people like that to suffer...see it from the safety of your armchairs.

If they merely wanted to help the people of Iraq, there's probably many humanitarian efforts they could lend their abilities to, and if they merely oppose the war (as do I) there's plenty they could do on the home front.

Joining up with al Sadr is a whole other kettle of fish, since al Sadr seems like he'd be just as bad as Saddam or the occupation. But, I don't see them coming back to claim their citizenship, so even though their actions anger me, let 'em go their merry way.

They're beating plowshares into swords
For this tired old man that we elected king
Armchair warriors often fail
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales


Don Henley Must die
Put a sharp stick in his eye, don henley must die
Ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya
Oh
posted by jonmc at 6:11 AM on August 11, 2004


Worst. Mojo Nixon. Lyrics Quote. EVAR.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 AM on August 11, 2004


Sorry, staverino, didn't know you were president of the Henley Appreciation Society. Your ponytail extension is in the mail.
posted by jonmc at 6:31 AM on August 11, 2004


Yeah, nothing quite as nefarious as assisting a people whose country has been invaded....assisting in a fight against the invaders....against the occupiers

Your sarcasm (by the way, do you have any other writing style, foldy?) wrongly implies that there is one homogenous group of Iraqi "people" that are "against" the "occupiers." It conveniently ignores the fact that at this point the fight is more a civil/guerrilla war than a U.S. vs. Iraq war. Whatever your stance on the war, there's no going back to the old Iraq. The only question now is what the new Iraq will be like -- a democracy (albeit one currently propped up by the U.S.), or a religious theocracy? Obviously Iraqis themselves differ on that question. But please don't insult our inteligence by portraying these fools as the noble people who are just defending Iraq against the "invaders."
posted by pardonyou? at 6:36 AM on August 11, 2004


I am the Boy of Summer, you know, except for the grey stubble, and the total lack of Wayfarers™.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 AM on August 11, 2004


Metafilter: please don't insult our inteligence
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:38 AM on August 11, 2004


Not only is it not true

Yeah, okay, these Brits randomly decided to attack American troops on a whim, without provocation. Clue: Just because you don't like something doesn't make it untrue.
posted by rushmc at 6:54 AM on August 11, 2004


It conveniently ignores the fact that at this point the fight is more a civil/guerrilla war than a U.S. vs. Iraq war.

If it was good enough for the wolverines, it's good enough for me.
posted by biffa at 6:57 AM on August 11, 2004


It conveniently ignores the fact that at this point the fight is more a civil/guerrilla war than a U.S. vs. Iraq war.

Or is it groups of citizens against occupiers and the collaborationist government?

And this is why occupying other countries is dumb. Because you can have the best freaking intentions in the world, but they get sullied as soon as they are attached to an invader. I would love socialized healthcare, but if Canada invaded to give it to us, I'd probably be on the the side of the resistance, the partisans, or, if you're on the other side, the guerrilla terrorists.
posted by dame at 7:41 AM on August 11, 2004


Assuming we're "occupying" Iraq, it's not to benefit Iraq; it's to try and see that they get off on the right foot; one which will not lead to another Saddam. Or Osama, or another Iran. While that may be naive, we have to at least try.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:47 AM on August 11, 2004


more interested in lashing out at the Great Satan than they are in the actual welfare of the Iraqi people

They are the Iraqi people - or two of them, at least. Born there, remember?

Why is it that they only deem Iraq worthy of fighting for now?

That might have something to do with the fact that these two are 21 and 23 years old, and this is the first time Iraq has been occupied by a foreign power in their lifetimes.

EVERYONE thought there were WMDs in Iraq on the eve of the War

Forgotten Scott Ritter already? You know, that guy whose job it was to find out what kinds of weaponry Iraq had?
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:50 AM on August 11, 2004


Personally, it's looking more and more like the Arab/Islamic world is so primitive that a war, or military action every few years will be needed--at least until oil isn't what it is today, and medieval cultures aren't being given our dollars. Next action: Iran.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:55 AM on August 11, 2004


Ummm.... yeah. Wow.

Or is it groups of citizens against occupiers and the collaborationist government?

A substantial number of ordinary Iraqis want the violence to be over -- they want the experiment to succeed, and oppose al Sadr and his tactics. If you really believe that al Sadr and his army represent the majority view in Iraq, and the only people on the other side are the "collaborationist government," you've been spending too much time at the Democratic Underground.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:59 AM on August 11, 2004


Really, pardonyou? Some people prefer quiet lives under tyranny? That's shocking. We've never seen that phenomenon before. Just because people would prefer calm under occupiers doesn't mean they like them. (See: France, 1940-1944)
posted by dame at 8:15 AM on August 11, 2004


It seems to me that some of the people fighting for al Sadr aren't directly in line with his "cause," either. If anything, it's a group that's fighting against what they view as a force that's oppressive and ineffective in helping the country move on. Oh yeah, and they're foreign. That's a big piece, too.

Like jaronson, I've seen shades of "The Fog of War" recently. What the people joining al Sadr want, what their needs are, and why they aren't willing to work with the US and its allies -- those are the questions that need to be addressed. It may be as simple as outright prejudice against the "invaders." It's going to be hard to find someone that they'll trust to deal with.

Anyone who suggests bombing their headquarters, killing them all, or somehow leaving these people out of Iraq's new government is missing a piece of the picture. I don't think it's a stretch to think there are at least some reasonable men in al Sadr's group. With a little work, maybe we can convince them the same is true of us.
posted by mikeh at 8:24 AM on August 11, 2004


Also, after reading the Guardian interview, I have to say that these particular guys sound a lot like some people I knew in high school. The knee-jerk patriotism, the quick differentiation from the "real bad guys" (al Qaida), and the lack of a response to the previous regime's ills.

Anyone want to put together a fake blog for these guys? The "whoa, we're rebels" quote about seeing some Americans a few blocks away and how cool it is to sleep wherever you want sound like a good start.
posted by mikeh at 8:33 AM on August 11, 2004


Maybe these loathsome "patriots" have already been killed--one can only hope...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:52 AM on August 11, 2004


I don't think it's prejudice to hate people who invaded your country, killed a bunch of your fellow citizins, and think they deserve to tell you what to do because they have more money and bigger guns. That is, it is not irrational, unfounded, or unreasonable.

Their distrust may frustrate your, possibly good, intentions. It may, in the end, make their life worse. But you went ahead and invaded and fucked everything up. The chaos gives Iraqis a shit impression of democracy, and that democracy is what the invaders are proposing automatically discredits it for most people. At this point the best option may be to hope for an Iran situation—wait for another generation to grow up & build a home-grown movement for democracy that isn't invalidated by the guns of foreigners.
posted by dame at 9:01 AM on August 11, 2004


Yes, we fucked everything up--sure. The Next Generation idea might be correct, but Iraq, today is 10,000 less fucked-up than it was under Saddam. Again, we didn't invade for them, but for us.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:29 AM on August 11, 2004


If you really believe Democracy requires a foreign government to mandate it with soldiers, you're been spending too much time drinking paint.

Germany and Japan are now democracies as a result of occupation, so there's some precedent for believing this that doesn't rely on drinking paint. I'm not trying to imply that the situation in Iraq is directly analogous to postwar Germany or Japan, but it's ridiculous to think that either would have become a democracy on its own.

And this is different from the thousands of Britains who fought the fascists in Spain how? Hemingway was a hero for this kinda lunacy.

I don't think Hemingway took up arms against his fellow countrymen when he fought for the communists. Unless, of course, Hemingway was actually German.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:57 AM on August 11, 2004


It can't be repeated enough: Thank G-d that, in the real world, the consensus Metafilter mentality of pacifism, cowardice and cynicism, is seen for what it is. AGAIN: STAY IN HERE; DON'T VENTURE OUTSIDE!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:15 AM on August 11, 2004


Germany and Japan didn't have civilian uprisings murdering the occupying force at a rate of two corpses a day.

No, but things could certainly have gone differently. If I recall correctly, in Germany at least, we'd so thoroughly crushed the armed forces - which had been enlisting every able-bodied male, including many below the age of 18 - that there simply wasn't the will to resist. German society was so militarized that once the military was thoroughly defeated, there wasn't much left for a resistance. The German government had certainly done some planning for a resistance force. In Japan, we had the advantage of a formal surrender, which kept the Japanese society somewhat intact I think.

And Germany didn't exactly become a Democracy directly as a result of American invasion. I'm no historian, but I vaguely recall some stuff happened for a little bit in between those events.

I think it would be hard to argue that the invasion of Germany wasn't a necessary prior condition for the democracy that developed later. Would you also say that the occupation of East Germany by the Soviet Union had nothing to do with its becoming a communist client state?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:31 AM on August 11, 2004


I'm not trying to imply that the situation in Iraq is directly analogous to postwar Germany or Japan, but it's ridiculous to think that either would have become a democracy on its own.

That is officially the stupidest, most narrowminded, jingoistic, arrogant statement I've ever seen. Have you heard of the Weimar Republic? Yes, Germany backslid into authoritarianism, but France swung between democracy and authoritarianism for a century-and-a-half, and they managed to make it to democracy without American occupation. Spain has done a pretty fucking good job of crawling out from under a repressive dictatorship into a democracy. And they didn't need American guns either.
posted by dame at 10:37 AM on August 11, 2004


Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran
posted by homunculus at 10:46 AM on August 11, 2004


Not so sure about France: have you studied the history of the place in the 20th Century? I mean, women didn't even get the right to vote there until the 1950's. France has NEVER been a bastion of democracy.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:47 AM on August 11, 2004


We were thirty years ahead on women, Paris, and blacks couldn't vote here till after 1965. That's hardly a sign of clear superiority.

Besides, the point isn't whether you prefer France's form of democracy. It is one. That is a fact.
posted by dame at 11:04 AM on August 11, 2004


That is officially the stupidest, most narrowminded, jingoistic, arrogant statement I've ever seen.

You must not read much, then.

Have you heard of the Weimar Republic? Yes, Germany backslid into authoritarianism, but France swung between democracy and authoritarianism for a century-and-a-half, and they managed to make it to democracy without American occupation. Spain has done a pretty fucking good job of crawling out from under a repressive dictatorship into a democracy. And they didn't need American guns either.

Yes, I've heard of the Weimar Republic. On an unrelated note, here's my favorite Weimar Republic link - a rap song in Ogg Vorbis format. As I'm interested in prewar German gay culture as well as the rebuilding of the German armed forces after Versailles, I'm somewhat familiar with Weimar and its downfall. If you want to call the rise of Nazi Germany a simple "backslide into authoritarianism," that strikes me as an absurd reduction.

If I recall correctly, the Weimar Republic was long gone by 1944. For that matter, so was France as an independent power. There's no obvious reason to believe that fascism would have simply collapsed under its own weight in Germany. Your comparison of Franco to Hitler is ludicrous. I wonder how well Spain would have crawled out from under Franco had Germany won the Second World War, leaving Spain surrounded by other fascist governments.

Finally, I'm constantly amazed at the positive effort so many people make online to be impolite. What's the point of it? Can't you just make your argument civilly? I guess this shouldn't surprise me - it's how things have always been - but I just don't get it.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:04 AM on August 11, 2004


I would enjoy seeing such individuals die in the most painful way possible.

You, Uday and Qusay would have gotten along just fine. Some people hope to see enemies defeated, disarmed, discredited and hopefully in the end brought around. You hope to see them die in agony, and say that you would enjoy watching. I'll just repeat your own advice -- please stay, as you would put it "in here", and don't go around claiming to represent Americans. You certainly don't represent any that I'd keep company with.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2004




AGAIN: STAY IN HERE; DON'T VENTURE OUTSIDE!

On the other hand, calling you yellow is an insult to the electromagnetic spectrum.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:33 AM on August 11, 2004


If I recall correctly, the Weimar Republic was long gone by 1944. For that matter, so was France as an independent power.

I know that. But both France and Germany had demonstrated impulses towards democracy before America occupied Germany, therefore it is not unreasonable to imagine that Germany could have become a democracy without being occupied by America. Notice that I'm not saying America had nothing to do with Germany becoming a democracy, only that it is not reasonable to say that Germany only became a democracy because of America.

There's no obvious reason to believe that fascism would have simply collapsed under its own weight in Germany.

Except for the fact that that is exactly what happened. America could have given a shit about fascism as long as it was confined to nation states who refrained from threatening America and its allies. Hitler started World War II and it was his downfall. I would consider that collapsing under its own weight. Franco stuck around because he didn't start wars, especially with the Soviet Union (who had just as much, if not more, to do with the defeat of Hitler). But that lack of Fascist evangelism left the situation you describe--there were no surrounding Fascist states.

I said your statement was stupid (note: not you). That was not a positive effort to be rude. Believe me. The effort would have been to talk in circles so thin-skinned people didn't bitch about civility. I don't do that in real life, and I don't do it here. Sorry.
posted by dame at 11:34 AM on August 11, 2004


That might have something to do with the fact that these two are 21 and 23 years old, and this is the first time Iraq has been occupied by a foreign power in their lifetimes.

So, in other words, they preferred that Iraq remain under Saddam?
posted by Krrrlson at 11:51 AM on August 11, 2004


But both France and Germany had demonstrated impulses towards democracy before America occupied Germany, therefore it is not unreasonable to imagine that Germany could have become a democracy without being occupied by America.

Unlike France, Germany had no significant democratic history prior to the end of WW2, if I recall correctly. The Weimar Republic was a blip in between authoritarian regimes.

America could have given a shit about fascism as long as it was confined to nation states who refrained from threatening America and its allies. Hitler started World War II and it was his downfall. I would consider that collapsing under its own weight.

That strikes me as a bit circular. You're saying that Germany could have become a democracy without American invasion, but then you go on to say that Hitler's provoking that invasion is proof of your theory. I agree that the Soviet Union bears quite a bit of the responsibility for Nazi Germany's defeat, but I don't think that the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany on its own without Lend-Lease or the opening of a second front. And had the Soviet Union defeated Germany on its own, the whole of Germany would have been communist.

Finally, I think the fascism of Nazi Germany was quite different in degree than, say, Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain. The absorption of German society by the fascist state was much more complete, I think, and as a result would have been more resistant to internal change. That's just speculation on my part, I guess, but it seems reasonable.

I said your statement was stupid (note: not you).

That's ok. You don't owe me an apology; I was merely making an observation.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:17 PM on August 11, 2004


If you hate the French so much, then might I suggest you give back the Statue of Liberty.
posted by seanyboy at 12:58 PM on August 11, 2004


At this point, the Statue of Liberty is way more American than it is French; is there a more anti-immigrant/anti-social mobility nation in Europe than France?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:29 PM on August 11, 2004


So, in other words, they preferred that Iraq remain under Saddam?

What does Saddam have to do with it? We don't know what they thought about Saddam. All we know is that they have chosen to give up their comfort and safety in London, move back to their country of origin, and risk their lives helping kick out the foreign occupying army.

How am I supposed to find them at fault? What is wrong with their motives? How can you hate someone for fighting to liberate their country from foreign invaders?

It is particularly ironic that the United States - whose founding myth is all about a bunch of scrappy rebels waging a war of independence against a colonial superpower - is now stuck suppressing a bunch of scrappy rebels who are trying to wage a war of independence against a neocolonial superpower.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:13 PM on August 11, 2004


There's no irony--like that was never expected to happen? These are mutant thugs; would-be Islam-mafiosos. They are barbarians who deserve to die asap.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:17 PM on August 11, 2004


What does Saddam have to do with it? Were we wrong to invade Germany to liberate it? What about Japan? How morally bankrupt of you to say such a thing.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:18 PM on August 11, 2004


It's amazing the hubris some of you assign to the United States; how you, essentially, create a boogy man to compensate for your shortcomings.

It's not our collective fault that the US is more successful than every other country such that you have the impression we influence you unfairly. Or that the US shows none of the classic characteristics of an empire, such that you have to imagine it does.

Perhaps if you (e.g., in Europe) got off your asses, took less vacation, and actually had a self-perpetuating number of babies, we wouldn't be in position, by our mere existence, to threaten you.

Also, take some of that reduced vacation time and check out issues like morality, courage, and individual self-reliance.

Got it?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:27 PM on August 11, 2004


people should just relax. there are hordes of non-white, non-christian, non-rich human beings which will soon trample the memory of people like ParisParamus, and thier phony, self-serving, self-aggrandizement into mere motes of dust. and the world will be a safer place for it.
posted by quonsar at 2:43 PM on August 11, 2004


Only primitive people can't grasp that, sometimes, the invaders are better than the locals. And if they can't grasp that, that's just too bad. We invaded Iraq because it seemed to be a near-imminent danger to ourselves. The locals who can't grasp that Saddam and Osama deserve to die will have to die themselves (or shut up, and get out of the way).
posted by ParisParamus at 2:44 PM on August 11, 2004


The lefty moonbat quote content of this thread is approaching critical mass. Keep it up!
posted by techgnollogic at 2:45 PM on August 11, 2004


I'm a large consumer of VHS cartridges.
posted by angry modem at 2:50 PM on August 11, 2004


After the shit you've said in this thread, ParisParamus, it's a little hard for you to speak of moral bankruptcy.
posted by adampsyche at 2:50 PM on August 11, 2004


there's a horde of yellow and brown people wearing boots with your face on the soles, technodumbshit.
posted by quonsar at 2:51 PM on August 11, 2004


We invaded Iraq because it seemed to be a near-imminent danger to ourselves.

And as it proved that they weren't, well they should just be grateful anyway.

Do you apply the same principle to all aspects of your life, PP? 'I didn't like the way he looked at me, so I shot him. His family should thank me, god only knows what I saved them from.'
posted by biffa at 2:55 PM on August 11, 2004


Yes, more, don't stop now! Crank up the epicycles!
posted by techgnollogic at 2:58 PM on August 11, 2004


I understand now, Paris, you're Chris Morris

Thanks, haven't had such a laugh in ages...
posted by lerrup at 3:09 PM on August 11, 2004


Going back to actual discussion (oh, how civil we look now, m&mm):

I'm saying the war brought down German fascism, not the following occupation. The occupation had something to do with Germany becoming a democracy when it did, but there is no basis for assuming it would not have become one eventually without us, which is what you claimed, and what I find unbearably arrogant.

Look at France's lurchings towards democracy (from Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't be Wrong):

Constitutional Monarchy, 1791-92
First Republic, 1792-1804: First, unstable attempt at democracy
First Empire, 1804-1815: Napoleon as Emperor
Restauration, 1815-1830: Back to monarchy, as imposed by foreign powers
Monarchy of July, 1830-48: Consitutional monarchy
Second Republic, 1848-52: Limited democracy
Second Empire, 1852-70: Featuring Emperor Napoleon III
Third Republic, 1871-1940: Broader, more unstable democracy
Etat Francais, 1940-1944: Callaborationist Vichy government
Provisional Government of the French Republic, 1944-46: DeGaulle works back towards democracy
Fourth Republic, 1946-58: Unstable democracy, ends with threats of military coup
Fifth Republic, since 1959: Back to democracy after DeGaulle pushes through some reforms

They made it in the end, without us occupying them, though they had to work out their own tendencies towards authoritarianism. But they did it, without us, and now are a functioning democracy and one of the predominant nations of the Western world.
posted by dame at 3:19 PM on August 11, 2004


What does Saddam have to do with it?

Here's an idea: rather than copying and pasting my comments above, you can scroll up and read them yourself. Use your eyes this time.

How am I supposed to find them at fault? What is wrong with their motives? How can you hate someone for fighting to liberate their country from foreign invaders?

Who said you should hate them? I only pointed out they are traitors to a country whose citizenship they chose to hold, violent extremists for supporting someone like Sadr, and hypocrites for choosing to "support" their people by inciting more violence when they seemed to not give a shit when their people were suffering under Saddam. Forget motives and try actions. Deeds speak.


people should just relax. there are hordes of non-white, non-christian, non-rich human beings which will soon trample the memory of people like ParisParamus, and thier phony, self-serving, self-aggrandizement into mere motes of dust. and the world will be a safer place for it.

Actually, I doubt they'll be discriminating between someone like Paris and, say, yourself. Sadly, you'll be too dead to scream "no fair!"

technodumbshit.

Thought that one up all by yourself, did ya?
posted by Krrrlson at 3:24 PM on August 11, 2004


I'm saying the war brought down German fascism, not the following occupation. The occupation had something to do with Germany becoming a democracy when it did, but there is no basis for assuming it would not have become one eventually without us, which is what you claimed, and what I find unbearably arrogant.

Conversely, I find it equally arrogant to assume that, all other things being equal, countries will naturally stumble in the direction of democracy. There seem to be plenty of other possible outcomes. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that Germany would have eventually become a democracy on its own, after its leaders had purged everyone in the whole continent who opposed them or who didn't meet their standards.

Further, I don't see how you can separate the war from the occupation - the occupation naturally resulted from the war. I would also argue that the nature of the post-WW2 occupation of Germany provided a strong impetus toward democracy, unlike the post-WWI treatment of Germany, which arguably pushed Germany in the direction of fascism. I think your comparison of Germany and France to be a bit silly - Germany's "tendencies towards authoritarianism" were a bit extreme. Finally, had we not occupied Germany, the Soviets would have.

Look at France's lurchings towards democracy ... They made it in the end, without us occupying them, though they had to work out their own tendencies towards authoritarianism. But they did it, without us, and now are a functioning democracy and one of the predominant nations of the Western world.

Would this have happened if Germany had not been defeated and occupied? I suspect not. As for France being "one of the predominant nations of the Western world," I suspect Germany is far more influential to world affairs in every significant way, today.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:39 PM on August 11, 2004


me & my monkey and dame, Can you move your History-love-fest off the playground? Can't you see a fight is brewin'? ;)
posted by jaronson at 4:28 PM on August 11, 2004


The assumption I labor under is the weirdly optomistic idea that, all other things being equal, if left alone, citizens in the modern nation state will eventually tend towards participatory government coupled with the belief that, given enough rope, authoritarianism sows its own destruction. Why you think faith in humanity's ability to work out a form of government that takes most people's needs into account is arrogant, I don't know. But you still think what we're doing in Iraq is helpful, so you will excuse me if I take your opinion a little unseriously.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that the options in WW2 were occupation or usurious reparations. In fact, it could be argued that the Weimar Republic was the first result of not invading Germany after WW1 and the bad treaty undid that good impulse (further evidence that war has shitty, usually athoritarian repurcussions regardless of what people intend).

If the Soviets had occupied Germany, it would have probably ended up going back to struggling towards democracy, just like a number of former client states. On balance, did the occupation of Germany after WW2 help it become a democracy? Yes. It that the only way it could have happened? I would say no. America is not some great democracy dispensing agent in the world. Some nations become democracies without our help (India, France); some have their democracies dismantled because of us (Chile, Iran); some we do help.

Finally, I'm not debating who is more important, Germany or France. They are both in, say, the top ten nations with far-reaching effect. But the point is one got there without our help. So it is, you know, technically possible.
posted by dame at 5:15 PM on August 11, 2004


Fuck. I meant to fix that mixed metaphor before I posted. I'm a better writer than that. I swear!
posted by dame at 5:17 PM on August 11, 2004


The assumption I labor under is the weirdly optomistic idea that, all other things being equal, if left alone, citizens in the modern nation state will eventually tend towards participatory government coupled with the belief that, given enough rope, authoritarianism sows its own destruction.

Yes, that's optimistic all right, and while I hope you're right in your assumption, the historical record doesn't bear that out so far. I suspect that democracy often requires a bit of a push from outside forces, which might range from foreign occupation to being within the sphere of influence of a powerful democratic state to the need to raise money for military spending - that was the thesis of my military history professor, if I recall correctly.

It takes more than citizens tending toward participatory government to overthrow the yoke of an existing authoritarian state, in most cases so far.

Why you think faith in humanity's ability to work out a form of government that takes most people's needs into account is arrogant, I don't know.

Again, I think the historical record stands against you. Sure, the 20th century has been swell, with the exception of those sporadic outbreaks of fascism and communism, but throughout most of recorded human history, the average person has had little or no say about his government. One could argue the same is true today, although I don't believe that myself.

But you still think what we're doing in Iraq is helpful, so you will excuse me if I take your opinion a little unseriously.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I think invading Iraq, at least as it was done by this administration, was a mistake. I merely pointed out that democratic governments existed in once-occupied states.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that the options in WW2 were occupation or usurious reparations.

No, I don't think usurious reparations were an option in WW2. I think the only real option was unconditional surrender and occupation. I don't think that any option that let Nazi Germany continue to exist would have been viable. I'd be interested in hearing your alternative proposition.

If the Soviets had occupied Germany, it would have probably ended up going back to struggling towards democracy, just like a number of former client states.

Or, more likely in my opinion, the Soviet Union would still exist, and all of western Europe save perhaps Britain would be under its sway. The occupation of West Germany by Allied forces directly prevented this.

On balance, did the occupation of Germany after WW2 help it become a democracy? Yes. It that the only way it could have happened? I would say no.

I honestly think that, given the surrounding circumstances, Western Europe would not be democratic today had we not occupied West Germany. I think it's a mistake to look at historical events in a vacuum.

America is not some great democracy dispensing agent in the world. Some nations become democracies without our help (India, France); some have their democracies dismantled because of us (Chile, Iran); some we do help.

I'm under no illusions about the US government's track record here. However, to deny our direct effect on both Germany and Japan seems foolish to me.

As for France becoming a democracy without our help, I seem to recall we had to liberate France before that happened. If that's not help, I don't know what is.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:58 PM on August 11, 2004


Seems to me that India became democratic because of Great Britain.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:28 PM on August 11, 2004


Dear Paris,

I desire the death of no one. No one. I believe in democracy and due process. If the legal system of a country provides for the death sentence for certain convicted individuals, so be it. That's not my place to debate their system. I'm willing to settle as long as the above are met, for now.

In my opinion, when you cry that someone should be thrown to the wolves, you're admitting that you favor the wolves. That people should have to lock their doors at night and fear what's out there. I'd rather promote a system without fear, where actions have definite consequences, and those consequences aren't just the whims of whoever is in charge, or the guy with a gun.
posted by mikeh at 9:18 PM on August 11, 2004


Only primitive people can't grasp that, sometimes, the invaders are better than the locals. And if they can't grasp that, that's just too bad.

Will all those who invade the US be unquestionably worse than the locals, PP? What if in, a good few years, the might of Islam comes streaming across the continent? Will your great-grand-nephew be sitting typing "hurrah! I'm glad I grasp that these muslims are better than us white trash. I for one welcome our new islamist overlords"

Anyway, to go back on topic: It's not treason. This was established during the Afghanistan conflict, and it's not treason because this isn't a fucking war, hence no war zone. Why do nations never declare war anymore? Because we've made "war" so rulebound that you have to play fair, and they don't like that.
posted by bonaldi at 9:45 PM on August 11, 2004


dame> Why you think faith in humanity's ability to work out a form of government that takes most people's needs into account is arrogant, I don't know.

I agree with you that what we currently have seems to work. All we had to do was lock approximately one in every forty people in a cage and have people patrolling the streets with guns all day and night.
posted by snarfodox at 10:38 PM on August 11, 2004


it's to try and see that they get off on the right foot; one which will not lead to another Saddam. Or Osama, or another Iran.

Who is responsible for Saddam's power? Bin Laden's? The current government in Iran? There is a common thread here, yanno, and it ain't Muslim fundamentalism.
posted by rushmc at 10:42 PM on August 11, 2004


There is a common thread here, yanno, and it ain't Muslim fundamentalism.

Ooo! Ooo! Lemme guess! Is it, 'America=bad'? Or maybe, 'Brown/Muslim=Universally Unaccountability'?

I know who's responsible for Saddam's current level of 'power'.. and Bin Laden's current level of furtive cave-hopping, and it ain't transnational progressivism.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:05 PM on August 11, 2004


I don't really see the wisdom in fighting individually well equipped, combat experienced troops who can rely on heavy vehicle support, artillery coverage and total air superiority... the only way these folks are likely to do any military damage against such an opponent is by strapping on a bomb, looking for a relatively soft target and relying on a bit of luck.

Not having seen the casualty rates for Iraqi insurgents I can't really make an informed comment about who is going to run short of effective numbers of troops first, but approximately seven hundred deaths per year (to use XQUZYPHYR's figure) is roughly the same body count as about five days worth of america's road fatalities. From a personnel perspective I imagine that the current conflict could be sustained indefinitely by the occupying forces.

The only possible issue is the financial impact that the war has on the coalition side, which in turn is likely to change the way that the various defence departments spend their money and organise offensives. If I was an insurgent I wouldn't really be trying to kill the occupying forces, such activities are extremely dangerous and ultimately quite pointless, I'd be trying to make life more expensive for them instead.
posted by snarfodox at 11:23 PM on August 11, 2004


Were we wrong to invade Germany to liberate it? What about Japan? How morally bankrupt of you to say such a thing.

The U.S. invaded Germany not to liberate it but to force its government to surrender. The U.S. never invaded Japan at all, but established an occupation after the surrender to enforce its terms. The Marshall Plan was a great thing, but you seem to be confusing the way the U.S. cleaned up after WWII with its motives for entering the conflict.

You are treading dangerously close to "the ends justify the means" with this line of reasoning. I certainly hope that the reconstruction program works out for Iraq; but even if it somehow becomes a smashing success, that adds nothing to the question of whether it was right to invade in the first place.

by inciting more violence when they seemed to not give a shit when their people were suffering under Saddam. Forget motives and try actions. Deeds speak.

Again, I ask, what does Saddam have to do with it? Are Saddam Hussein and U.S. occupation the only possible options for Iraq? I'd rather see neither - a free Iraq with no U.S. troop presence.

We don't know whether these two gave a shit about their people's suffering under Saddam or not. But let's adopt, for the moment, the assumption you seem to imply that one must hate Saddam Hussein's government more than the U.S. occupation government in order to be a virtuous person. Well, what exactly were they supposed to do about Saddam? However pissed off they may be, what can a couple of teenage expats do against a guy who owns the entire government? But now that there's a war under way, there's an opportunity to do something: they can join in and fight.

For all we know, they'd have travelled to Iraq and joined in an uprising against Saddam, too, had such a thing occured. Hell, for all we know they may have welcomed the U.S. invasion. Perhaps they were jumping with joy at the sight of U.S. tanks rolling into Baghdad, exulting that the dictator was overthrown; and only turned against the U.S. after months went by, chaos remained, and no sign of a pullout materialized. We don't know.

Yes, deeds speak. But all their deeds say is that they want the U.S. out of Iraq, and they want that badly enough to risk their lives for it. I think their strategy is ill-advised, at least, but I certainly can't fault their motives.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:30 PM on August 11, 2004


Anyway, to go back on topic: It's not treason. This was established during the Afghanistan conflict, and it's not treason because this isn't a fucking war, hence no war zone.

Treason is subversive action against one's government.


Are Saddam Hussein and U.S. occupation the only possible options for Iraq? I'd rather see neither - a free Iraq with no U.S. troop presence.

Sounds good to me. Just one question - just how do you envision the transition from Saddam Hussein to free Iraq?

But let's adopt, for the moment, the assumption you seem to imply that one must hate Saddam Hussein's government more than the U.S. occupation government in order to be a virtuous person.

No, my assumption is that they hate the US far more than Saddam, not what a virtuous person should be. And last time I checked, Iraq now has its own government.

Well, what exactly were they supposed to do about Saddam? However pissed off they may be, what can a couple of teenage expats do against a guy who owns the entire government?

As opposed to the entire fucking American war machine? Right, makes sense. No, wait...

Yes, deeds speak. But all their deeds say is that they want the U.S. out of Iraq, and they want that badly enough to risk their lives for it. I think their strategy is ill-advised, at least, but I certainly can't fault their motives.

Here's a copy and paste of my eariler comment: "...traitors to a country whose citizenship they chose to hold, violent extremists for supporting someone like Sadr, and hypocrites for choosing to "support" their people by inciting more violence..."

Now let's do it all over again - you stubbornly restate the same things you've been saying while failing to address anything I've said, and next time I'll ignore you completely. Don't forget to ask what Saddam has to do with it.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:50 PM on August 11, 2004


Again, I ask, what does Saddam have to do with it? Are Saddam Hussein and U.S. occupation the only possible options for Iraq? I'd rather see neither - a free Iraq with no U.S. troop presence.

What does what you'd rather see have to do with it? What was your plan to replace Saddam Hussein with a free Iraq with no U.S. troop presence? Or are we just disappointed with and hypercritical of reality compared to Superfunhappyutopiaworld?

Well, what exactly were they supposed to do about Saddam? However pissed off they may be, what can a couple of teenage expats do against a guy who owns the entire government?

Uh, how about support their own nation? You know, the one that actually went in and helped overthrow Saddam?

But now that there's a war under way, there's an opportunity to do something: they can join in and fight.

Join in and fight the side that overthrew the guy you hated and couldn't do anything about?

But all their deeds say is that they want the U.S. out of Iraq

Well their interview said: "Bush said you are either with us or against us. We had to decide whether to be with him or against him, so we are against him, obviously."

Now consider the fact that what Bush actually said was, "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," and it becomes pretty clear whose side these fellas are on.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:55 PM on August 11, 2004


Krrrlson: So is hitting a policeman treasonous? Or attacking a soldier in the street? What if you do it sneakily enough to be subversive?

You may be right from a philosophical stance, but the High Court ruled otherwise when it came to British Muslims fighting for the Taliban. No declaration of war = no treason, said they.
posted by bonaldi at 7:07 AM on August 12, 2004


Ooo! Ooo! Lemme guess! Is it, 'America=bad'?

Not everyone feels obliged to think in such simplistic terms, techgno, but anyone who would deny America's substantial contribution to each of these cases simply has their head in the sand AND their fingers in their ears and, quite honestly, is too ignorant to listen to seriously.
posted by rushmc at 7:27 AM on August 12, 2004


America's substantial contribution

That's a bullshit excuse. That's a rewording of "America=bad" and "America=responsible for all evil in the world." America crossed a power threshold long ago and today makes a "substantial contribution" to the entire world. America is 'responsible' for the bad guys it supported against the worse guys, and it's 'responsible' for the bad guys it hasn't done anything to stop yet. It's responsible for the humanitarian disasters it didn't cause but hasn't fixed. In the "America's substantial contribution" school of thought, the US is either criminally negligent or maliciously responsible for everything, and the rest of the world are just peace-loving noble savages waiting for the Americans to get their shit together or butt out, and it's all bullshit.

Find me any problem - or make one up - and I'll find you an extremist wingnut or respected ivory tower academic happy to argue it's all due to America's Substantial Contribution.

Stop trying to rob human beings of their free will by blaming everything they do on the United States.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:27 AM on August 12, 2004


Bravo, techgnollogic.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 AM on August 12, 2004


Hey look. It most people of Mefi most of the world's problems are the US' fault, it must be so.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:53 AM on August 12, 2004


Can I just point out that the people of the world might be more impressed if you used the awesome capabilities (which we all acknowledge you possess) to actively do good in the world?

Now - do you want examples of doing good or are they plainly obvious to one and all?
posted by longbaugh at 9:41 AM on August 12, 2004


So is hitting a policeman treasonous? Or attacking a soldier in the street? What if you do it sneakily enough to be subversive?

It is if you ally yourself with an entity working specifically against your government.


You may be right from a philosophical stance, but the High Court ruled otherwise when it came to British Muslims fighting for the Taliban. No declaration of war = no treason, said they.

Really? Sucks for Britain. I guess they haven't learned that terrorism never declares war either. Hey, if you've got a link, toss it this way -- I can only find the "British Muslims threatened with treason charges" articles from a couple years back, nothing on the actual court rulings.


Now - do you want examples of doing good or are they plainly obvious to one and all?

Better yet, why don't you give us an example of other governments doing "good."
posted by Krrrlson at 9:54 AM on August 12, 2004


Oh bravo Krrrlson! The old "if they don't do it why should I" approach? That was impressive.

Perhaps seeing as the US is the sole superpower remaining on this earth it demonstrates to the rest of us what we should be doing hmm?
posted by longbaugh at 10:08 AM on August 12, 2004


Can I just point out that the people of the world might be more impressed if you used the awesome capabilities (which we all acknowledge you possess) to actively do good in the world?

Are you being facetious?

I wonder what the world would look like if the US actually halted all humanitarian efforts for a year or two. People would be able to see the difference, but hundreds of thousands of human beings would probably die... I think we'll just have to cope with the whining.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:11 AM on August 12, 2004


No, I am not being facetious techgnollogic. What I am doing is stating something which you have not refuted. Nicely done - feel proud of yourself for not answering? Perhaps a position somewhere in politics would suit you? Noting that the US likes to give the occasional bit of money to people "purely out of the good of it's heart" is an incredibly poor way to avoiding answering my point. There are very few nations that do not give money to humanitarian efforts.

The Netherlands donated $3.3 billion dollars in economic aid in 2002 compared to the $7.5 billion dollars donated by the US. Care to compare GDPs?

Oh, and while you being smug about how generous you are don't forget that giving away $7.5 billion is pretty bad when you owe the rest of the world nearly $1.5 trillion.

Carry on though. It's fun watching you being mean and wrong.
posted by longbaugh at 10:54 AM on August 12, 2004


Being the largest humanitarian donor on earth just isn't good enough, is it?

How does the United States owe the rest of the world $1.5 trillion?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:04 AM on August 12, 2004


Techg: this is the wrong place to ask that question: don't waste the keystokes: you're preaching to the pathologically....self-hating.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:08 AM on August 12, 2004


I really am going to have to spell it out for you aren't I? Perhaps Paris is right - my self-hate has gotten in the way of my explanation - here let me make it better for you -
(example case)
Netherlands gives $3.3 billion in aid.
USA gives $7.5 billion in aid.
Netherlands GDP $460 billion.
USA GDP $11 trillion.

Now do you want me to go on? Does this make sense to you? Seriously? 'Cos I can send you it on a bit of paper with different highlighter pens to colour it in for you if it isn't getting through.

The USA owes approximately $1.5 trillion at the moment - most of this is in dollars owned by people around the world. Asian banks purchased about $500 billion in 2003 alone due to the dollar fluctuation. According to most recent reports (Jan '04) the four top Asian banks own this much alone - which means the figures may be higher at this time.

And Paris - it's not about self-hate. It's about loving and caring for everyone. It's about giving to people who need because one day you might be in their shoes. If you don't understand that then I hope for your sake that should you ever be down on your luck some nice person like me will give you their last few dollars so you can have a hot meal.
posted by longbaugh at 3:41 PM on August 12, 2004


What part of "being the largest humanitarian donor on earth just isn't good enough, is it?" didn't you understand?

Your foreign debt point is utter garbage. Like saying a person who has a mortgage to pay should give more to charity because they owe so much? Makes no sense. We do not owe "the world" that money, regardless. If the US is so deep in debt, maybe you should be giving us your last few dollars, hmm?

You talk a lot about giving and loving and charity to be demanding tithe from a foreign nation.
posted by techgnollogic at 4:52 PM on August 12, 2004


Perhaps seeing as the US is the sole superpower remaining on this earth it demonstrates to the rest of us what we should be doing hmm?

But it should by no means be immune to the double standard you and so many others subject it to every day? Bravo indeed.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:21 PM on August 12, 2004






My god techgnollogic - you really don't get it do you? Would you prefer it like this -
I have a wallet with $500 and you have a wallet with $11,000. We see some guys who need money - I give them $3.30 and you give away $7.50. Now you have given more money than I have in real terms ($7.50 > $3.30) but compared to the amount of money you started with you have given away virtually nothing.
If you still don't get it after that then you must be being wilfully obtuse because that really is dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator.

As far as your national debt is concerned - the only reason your economy is afloat is because foreign countries buy the dollar. You are not an economist are you? And exactly how did you tie in the national debt to the amount you should give away in economic aid? I didn't say that in my comment. Perhaps you should learn how to present an argument first before replying next time as you have singularly failed to grasp the fundamentals of replying to the damn question which is so obviously a part of the process.

Krrrlson - I don't hold any country to a double standard - I expect all nations to do their level best. What I object to is people who refuse to render appropriate assistance or act in a reasonable fashion simply because nobody else does. I mean, wow, that might be something the Christ would do...
posted by longbaugh at 12:30 AM on August 13, 2004


longbaugh: your point about the Us owing $1.5 trillion is rubbish.

techgnollogic: What part of "being the largest humanitarian donor on earth just isn't good enough, is it?" didn't you understand?

This is a very recent title, the US only took it from Japan in 2001, largely as a result of the extra aid that went out as part of the War on Terrorism and a fall in the yen against the dollar. The US gave 0.14% of its GDP in ODA in 2003, against a commitment of 0.7% made by 22 OECD nations to the UN. Only 5 of these counties have so far met their commitment. The US remains 22nd of these 22 countries in terms of per capita giving.

Also: 'Britons who take up arms for cleric face life in jail, government warns'
posted by biffa at 2:56 AM on August 13, 2004


I understand your stupid relativistic point, longbaugh, sir. You're still telling the guy who gives away the most money - twice as much as you - that he's giving away "virtually nothing."

I doubt you'd care to calculate what the rich guy's huge economy contributes to the welfare of the world through technological innovation he shares with the world, or what the world would do without the rich guy's expensive Navy securing shipping lanes around the globe. I'm sure keeping Western Europe at peace and out of the Soviets' reach for half a century wasn't really worth anything either.

Begging, complaining, whining, and following suit you.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:12 AM on August 13, 2004


How is giving away a lower percentage of your GDP than other nations generous?

Do you ever back up your fictititous fantasy statements with links techgnollogic or is it always empty rhetoric backed by an ego which clearly is so far ahead of your ability to back it up you must resort to personal insults to make a point?

I take it back - perhaps not politics, maybe talk radio would suit you better.

Try evidence next time instead of bombast.
posted by longbaugh at 11:48 PM on August 13, 2004


« Older   |   winamp 5.04 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments