Why there will never be a US of E[urope]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Just because some countries are willing and/or able to overthrow the regime of other countries, it doesn't follow that non-participating countries take terrorism any less seriously.

We can tell the British took terrorism seriously by the way they terrorized the Irish Catholic population in Northern Ireland for 40 years. (Actually, more like 400 years.)

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

We can tell the British took terrorism seriously by the way they terrorized the Irish Catholic population in Northern Ireland for 40 years. (Actually, more like 400 years.)

I think Elizabeth I or Cromwell would have simply said they were protecting British strategic interests, and without the subjucation of Ireland the history of Britain would have been very different. They had scare stories ( some based in fact ) of international conspiricies to destroy Britain. I'm not trying to justify what they did, its just that I'm struck by some similarities.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I happen to find it a bit condescending and overly preachy when somebody is trying to say that we should get a grip, and we could in fact learn a lot from them, because of the 78 people in their country who have been killed by terrorists in the last 30 years. [ July 14, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

I guess it was a bit condescending. I think other countries get the impression that the US think they're the first to ever have terrorists attack them. If that impression is false then I apologise.

[Jason Menard]

Its just as condescending to talk about who has suffered more don't you think?
Yep, which is why I have not made any such statements.
Additionally the notion that the US government has a moral right to act more aggressively (at home and abroad) because 2800 people died in one attack, (and the holier_than_thou attitude I sometimes see associated with it) is also highly misplaced IMO.
Actually the toll from 9/11 was around 3030 killed, 2337 injured. We're not in the habit of ignoring attacks against us or pretending that if we ignore those responsible or appease them, maybe the problem will go away. Acting more aggressively at home and abroad is the smart thing to do, as the alternatives are appeasement or maintain the status quo, neither of which would make any sense, and neither of which has worked very well for other countries.
When one looks at US (and worldwide) stats for death, terrorism hardly registers yet the budgetary and political response in the US has been massively disproportionate. If the role of government is to protect its people by decreasing their chances of unnatural death and helping them live freely and prosperously then a large part of US military and homeland security budgets could have been much better spent on home improvements.
Yes, we can divert all our money from national defense and homeland security and become this great big socialist's paradise. :roll: The goal of the US government is, among other things, to protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is precisely what we are doing. A strong argument could be made that Islamic fundamentalism is one of the greatest threats our planet is facing. While others in the West and around the world may be content to shirk their responsibilities and just let it fester until it's too late, that doesn't seem to be the course that the US is taking.
I know this sounds insensitive but after the loss of life, its the public and political reactions to terrorism that cause the most damage (a goal of terrorism).
Again, you seem to be advocating we ignore the problem, when the smart thing is to act decisively.
An insensitive, speculative and irresponsible media plays its part too because it fuels the public's fear of statistically improbable acts of terror and sidelines issues more dangerous to public safety.
If you are under the impression that we are walking around everyday just waiting and fearing the next terrorist attack, you would be mistaken. That being said, the media does feed the public's oddly increased interest in the topic.
When some people imply "get a grip" maybe they're just saying "take a step back and put it into perspective for the sake of everyone" hard as that must be afer 9/11.
More likely it is a misunderstanding on their part about how we are reacting to a threat, how we are perceiving that threat, and how cultural and national differences mean that we are not going to necessarily act in the same manner in which another nation might.
Just because some countries are willing and/or able to overthrow the regime of other countries, it doesn't follow that non-participating countries take terrorism any less seriously.
When some of these nations are a large source of support for radical islamic groups, it would seem to cast some doubt on their seriousness. At the very least, some may simply believe that appeasement is more in their best interests.

[Frank Silbermann]

John Dunn: "So you're saying passing gun contol laws intended to prevent such a woman (from shooting (a man trying to rape her) is not much different than holding her down during rape." -- I was comparing it to holding her arms to prevent her from harming the rapist while he raped her. (I am assuming that such an act implies no more approval of rape than do anti-selfDefense gun laws.)
In the first you are ACTIVELY engaging in a rape. The second you are passing a law to passively make it difficult to fight back. -- The main difference is whether your efforts to prevent her from fighting back are done during the rape itself, or beforehand. It's a difference, but not one that carries any moral significance that i can see.
Which legislature is specifically citing that they'd like to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists by increasing gun-control?? -- When opponents criticized Canadian justice minister Allan Rock's gun control schemes as being likely to hinder self-defense, he said something like, "I will _not_ allow policy to be driven by the moment of survival!" (I know, it makes no sense to me, either, but I believe Rock was indicating a contempt for self-defense as a policy consideration. My suspicion is bolstered by the fact that Canadian law denies a woman a right to buy a gun for self-defense, but allows her to buy one to shoot targets _provided_ she stores it in such a way to make it useless for self-defense.)
On British newspaper websites they (approvingly, I believe) quoted pundits saying "owning guns for self-defense is subversive, in that it suggests that one cannot trust the state whose duty it is to protect you." Such a view implies that when a woman prepares a defense against rape she is slandering the state. (Oddly enough, nobody points out that the firearms safe-storage laws constitute an _admission_ that police cannot keep evil-doers out of your home.)
No, Europe and Canada do not specifically mention wanting to prevent women from resisting rapists -- that is merely a special case of the prevention of self-defense in general. That they also oppose self-defense against other kinds of violent crimes, and self-defense by men, only compounds the evil of such a policy.
In fairness, I checked the web and did find sites that had studies that said rape went to completion less if a women had a gun or weapon. I am still skeptical of these studies, b/c from what I can tell these sites were mainly pro-gun sites. -- The statistics were developed by the Justice Department and by academic criminologists. The reason you only read them on pro-gun websites is that anti-gun media (the vast majority) consider it irresponsible to publicize such information, as it would interfere with the promotion of gun control.
If ability to use the gun properly were the issue, then governments would simply set an objective training standard for private citizens to carry firearms in self-defense legally. The Canadian government, for example, recognizes _no_ level of training that would allow a private citizen to arm herself. They ban it not on pragmatic grounds but for philosophical reasons. They think it is somehow "more civilized" if armed self-defense is limited to specific employees of the government.
If you are not totally trained and willing to use a gun, you should not have it. -- I would say that if you are not reasonably trained (and the standard for police, military, and private guards is much easier than you imagine) or are unwilling to use it, then your odds may be better without it. But that's a decision for the individual to make -- her life is hers and is not the property of the government.
Btw, what the heck does this have to do with a united Europe?? -- I think it started with my explanation of why many Americans are strongly opposed to giving up any more of _our_ sovereignty to the U.N. -- or to any other international associations with Europeans or Commonwealth countries.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
We can tell the British took terrorism seriously by the way they terrorized the Irish Catholic population in Northern Ireland for 40 years. (Actually, more like 400 years.)
While your at it lets not forget atrocities committed against civillians in South Africa, India, Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Kenya (where I think we invented concentration camps) and Malaya.

[Frank Silbermann]

Thomas Paul: We can tell the British took terrorism seriously by the way they terrorized the Irish Catholic population in Northern Ireland for 40 years. (Actually, more like 400 years.)
Richard Hawkes: While your at it lets not forget atrocities committed against civillians in South Africa, India, Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Kenya (where I think we invented concentration camps) and Malaya.
Fortunately, life became ever so much better for those people when the British were finally driven out. That's why to this day the descendents of these peoples refuse to even think of travelling to Great Britain -- lest they once again find themselves subject to the cruel British laws and savage administrators.

[John Dunn]

That's why to this day the descendents of these peoples refuse to even think of travelling to Great Britain -- lest they once again find themselves subject to the cruel British laws and savage administrators.
This is just completely false. What exactly are you basing you assumption on here and where did you get your information?
Btw, without the foundation of British Law the U.S. never would have lasted. :roll:

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
[his is just completely false. What exactly are you basing you assumption on here and where did you get your information?

I may be mistaken, but I think that was sarcasm on Frank's part.

[Richard Hawkes]

Hi,
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yes, we can divert all our money from national defence and homeland security and become this great big socialist's paradise. :roll: Good one! Who said anything about diverting all the money? And what has socialism got to do with it? Its because I'm English right?
The goal of the US government is, among other things, to protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is precisely what we are doing. Yes, but disproportionably it seems to the actual risks facing Americans everyday, that was my point.
A strong argument could be made that Islamic fundamentalism is one of the greatest threats our planet is facing. I seriously doubt that. The Western world is more likely to collapse through economic failure and energy shortages (of its own doing) than by being destroyed by fanatics.
While others in the West and around the world may be content to shirk their responsibilities and just let it fester until it's too late, that doesn't seem to be the course that the US is taking. Not invading a country is hardly shirking responsibility. I can't believe that you really think nobody was doing anything about terrorism until the 9/11? The whole "Ah, finally, somebody's doing something about terrorism" attitude is just crazy.
Again, you seem to be advocating we ignore the problem... No I'm not. Which country ignores acts of terror on its own soil? Invasion or appeasement seem to be the only options to you.
If you are under the impression that we are walking around everyday just waiting and fearing the next terrorist attack, you would be mistaken. I don't believe Americans are walking around in a paranoid stupor, probably the opposite. You tell me.
More likely it is a misunderstanding on their part about how we are reacting to a threat, how we are perceiving that threat, and how cultural and national differences mean that we are not going to necessarily act in the same manner in which another nation might. I don't think there is any misunderstanding about the US administration's actions, as its quite explicit. Still, in terms of creating a safer America/West the focus of military efforts is wide off the mark IMO.
When some of these nations are a large source of support for radical Islamic groups, it would seem to cast some doubt on their seriousness. At the very least, some may simply believe that appeasement is more in their best interests. I don't think that France, Germany or Russia take the threat of terrorism less seriously just because they didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Some simply believe not invading would have been better for the civilian population. Those are just differences of opinion on the merits of forced regime change, nothing to do with hoping terrorism will just go away.

[Mapraputa Is]

Salam wrote interesting observations on differences in American and British occupation zones.

[R K Singh]

Frank Silbermann:
Fortunately, life became ever so much better for those people when the British were finally driven out. That's why to this day the descendents of these peoples refuse to even think of travelling to Great Britain -- lest they once again find themselves subject to the cruel British laws and savage administrators.
Jason Menard:
I may be mistaken, but I think that was sarcasm on Frank's part.
At least this is not sarcasm.
Fortunately, life became ever so much better for those people when the British were finally driven out.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
interesting observations on differences in American and British occupation zones.
Interesting. Maybe the populations of each city have different mindsets, maybe even the scale of the operations effects the outcome, not just the style of occupation. Who knows. Besides, there are always other problems:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,998448,00.html

Visitors from Baghdad are surprised that power and water supplies appear worse in Basra and the mounds of uncollected rubbish are higher. If sabotage is the reason, they wonder why security is not stepped up.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[qb]interesting observations on differences in American and British occupation zones.
Who knows. Besides, there are always other problems:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,998448,00.html
[/QB]

If I am not wrong these two pages have no relation.
First page is describing the way brit and US forces are working in Iraq
And second describes the post-war problem of inhabitants of Basra.
OR as usual I might have misinterpreted whole thing.
[ July 16, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
If I am not wrong these two pages have no relation.
Bagdhad is more of a shooting gallery but other improvements are happening quicker than in Basra maybe. Its a long-shot to correlate this to different troop strategies when there are so many factors invloved but noteworthy I thought, that's all...

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Salam wrote interesting observations on differences in American and British occupation zones.

One important thing about Basra is it is domimated by Shi'ite who are against Saddam, but on the other hand Bagdad has much more Sunni and to it is near Saddams strong hold.
So it is not correct to compare the situation in those two cities.

[Jim Yingst]

So it is not correct to compare the situation in those two cities.
Or: comparing them is fine and may be educational, but don't assume that difference are only due to differences in US and British policies.

[Mapraputa Is]

Or: comparing them is fine and may be educational, but don't assume that difference are only due to differences in US and British policies.
Agree 100%. In general, to assume anything about another country is dangerous. That's why I enjoy these "insider's" observations so much, without trying to make any "conclusion". Here is another good entry, by the same author, fresh, July 15.

[John Dunn]

Map: I know I exceeded my quota for quotes long ago (and yes, pun intended ), but this article is different!
ad�dic�tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-dkshn)
n.
1. Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.
2. The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
An instance of this: had an addiction for quoting quotes.
[ July 16, 2003: Message edited by: John Dunn ]

[Mapraputa Is]

John, I posted this in another thread.
You need to check "ADD" entry.

[John Dunn]

I posted this in another thread
it precisely ADDs to my point...

[Mapraputa Is]