Sick of Anti-American attitudes here!

We couldn't have known any of that. It did not feature in anyone's calculations. No-one can claim credit for accidentally consequences of their actions. The real reason we did it was almost certainly for our prime minister to deflect attention form her catastrophic fall in popularity by assuming the mantle of "war leader" and stimulating all those patriotic feelings, with her at our head. It worked superbly. Before it she was in dire straits with no hope of a further term. After it she went on to win, and never looked back.

And that's exactly why we can't afford to be simplistic in applying moralisms to international affairs. Because it's not all about what happened in the UK, even if we happen to be from the UK. It's also about what happened in Argentina - in fact, what happened in Argentina as a result of the war is, in some ways, more significant than prolonging Thatcherism in Great Britain.

Of course we cannot know the future. Nor can we know much about the present. Only the past is under our control, in terms of how we judge it, and what wisdom we can distill from it. Perspective and balance are key. We have every right to balance the UK side of the equation with the Argentinian side. In fact, it's usually all we can give back to the dead in these sorts of situations.

I'm not a pacifist, Garoad. Invade my country and I'll fight with every breath in my body. I believe in maintaining strong defence forces to deter. I do not approve of young men who volunteered to defend their country being instead ordered off across the world to kill people, and die themselves, simply to recover the political fortunes of some person, or party, as in the case of Maggie Thatcher and the Falklands.

It was a tiny little island with a few thousand settlers who were put there to grab huge chunks of sea, a bit of antarctica, and some possible oil, for a nation so far away it was totally the other side of the world. And which that nation had lost interest in, and just withdrawn the last remnant of its naval protection from, just a few months before. Clear signal - we no longer want it - you can have it. Surely Maggie didn't plan the strategy for her "rebirth through victory" even that far ahead ? I ought to research it.

I think it was calculated afterwards that every single falklands inhabitant could have been resettled in Britain with several million pounds, and it would still have been cheaper for the taxpayer than what happened.

But Oh that warm swelling in the chest! Exactly the same seductive feeling every Nazi felt when he heard Hitler speak, or learned of the invasion of Austria, or watched the SS march by. And probably most ordinary decent Germans joined in. Except maybe just a few, who heard that quiet, cold voice too.

At the beginning of every one of the worlds horrific, murderous wars, there was that same lovely feeling, ready to kick it all into motion. When we let that feeling possess us, enthuse us, blind our critical faculties - that is the moment we actually kill the tens of thousands, maybe the ten thousand innocents even, women and children. If we let that moment, that feeling, sneak past us, then we are in our government's power, and there is no way back. No way back from any killing they feel might be somehow in their interest.

After that its all just the turning of the wheels. Only very early on is it not too late for us to hesitate, and say NO. "That is not what our boys lives are for."

You puzzle me. Not even George Bush goes around saying - "lets go kill some people. You never know, some unforeseen good might accidentally come of it, which we can afterwards point to as justification." Thats weird !

I don't think Seth was advocating a policy of sending troops out for random clusterfucks, and hoping that the long-term consequences are good. I think his point is that we sometimes view an action as amoral when, in reality, the positive consequences far outweigh any moralistic concerns. It's not terribly weird. It's the kind of calculus of death which is constantly being done after the fact, and which is really necessary to make wise decisions. If we only consider the immediate consequences and never consider the distant ramifications, then we're not really looking at the whole picture. Your initial glimpse of things might reveal a couple of dabs of bloody paint, but pulling back reveals A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte.

Interestingly, I was discussing this very concept of "what might really be the motivation behind the US picking up the 'tar-baby' of Iraq?" last night with a friend.

I wound up resorting to a Woodward/Bernstein "follow the money" approach. This has undoubtably been a windfall for Haliburton, et al., has provided a national distraction by an administration notably fond of such, and also appeals to Bush Jr.'s fundamentalist and apocolyptic personal sentiments and perhaps those of his strongest base of support. It also works toward the Bush familiy's and (foreign and domestc) friends' interests in oil.

What provided the striking contrast was Bush Sr.'s "Desert Storm" which although could be called a blood-for-oil move, differed in some highly significant ways. Bush, Sr. did a couple of things that Jr. didn't: he had global support for his action, he didn't lie to the Congress to initiate it, he started a conflict and brought it to a very definite conclusion. It is my belief that Sr. is a far broader thinker than his son, is considerably more moral than his offspring, is more of a statesman than Jr. can ever hope to be, and does not (openly) fear that things like a unified European currency are harbingers of the apocolype or that Islam is at war with his God.

"Oceania" will likely be at war with "Eastasia" at least until 2008.

P.S. For those prone to take undue offense at lterary allusions, I could not think of a better metaphor for "a thing which once picked up is impossible to put down" than the one I used above.

I suspect you know that was not my meaning. But I also understand now that you are emotionally invested in this topic, and may not want to listen to other POV's.

Actually, I can understand and sympathize with that - and this is by no means a condescending flame. IMO, it's often far better to react to something with intensity and moral aversion that not to react at all.

There were very serious problems with Thatcherism - although I will always have a (very small) soft spot for Thatcher for convincing the Americans to deal with Gorbachev. Likewise, it's very difficult for me to see the current Bush administration as anything more than a inane but monsterous perversion - although no doubt some (probably accidental) good will come of some American policies that we cannot recognize right now; earlier Ardith and I were arguing about the possibility that that might happen with Iraq.

I suppose mine is a "roses from the mud" argument; I've seen too much "evil" emerge from good intentions, and too many positive results follow cluster-fucked solutions to embrace black-and-white-isms anymore. To account for these sorts of things and remain intellectually honest, you have to take the "long" or "global" view, as Ardith commented.

By the time we reach adulthood, how many times have we heard someone say that the United States is the greatest nation on Earth? How many times have we heard it suggested that we're the pinnacle of justice, honor, integrity, and freedom? We spin our history and our accomplishments so loudly and so often that I can only begin to imagine how offensive, arrogant, and downright cultish it must sound to everyone else... the way it now sounds to me since I don't buy in to the bullshit anymore.

As long as we keep encouraging and propogating all the USA #1 crap we deserve to have the rest of the world try and humble us. If we spent even half the effort trying to teach our children to have humility as we do trying to convince them that they have some kind of birhtright of superiority maybe we wouldn't end up hearing as much anti-American sentiment as we do. Until then, we deserve to hear it.

I don't actually think you one, but that did sound like a pacifistic argument, because it can be used to pretty much say that there's no such thing as a war worth fighting. That same (patriotic) feeling also existed during WWII. There are times where inaction is more dangerous than taking a risky action, that's all.

You miss the point. You are missing the goals, the ideas, the philosophies. The freedoms. Freedom. Equality.

Doesn't have a THING to do with "birthright of superiority" or anything like that. It has to do with what people aim FOR, and that they dare to aim for it. Fight and die to aim for it. And not just us, but people in other countries around the world.

coco

Hang on! I think I know this one! "It" is oil, right?

As an American living in Canada, I am well aware of anti american sentiments, but I've never wondered why as I also know how much we fail on all of these counts that Chance lists in her post. The American people need to get a government and a court system that actually represents them. This will not be possible without election and campaign reform. When it is possible for the wrong person (unelected popularly and votes miscounted so that the electoral college is misinformed before they vote) to become president AND the supreme court of our land to actively prevent the rightful president from taking the post, then the citizens of the US have every reason to be outraged. We pay these people. They are our employees. YET they said that our most sacred privilege, the right to vote, means nothing next to the matter of scheduling press conferences and inaugural balls on time.

Thank you Chance for the post quoted below. I hope that we some day can succeed on these counts where presently we fail.

I think Americans are more capable, ambitious, and competitive than you give us credit for Juro. For every slacker out there there's an overachiever, for every public school a private one, etc. There's just ALOT of variety here, even variety in types of slackers. lol But over the years this has only made the US stronger. Right now we have alot of immigrants coming from Latin countries, but they're doing the jobs that the rest of us DON'T want. That helps the economy because otherwise the retail and manual labor jobs would have trouble hiring otherwise, right? (Well, I think.) They're filling the same kind of gaps that the Irish filled, and that immigrants before them filled. Crap nobody wants to do, right?

And actually I don't think public schools are neccesarily that bad, school is what you make of it. How is it that Asian and Indian immigrants can come over here and overachieve past everyone? It's not because the school is giving them more attention. I think it's more due to a real NEED and desire to succeed in a big way--usually they aren't just coming here for themselves, they're doing it for a family.

I went to an average public school, then went on to college--I did feel I had to do a little "catching up" initially. But it was my own fault for being a slacker in high school.

No idea what the ratio is, but we aren't without our brilliant minds. I mean, it was Al Gore who invented the internet recently, not Jacques Chirac or Junichiro Koizumi (who I think is very cool/unusual looking... neat name too!).

We're also still a VERY popular place for overachieving immigrants to come to, alot of which settle down here and basically make us stronger.

I admit the gap is narrowing with the rest of the world, but it's inevitable as more and more competition appears...I'm not sure it's just a decay of American ability. The rest of the world is starting to get their act together. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I don't think it's going to put us into the poor house. I read somewhere that, although we outsource alot of stuff now, and alot of stuff seems to be going overseas, we actually INSOURCE more than we outsource. We're not insourcing manufacturing jobs, or phone support stuff, we're supposedly getting high techonology type stuff. Things that can't be done easily elsewhere, or that we can still just do better or more efficiently. Of course, my memory can't recall any examples of what I had read... I also recall reading that the US work force's "productivity" (might be the wrong word) is at the top. I guess that means, you get more bang for your buck here?

Maybe you're seeing life in the cities as opposed to what I'm thinking about, and seeing different trends than I.

Also... to complete my mini-novel here... I'll also make this observation: If the entertainment industry is largely responsible for the lack of interest in intellectual stuff in the US (I do think it's somewhat to blame), eventually, those as other nations start to become more and more affluent and able to afford more--guess what? They're screwed too!!! They'll be the watching CSI and X-Files, and then we'll all be equally lazy!

You aren't one of those people who moved to Canada "because Bush won" are you?

I pity anyone who thinks that list is everything there is to know about America. Because we never help anyone, ever!

Neil Postman wrote a book back in 1986 titled Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. It was, for me, a world altering book. Here is the Foreward of it which has never failed to concern anyone I have ever read it to and as the years go by I find it increasingly applicable and scary:The rest of the book consists of well written, extremely incisive, and extraordinarily researched support for this claim.

The thing is this: It isn't necessary to dwell on the shortcomings of any people, really. You take any country in the world, and it, too, is full of wonderful caring people. There is absolutely zero reason to expect or try to inculcate a mea culpa attitude on the part of ANYBODY.

I'm not into self-flagellation. And I don't think other countries should be, either.

coco

That book sounds absolutely fascinating! I'll have to pick it up.

ROFL! I found the discussion about boiled sweets much more interesting.

This is total bull coco.

If you knew how offensive it was, you probly wouldnt say it, but that is exactly what Chip was referring to.

So the US is the first country to praise freedom or equality? The only place they "do it best"???

I mean you throw in the bone at the end about "other countries" but it seems clear to me that you think that America is great because it does better at those things than other countries???

You are wrong, and that kind of smug superiority is exactly what pisses people in other countries off about Americans.

We do make bitching chilli, though.

Coco as a fellow american I am curious what we aim and fight for exactly?

Civil war, WWI, WWII, more or less nobel wars.

Vietnam was faught mainly to stop comunism and not to actually help South Vietnam

Persian Gulf had nobel goals (at least this is what is taught in history class) but we walked out at the last second and let everything fall to s**t

The current war makes NO sence, we are attacking Irac because we are mad at Alkida? Even though no link could be made between the two, no WMD were ever found, and most of the world wanted us to find a more civil course of action

Now there have been several affermed GENOCIDES which have happened (and are still happening) in Africa, and America merely says it needs to stop and takes no action.

Not to mention all of the democracies shattered and tyrents put in place just to serve america's intrests better (Saddam Hussein)

I mean I love america and its people, but this "were so nobel" crap needs to stop.

Note: this post means no disrespect to those who fought in these wars, I have the deepest respect for all of Americas armed forces. However, I do not respect many of the administrations America has had over the years.

A bone? You get to decide which sentences of mine are bones?
Diane, you don't get to decide which of my sentences are "bones." And you don't get to decide I said I "think America is great because it does better at those things than other countries." You said that, not me. Is that because that is what you think?

"If I knew how offensive it was" - oh poor me, that I just don't REALIZE how offended you are by whatever sentiments I expressed above. I'm just so much more stupid than you are, right? So unlightened . . . compared to . . . YOU. Well, guess what. It wasn't offensive. If only YOU knew that it WASN'T offensive, maybe a person could talk to you. Obviously it doesn't take much at all to piss you off.

Yes, America is great. No, it doesn't do everything better than any other country. But that's what I meant. Too many people on these forums seem to be outdoing each other to find the most dismal, dreary, pessimistic and cynical outlook on things that they can.

America is great, and it was seminal in instituting modern democracies and freedoms. (Though I'm not good at history.) Let's say you have 40 girls in a beauty contest. Is it really necessary to find the flaws in one of them? Ditto countries. With such an outlook as many express here, I don't think they would make very good world travelers.

And I'll tell ya what else - all the anti-Americanism I've heard expressed here by people not living in this country is not at ALL what I am used to hearing from the people who have visited us - my family - from places as diverse as France, Japan, and Iran. Not at all. And they have shared their cultures with us and invited us to visit them there (I haven't been able to afford to, but others in my family have).

That to me is a true cosmopolitan outlook. This business of trashing somebody else's country is pretty poor form, if you ask me. Trashing its citizens is another good way to make sure nobody invites you to visit there. And this business of people trashing their OWN country by talking about how stupid we are or whatever - I tell ya, it doesn't make me think worse of the country, it makes me think worse of the person.

If I have someone visiting me from France, I expect to hear pride in their country when they speak of it, and to be told of the beautiful places they have there, and see pictures and be brought lovely things from that country as mementos. That's how I'm used to it.

This business on these forums of kick the American - it is not how the world travelers I have known have EVER EVER acted. This isn't to say they may or may not disagree with whatever administration is in place at the time, or this or that foreign policy, and are perfectly willing to say so. But they have NEVER trashed the country itself, the people of our country, or their own, or any other country.

Such would be unthinkable and how well it should be. Cause like I said earlier, most people are good, and wonderful, and caring, and kind, and countries are great, and their cultures are great. And that includes Americans, by damn. How would you like it if I trashed your country and your people? And like I said earlier, if you decided to do that yourself, I wouldn't think less of your country; I'd figure there was just something wrong with you.

coco

Thanks for the catch.

Thats basicly what I mean, but even if the govenment decided to police the world and run around stoping every genocide or oppression, I could respect and support the decision (even if I didn't entirly like or agree with it).

I simply don't like it when we claim all these nobel reasons for war when it all boils down to money.

P.S. I would rather have the soldiers home protecting are boarders as well

Glad to see that the teaching of civics: the origins of the moral philosophy underpinning American ideals (French and British, primarily) and the necessity of self-critique to the preservation of a democratic republic is alive and well in our fair nation.