I am not my leaders. I am not my elected officials. I am not my parents. I am not my neighbour. I am my own person.
There’s been much debate on the site recently about the concept of personal responsibility for others thoughts, actions and policies. That conversation has been based on the deep despair so many feel about their leaders and their countries decisions related to the Iraq war. Some have asked for solutions and that has been a difficult request to respond to. However, as most of the best solutions are, the answer is quite simple. You, as an individual, can either be co-dependent or interdependent.
The role of a citizen in a democracy is complex. Citizens have certain rights and certain responsibilities. The act of voting for a representative that best reflects ones needs is not an easy one and often requires compromise. For some, such as single issue voters, the choice is obvious and they hold their elected officials 100% accountable for how they act on that issue, minimizing others. For most voters, however, the overall platform is the key. Thus they are more forgiving when those they elect do not speak for them on every issue. That compromise is challenging but it is necessary in order to achieve progress on a large scale.
Citizens have an obligation to speak, to write, to criticize, to become educated and to educate others about the workings of democracy and the stances of their leaders. Citizens, however, are not their leaders. Just as one can marvel at and attempt to espouse the greatness of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement, such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr, one cannot accept the glory or the responsibility for his or the entire movement’s actions. One can only claim responsibility for their own actions. The same applies to the actions of leaders who lead a country into war. It is not logical to assert that every single citizen, regardless of whether they support that leader or not, is thus responsible for their agendas either.
Individuals can only be held responsible for their own actions. To assign collective responsibility to any group of individuals based on any identifying marker, whether it be race, gender, religion, sexuality or citizenship, is not only unproductive, it is prejudicial. If the left end of the political spectrum is to be true to its ideals that freedom for all ought to be a birthright, it must allow itself the freedom to allow individuals to not hold responsibility for others deeds if those individuals have expressed dissent – in any form.
The measure of that dissent cannot be based on artificial markers. It has to be dependent of what each person is able and willing to accomplish. When we begin grading each other on those actions, we minimize the contributions of those who are simply doing the best they can. The power of any progressive movement comes for the sum total of all collective actions. Each effort adds to that power. Humility is an invaluable tool in the drive to move forward.
Co-dependency ties people together in an extremely unhealthy way. It perpetuates unnecessary guilt, shame, blame sharing or avoidance, power struggles and abuse. Interdependency understands that we may all be in this together because we need each other but also that we are autonomous, free-thinking people who value diversity, individuality and growth. Co-dependency is a stagnant vicious circle. Interdependency is a dynamic and vibrant, progressive, forward-looking movement. In order for it to work, it demands respect, thoughtfulness, understanding and compromise.
I am not my country. I am not my leaders. I am a citizen, the most important cog in the wheel of a democracy and, as such, I retain my right to be an individual with my own values and beliefs knowing that my actions affect those around me. It’s up to me to decide what those actions will be and whether they will work in favour of the common good or not.
“To assign collective responsibility to any group of individuals based on any identifying marker, whether it be race, gender, religion, sexuality or citizenship, is not only unproductive, it is prejudicial.”
You seem to be disparaging, if not outright denying, the responsibility that attaches to “choice”. To “assign collective responsibility” based on race is indeed unfair . . . one does not chose ones race, and ones character is not determined by it. But what about voluntary associations? One does have “choice” about ones religion, or party affiliation, or, in this day of the “all volunteer Army”, ones military status and whether one goes to foreign lands to “break things and kill people”. There is nothing prejudicial in judging you on the basis of the choices you make and actions in which you voluntarily participate.
I’ve clipped this from one of my other “comments” (in a diary now scrolled away):
Back in my long lost youth there was much discussion about a concept sometimes called “democratic centrism” . . . the contention that one could argue all one wanted before the vote, but that after a policy was decided everyone who participated was bound by the decision. At the core of the argument is the contention that the price of voting is the agreement to abide by the result. If you voted in the last election then George Bush is your President and his policies are your policies, or at least that is what some would say. An election is not just an opinion poll, it is a commitment . . .
Left undecided is the moral position of those who don’t vote . . . thinking either “a pox on both their houses” or that one option is so bad that they cannot, in good conscience, accept or abide one of the possible outcomes . . .
Are all Catholics guilty for pedophile priests?
What about for the IRA and the conflict in Ireland?
How about all Protestants?
Are all Muslims responsible for Al Qaida or only the ones who join and willingly participate in the actions?
Are all Jews responsible for Ariel Sharon and Lebanon?
Religion is voluntary just as the military is (unless of course you live in a country where it is not)… so are all of the above culpable for the actions of a few or their leadership, even if they don’t agree, work for change, speak up, etc?
Pedophilia is not one of the basic tenets of the Catholic Church . . . if it were, then yes . . .
All Irish people do not support the IRA . . . all that do share responsibility for its actions
all Protestants what ???
see Pedophilia, above, and, what does it mean to “join” Al Qaida?
many Jews rightly regard Israel as an abomination and are not at all responsible for its actions, or existence. At question is the responsibility of Israeli “citizens” and supporters who participate in or contribute to the Israeli government, and the occupation . . .
When you join and support a voluntary organization you assume a share of responsibility for the positions and actions of that organization. If you don’t agree or accept that responsibility, don’t join up . . .
fine, no pedophilia then. inquisition. crusades. go for it. whatever.
no, all Irish do not, but you are talking about everyone who is part of a voluntary group bearing responsibility for the actions of the leadership, and I am using religion as an example. And the IRA and the Irish conflict started as a conflict of religion – protestant vs. catholic. so the analogy is apt.
the soldiers who volunteered for the american military didn’t join up so they could go invade iraq you know… don’t assume all did. generalizations of any kind are wrong and counterproductive to debate.
“Catholic” and “IRA” are not interchangeable identifiers . . . and you cannot analogize from one to the other.
The purpose of the military is to break things and kill people . . . the basic instruments of intimidation. That’s what people “join up” to do. You may wish to ascribe more “noble” intentions (like “defend democracy”), or more venal ones (like “needed a job”), but what they paint on the side of their tanks is “bloodlust” and “born to kill” (both seen in Baghdad), not the 9th and 10th Amendments . . . and everyone going in knows that. “didn’t join up so they could go invade iraq” ? ? ? Well where, then ? ? ? Does it somehow make it better that they “joined up” to go wherever they were sent, and kill whoever was there ? ? ? If they have passed all responsibility for their actions “up the chain of command” why are they still allowed to vote?
Yes, there are . . . dozens . . . who have shown the moral fiber to stand up and say “no, this is wrong” . . . dozens out of hundreds of thousands. But somehow those numbers read more like a justification of the “broad brush” than a disavowal of it . . .
because I am an american, I am racist baby killer because my government is run by a bunch of fascists, invade a country and I have vigorously protested against that invasion, but still I am a racist baby killer.
My cousins who have been to MAST for failing to obey an illegal order are murderers and cowards because they choose to become Marines.
Your logic is illogically and your rhetoric provides little insight into solving the issue of how best can Americans create solutions to the overwhelming problem of being governed by fascists.
If you get great joy in bashing America without providing some helpful ideas or solutions, I suggest you join that other great American basher ductape and see just how much disparity you can generate.
In your replies to me would you please address what I write, not your own hysterical fantasies? You (and your cousins) may be as you describe, but those are your descriptions, not mine, and yours to own, or not.
I have already praised those who refuse illegal orders . . . I’d be more interested in hearing why they became scouts for Sherman in the first place.
And I find it . . . peculiar . . . that you describe America as being “governed by fascists” and at the same time malign those who “bash” the American government and its jackbooted Army.
the freepers who dictate terms of engagement and stick to talking points as their reasoning.
I did malign anyone for bashing america, I stated an obvious fact that anyone who has read ductape knows. He continually promotes the idea that america and americans are evil and we are the scourge of the world.
I have little use of our logic and I will offer this truce. I will ignore your freeper mentality and your ignore my illogical thought process. That way you don’t pollute my space and I don’t pollute yours.
I have little use for you and it appears you have little use for me, so our best defense is to not address each other.
You often write reasoned and intelligent comments. Why the insults and attempted intimidation on this subject?
you completely discount the National Guard.
Or peacekeeping forces.
Not all military is inherently evil.
Religion is voluntary
except that Jews are members a race or culture (depends on who/how you ask)some of whom practice the religion of Judaism.
And speaking of race
Are all white Americans responsible for racism?
I struggle with this one a lot. No answers, only questions.
Are all white Americans responsible for racism?
No. But all Americans are responsible for ensuring that there is no racism in the future.
It’s like what one mother said at the one year birthday celebration of her recovering alcoholic daughter’s sobriety: I may be responsible for what lead you to become an alcoholic* but it’s your responsibility now to fix it.
* whether you believe alcoholism is nature or nurture
You seem to be disparaging, if not outright denying, the responsibility that attaches to “choice”.
Thanks for your response. You’ll note that my comment was about pointing the finger of blame at a group of people. Whether or not their partcipation in that group is voluntary doesn’t take away from the fact that they still all hold individuals beliefs that can diverge from the group’s. I can be a supporter of my Canadian Liberals, which is my choice, but if I dissent on some of their policies, I can’t be held personally responsible for those I am against, can I?
There is nothing prejudicial in judging you on the basis of the choices you make and actions in which you voluntarily participate.
which was my point…
As for those who don’t vote, I’d rather see an educated non-voter than an uneducated voter and regarding those who simply don’t vote because they don’t care, perhaps they need to be told why they should care. There are many different categories of non-voters so “one size fits all” doesn’t apply (not that I’m saying you believe that).
doesn’t it . . .
If you do not support the policies of the Liberal party then why would you call yourself a Liberal ? ? ?
There are, of course, always minor disagreements within the framework of a larger, more general agreement . . . should you repair those old helicopters or buy new ones, for example. But would you support the Liberals if they actively opposed a broad (and generous) interpretation of The Charter, or took many positions more like whatever the Conservative/Reform are calling themselves now? If you put a swastika on your sleeve you can reasonably expect people to judge you for the broad sweep of Nazi policies, not for the good things they did . . .
If you do not support the policies of the Liberal party then why would you call yourself a Liberal ? ? ?
I don’t support everything that the party or its leader does. That’s what I’m getting at: this isn’t an all or nothing proposition. I reserve the right to disagree and not be held be responsible for all of their policies or actions.
and not be held be responsible for all of their policies or actions”
Not really a “Liberal”, then . . . just sort of a “fellow traveler” or a LINO . . . ready to go NDP (if the right “leader” appears . . . <g>).
That’s fine . . . I don’t identify with any political party either (as platforms go I’m sort of half Green, half Libertarian). If the Democrats can present a candidate who is “generally good” and doesn’t violate any of my “hot button” principles I’ll be a “Democrat for a day” come next election . . .
I almost voted NDP last federal election but I ended up voting Liberal for one main reason: as far as I was concerned, if Paul Martin was willing to fix what went wrong in the government due to adscam, like he said he was, then I was going to hold him responsible for fixing it.
As it has turned out, his minority gov’t has been heavily influenced by the more lefty policies of the NDP, so I’m pretty much contented all the way around.
bill/ billm/ gxy, whatever, why are you back just to give me 1’s? Don’t you have anything better to do with your righteous indignation? Seriously.
Go protest something useful (first clue.. I’m not it…) and leave me alone.
I need to get away from here before I cross that line of becoming a prick.
This constant bashing of the military and America and particularly this every American is evil is to much for me.
I simply refuse to allow myself to become a prick and if I keep reading this horseshit I will cross that line and destroy something I respect.
see you all around the campus sometime in the near future.
hey there gdw, I feel you. seriously. and I think you should take some time to just chill out, reconnect to nature and the earth, your family and friends offline and on, and ignore the negativity that’s getting us down.
in perspective, we’re talking about a few posters who we aren’t reaching right now. it’s okay. I’m going to keep trying, catnip will, etc. you don’t have to. know that we are there for you and the community you cherish feels your pain and respects and honours your contributions. go take some time and come back refreshed. sometimes we all need it.
me, I’m waiting for infidel’s take on the subject in the next couple of days 🙂
until then I’ll just keep responding, or ignoring as I see fit 🙂
namaste my friend
~ spider
we’re talking about a few posters who we aren’t reaching right now
Can I ask you to explain what you mean by this? Not reaching with what?
I see a whole lot of side-taking going on around here of late and I am getting quite confused and not just a slight bit irritated….
I’m talking about not speaking in generalities & painting members of this community with one broad brush stroke.
That’s it.
Say whatever you want, just don’t make people who are on your side feel badly for being so.
I’ve said my peace & have done so respectfully. I only expect the same in return. As does ghostdancer from what I can tell.
Perhaps you can explain this thread then? ’cause I have read it several times and I still don’t get it….is this another instance of some other argument bleeding over into someone else’s diary?
And, sorry, catnip, I may have had something to say about what you actually wrote but was distracted by the hostilities….
This tirade would probably do it for someone like ghostdancer who, unlike most american’s, has a reason to despise the country, being native american and all, but instead chose to embrace what american ideals are supposed to be, loves his country and its people and served his country proudly in a war that turned out to be based on lies… vietnam.
Yes, there are . . . dozens . . . who have shown the moral fiber to stand up and say “no, this is wrong” . . . dozens out of hundreds of thousands. But somehow those numbers read more like a justification of the “broad brush” than a disavowal of it . . .
all emphasis mine. from my perspective, that’s exactly the kind of discourse that does more harm than good. not saying deward doesn’t have a right to say it, but damn, it sure doesn’t make people want to chit chat and figure out a way forward.
and never mind his relatives serving in Iraq currently… that just adds to it.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and trying to explain — I still don’t understand the need to take even this tirade so personally, but that’s just me. I hear generalizations on this site all the time, some that even would piss me off if I somehow thought that they were directed at or applied to me personally, but for the most part they don’t and I am able to walk away without throwing up my hands and saying that the entire community needs to see it my way and then leaving — I see questions, not personal attacks. But then, that’s just me.
I don’t know, I may be approaching my own GBCW state, although I’ll have to find something to replace the “C” with — there are a lot of things cruel in this world but this place ain’t one of ’em.
I totally agree with you man… that’s why I retracted and said I’d stick around and try to enlighten and probe vs. just taking a hike. And I think gdw will too, he just needs a break, it’s too painful to see clearly and get past it right now.
He’ll be back, don’t worry. And we all just have to recognize that civility and the change we seek starts at home 🙂
no worries, anytime, I had my hissy fit and moved on, no getting rid of me now… 😉
diaries have a life of their own…
who is running around giving you 1s everywhere??
I just SOOOO love driveby raters — HEY! Come out and show yourself or I will suspect you of being “bill’s” evil twin.
I’d say this is bill, billm from yesterday. He just keeps coming and I don’t know why…I alerted Susan.
thx diane… I feel so honored, I have my own troll! 🙂
I’d prefer just to have a conversation with the guy, but whateva… no pleasing everybody I guess.
Well he did stop by this morning and even got a couple 4″s
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2005/10/9/19346/7314/7#7
and he has a good point… just picking the wrong person to get into it with… for some reason I’m a W apologist now… I should put it on my business card… Bush apologist since Oct 9, 2005. 😉
I know you’ve been heavily involved in the recent discussions here. I haven’t even gone through all of the comments involved but, from what I’ve digested so far, I know this has affected you and others personally.
I don’t blame you from walking away from these conversations. They’ve been really diffcult. What I hope though is that you can still participate in the discussions here that you find more tolerable – those discussions make up 99% of the content on this site.
We just can’t lose your valuable contributions. You bring a perspective that we need. I know I need it. Please don’t leave me now.
If anything, I hope this crisis has led you to stand even more firmly in your convictions and beliefs, strengthened by those who share them with you.
I really don’t get it, gdw, not at all. You obviously have very very strong feelings about this, perfectly valid and perfectly yours (I have read everything that has gone on this weekend with an increasing sense of bewilderment) but I don’t understand your reactions to these posts, I really don’t.
Perhaps there is some behind-the-scenes history that you have with DH that I don’t know about, but from just reading the exchange here, I have to say that you come across as the one who is over the top.
Perhaps you will be better able to explain when you get back (and you WILL get back!) or perhaps you will not be so inclined — either way, I wish you the best and look forward to reading your spirit again soon.
I’m glad you wrote those words Brin. I have been struggling to find the right ones, but I have made the same observations as you have and I don’t get it.
You have said it better than I could have in any case.
like I said it very well, but I have held my peace while looking for understanding, but now yet another “see you later” post and I felt like I had to say something — *sigh* — probably just should have kept my mouth shut.
If there is some “behind-the-scenes history” between me and gdw I don’t know what it is . . . and I don’t have any recollection of any previous disagreements. I agree with most of what he posts . . .
I also agree with much of what dtf posts, and do not see it as blind “America bashing”. Many Americans and much of the rest of the world look at what American troops are doing in Iraq and do not see “the good guys”. Our Army is Iraq is behaving, as individuals, as units, and as a whole force, worse than the German Army did at any point in WWII. Much worse. That’s what the world sees. That’s what the reality is. And, apparently, it really offends some people to hear that. Still . . . I think it needs to be said.
I also think that there are legitimate questions regarding “responsibility” in a “democracy”, and what motivates people to volunteer to become killers . . . ego? thrill? profit? psychopathy?
If you figure out any of it (the crazed responses, especially) please let me know . . .
no. EXCUSE ME. what the flying fuck are you talking about?
The American military is behaving WORSE than at any point the GERMAN, NAZI, GAS CHAMBER, DR. MENGLE did?? Are you seriously that ignorant of history?
It seems you got your “history” out of US schoolbooks and US military training manuals . . . and perhaps a few John Wayne movies. As armies go (and they are never very good) the German Army behaved relatively well . . . massive loss of civilian life and large scale deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure has a much more American than German flavor. The massive destruction and systematic brutality toward civilians by American forces in Iraq puts them on the “worse” side of a bad lot, just as did the mass killing of civilians (over two million) in Viet Nam.
Plausible estimates put Iraqi civilian deaths at over 100,000, with an unknown number of non-lethal casualties above that. That’s far too many for it to be just a “few bad apples” doing the killing . . . it is at best depraved indifference on a very large scale.
Our Army is Iraq is behaving, as individuals, as units, and as a whole force, worse than the German Army did at any point in WWII. Much worse. That’s what the world sees. That’s what the reality is. And, apparently, it really offends some people to hear that. Still . . . I think it needs to be said.
I’m part of that non-American world and that is not what I see. I don’t know why you think that “needs to be said” because it simply isn’t true. It is not “reality” in the broader world landscape. Yes, there are anti-Americans and extremists out there but to brand them as representative of the global perspective of America as a result of the war in Iraq is just illogical.
Fallujah . . . a city of several hundred thousand people completely destroyed solely to “punish” the civilian population.
Tal Afar . . . similar.
Najif . . . similar.
Swaths of destruction of civil infrastructure throughout Western Iraq. Deliberate destruction of two thirds of the bridges over the Euphrates (just a few weeks ago, again to punish the civilian population).
Tens of thousands of houses damaged or destroyed to “teach them a lesson”.
Thousands of civilians killed “by mistake” at “checkpoints”.
Over twenty thousand in “indefinite detention” (with torture), but no charges . . . thousands more “released” (but to nothing, their lives destroyed).
Thousands of date palms destroyed, tens of thousands of acres of farmland without water, irrigation systems, canals and pumps deliberately destroyed.
Hospitals still not rebuilt (after deliberate, illegal, destruction), and more still without medicine, supplies, or even reliable electricity or water. Still.
All this after the invasion was accomplished . . . this is the face not of war, but of brutal occupation. And all of it under a near complete news blackout, with more reporters killed than in any previous war, so you will not know just how bad it is, and how badly the American troops are behaving. Good grief . . . this whole bruhaha began with a post about how an American embeded reporter and an American tank Captain were yucking it up after he needlessly blasted a house and killed a bunch of women and children. And that’s what they let you see . . . the rest is worse, not better . . .
Where did the German Army do this? Compare occupied Paris to occupied Baghdad . . .
unfortunately you competely omit 6 MILLION JEWS, Stalingrad, Ukraine, Poland, etc. etc.
Yes, all the above are horrific, but your sense of history is disgustingly off.
Stalingrad was a battle not of German choosing, but a “forced sacrifice” by the Russian Army. Ukraine was destroyed largely by the Russians in retreat, not by the Germans, and civil infrastructure in Poland was left intact by the Blitz, and maintained afterward. I have no idea why you reduce the number of deaths in the various “camps” from the probably more accurate 11-12 million, ignoring Gypsies, gays, communists and “others”, but the Nazis found it necessary to create completely new “institutions” to conduct those operations, because the German Army could not be trusted to undertake such immoral brutality (it would probably not be a problem for the American Army, which murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis in the Gulf War rather than let them surrender).
thank you for proving my point about how much worse hitler/ germany was than the american military is.
next argument?
The comparison was between the German Army and the American Army, and your attempt to change the subject to Nazis v. American Army does not “prove your point” but shows rather that you have none.
Your inability to defend the American Army and its current brutal behavior in Iraq is concession enough. The implied comparison of Nazis to Republican Fundamentalists, of Hitler to Bush, is another topic altogether . . . fine with me if you want to go there. The American Fascists do not yet completely rule the roost, and there is still some hope of stopping them, but that struggle will not be won by pretending they are somehow better than the Nazis were. They just haven’t consolidated power yet.
are you really serious in your narrow minded reading of my & your own statments on the matter?
whatever dude. If you think the german military who herded people into cattle cars and ghetto’s so they could be used in medical experiments or gassed is equivelant to all of the american military you need a refresher in history.
how about stalin starving 30 million ukrainians? has the US military done that? perhaps, and to be debated about all the other atrocities, but really, is the US the most culpable nation on earth?
and you should really find out more about the people you are debating with before you decide to paint them all with a broad brush stroke… does nothing to bring people into the debate.
Last time I looked Stalin was not affiliated with the German Army. Where did you “learn” that he was?
Stalingrad was attacked by the Germans. They laid seige to the city. It was 100% a battle of their choosing. The fact that they left their northeasterly flank woefully undefended, and failed to detect a concentration of armor on their southern flank was the reason they were cut off and surrounded. Whether the Russians can take credit for luring them into a trap is another question. It certainly was Hitler’s fault that he would not let them try to break out. The Russians killed almost every German prisoner of Stalingrad. Most of them died of exposure, starvation, or typhus.
It’s true that the German army was unreliable as executioners of Jews. But they were still remarkably proficient at it. It would be impossible to get the American armed forces to carry out the orders of Einsatzgruppen, or to create alternate companies for such purposes.
All of the World War Two era armies used remarkable brutality when compared to today’s army, including the American army of that time.
But the Russians, Germans, and Japanese armies of that era exhibited a barbarism that is almost wholly divorced from the ethos of the modern American military. If our military emulated those armies we would have obliterated Falluja, executed all the men, raped most of the women, and never even thought of apologizing for it.
There is simply no comparison.
Even Bush, having started a war of aggression based on lies, cannot share any of Hitler’s other attributes. He certainly has no desire to destroy a whole race of people, or to purify the white race.
Bush’s indifference to human suffering is remarkable. It’s deplorable. But even if he were to declare martial law and call off all future elections, he still would never embark on anything like Adolf’s adventure.
It would be impossible to get the American armed forces to carry out the orders of Einsatzgruppen, or to create alternate companies for such purposes.
Your faith in American “exceptionalism” in this regard is touching. I don’t know if it squares with the social-scientific evidence we have about human beings, however. You are familiar with the experiments of Stanley Milgram. And the Stanford Prisoner Experiments. Germans were not any more evil than Americans or any humans. There is something hardwired into us to obey authority, for the most part. And bad leadership can result in holocausts. Or Abu Gharibs. All that is being argued at this point is the quantity of deaths as far as I can see. Torture. Killing of civilian populations. It is wrong. It cannot be credibly defended. And, it is a inseperable companion of war.
You can expose Americans to traumatic experiences and turn them into circa 1930 Germans. But it would take some doing. Our love freedom and our tolerance is well ingrained.
I’m not trying to make Americans sound like anything less than what they are: human beings. But to the extent you are holding Americans up as an example of some superior ethical culture or race — I just think that is total fallacy.
I don’t have the data here in front of me — but, generally speaking, in polls of world opinion, just prior and after the start of the war — the United States was the most hated and feared country in the world. On another measure, our political leadership was the most feared. Finishing ahead of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This data doesn’t spring up for no reason. And, it is not without a basis in reality. In terms of military might. In terms of the willingness to use that military might to attain policy objectives. In terms of the willingness to twist the rationales of international law, to violate a central tenant that sprung in the post-Neuremberg era — no wars of aggression. In terms of being the only country to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings. We earned the right to be feared.
The only thing that really bothers me about my fellow Americans — the unwillingness to apply the same rules to ourselves as we want to apply to others. If another country pulled anything like the crap we have pulled in this last century. In these last two years. We would be jumping up and down calling them criminals.
In the realpolitik sense, might makes right. He who has the veto power at the UN can really do no wrong. And the majority in this country can tenably say — Americans are not war criminals. But the only thing keeping Bush and the rest of the chain of command from a war crimes tribunal is the might of the American position in the world. Not the fact that he hasn’t ordered the crimes, and stood by to watch them as they were committed, and in fact cheered them as progress in the “war on terror.”
I just have to disagree with you, about this idea that we are somehow better than the other peoples in the world.
But the only thing keeping Bush and the rest of the chain of command from a war crimes tribunal is the might of the American position in the world.
It’s not might. It’s arrogance. Bush pulled out of the International Criminal Court under the premise that he needed to ‘protect’ American soldiers. Nothing mighty about that kind of reasoning. Any country can do that.
I’d add that this isn’t over yet. There are international movements to ensure that they do face tribunals for their crimes.
and just like a child needs a healthy environment to grow up with a good disposition, so too do nations of people.
The Germans that grew up after World War One, grew up in a very unhealthy environment. Americans grew up in a different culture. We can apparently tolerate a greater level of violence and cruelty than I hoped. But it is nothing compared to what Iraqis are prepared to tolerate. Our expectations for ourselves and for our leadership are high.
It’s not that Americans are better than other people. It’s that the ideals that our system is based on are a hell of a lot better than the ideals that Saudi Arabia is based on. Could we have public beheadings in America? Sure. But not until people’s expectations are worn down somehow.
As for people fearing us, how many said that when Bill Clinton was President? As a nuclear country it is obvious that we would rank high on the countries to fear. I feared Russia growing up, not Lebanon. But Lebanon took more American lives than the Russians did in my lifetime.
I don’t know if this is a healthy debate. I strongly doubt either you or I are open to change our opinions much. We might as well be speaking on the floor of Congress. And I suspect you and I are not alone in that regard.
But,
The Germans that grew up after World War One, grew up in a very unhealthy environment. Americans grew up in a different culture. And: I feared Russia growing up, not Lebanon. But Lebanon took more American lives than the Russians did in my lifetime.
Your point being that post World War I Germans were really bad, and modern Americans are just a little bad? Bad is bad, isn’t it? The rest is some quantitative discussion of how many were killed unjustly by what methods. Like kids arguing about who’s dad is tougher (or more ethical).
Americans grew up in a different culture.
Deserves its own deconstruction. You and I grew up during the cold war, right? We were socialized to hate Russians and Commies. It was part of our education, our church/ethical rearing, and the loaded in the messages we were bombarded with by the mass media. Power must control opinion. Especially in a democracy. And even more especially in an imperial “democracy.” When I served, I ran in formations shouting at the top of my lungs about how I would like to kill Russians. “Bury me in a Russian cunt.” A little bonus socialization to dehumanize the enemy we were training to kill. Now, the target has shifted. The target is a culture who — gasp — “can execute people by cutting off their heads.” And the target, conveniently, has dark skin, for easier identification. We can’t pull off the death camps. Not feasible. But far more a matter of practical PR concerns, than it is a matter of our cultural exceptionalism, in my view.
It’s that the ideals that our system is based on are a hell of a lot better than the ideals that Saudi Arabia is based on. Could we have public beheadings in America? Sure. But not until people’s expectations are worn down somehow.
This is a good demonstration, in my view, at how effective our cultural indoctrination has been. You are a well educated, intelligent, go getter. An admirable American in my view. A liberal, even. And again, you can easily place your country’s methods above those of other peoples. This is their law. Their way of executing wrong doers. And while I would agree that it does not suit my tastes, I have a hard time elevating my country’s morality above theirs on this basis. I believe it is this country that has more people on death row than any other (and I’m not fact checking this). But we have many. And more minors in prison for life without parole. Again, we are back to arguing about the method of execution. Should we use a scimitar or a needle or electricity?
As for people fearing us, how many said that when Bill Clinton was President?
I’ve got no figures to this. But I suspect the number of people fearing the U.S. was still fairly high. Because the need to fear the U.S., it seems to me, is based largely on your position relative to U.S. F-16s (among other weapons). Looking down the wrong end of one of these weapons is reason to fear. No one could argue that Clinton was not far better at the game of public opinion than the boy idiot. I will not. But, I would bet that the world will still hate us under the next Clinton presidency, because she has adopted the language of our war-like culture. To prove her American credentials, I suppose.
The comparison to Congress is pretty accurate.
Arguments over which atrocities are more atrocious, which torture methods more torturous are hard to put forward, and impossible to win, because invariably some prick will show up and point out that the victims are equally dead.
It kind of reminds me of those arguments about how many Jews, gay people, gypsies, etc were murdered by Nazis. As if one would not be too many. As if there were some “reasonable death toll” to quote the New Orleans guy, Ebert, I think his name is.
It also reminds me of little kids caught smashing petunias in the flower bed, and the only defense they can come up with is “sister smashed more than me, and a chrysanthemum too!”
Wow. I don’t know if a thanks from a guy/lady named Ductape Fatwa is the best endorsement in the present debate. 🙂
Seriously, I should bow out and let you debate Booman, because you are the best spokesperson for my viewpoint.
And the thanks from DF. I’ll print it and frame it. You’re going to be a star someday. All these hyper-linked diaries and such.
Thank you for defending an unpopular cause these last days. I think it is an important viewpoint to be heard.
so if any of that is called for, you better stick around. I would thank you for the compliment but I don’t want to stigmatize you again, so I will toss a cupcake at you. That should throw them off.
I haven’t noticed much debate, or seen any warning signs that any might break out.
Some people, I think, are struggling with some questions that force them outside their comfort zones, and require some introspection, and introspection is not always a tranquil process.
Arundhati Roy said it best:
“Debating Imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape.”
Jefferson was an improvement on Richelieu, Lincoln was an improvement on Mitterand, Wilson was an improvement on Kaiser Wilhelm, and FDR was an improvement on Mussolini. Their ideals were better and their morals were better.
If you cannot come flat out and say that America is a more just society than Saudi Arabia then I don’t know what to tell you.
As I said, people are people. I’m not saying I’m a better person than the average Saudi Arabian. I’m saying I am a more just person becaise the culture I was raised in is more just and more enlightened. Could we become as wretched as the Germans were in the 1930’s? Yes. But we are not now.
And the Arabian, and the Fijian, and the Luxembourgian can all say the same thing about themselves.
There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it stays in the realm of personal belief, and does not involve Fiji or Luxembourg deciding that because they are more just than you, they will proceed to interfere in the government of the US, covertly or overtly, as the Arabian government sends representatives to your child’s school to explain to them why Arabia is a more just and enlightened society.
It all depends. Robert E. Lee saw himself that way, and so did Orvil Faubus. They were wrong and we went and told their schoolchildren as much. So, it all depends.
It’s a good example because the US outlawed slavery, and a century later, legalized apartheid. Both positive steps. But in neither case were hearts and minds changed on a large scale. People who consider non whites, especially African-Americans to be inferior to whites have not been, cannot be, and should not be criminalized for their beliefs.
They are free to hold their views, discuss them, advocate them, they may freely choose with whom they will associate with, marry, and invite to their birthday party. There is no attempt on the part of the state to force them to consider non whites as their equals, like them, buy them little gifts, or compliment them on their new baby or hairstyle.
What they cannot legally do is express their view in a way that affects the rights of the non-white to work, eat, live, worship, shop wherever they wish.
Sending people down to tell white schoolchildren that they should not be racists did not work. There are still plenty of white racists who comply with the law when they have to, but will try every way from Sunday to avoid renting the apartment to a black family, they will look for any excuse to favor the white job applicant over the black one. And Robert E. Lee is just as much a hero in the American South among whites as he ever was.
Racism is not in the best interests of a diverse society, yet it persists and the only thing that a government – any government can do, is try to reduce its harmful effects on the reviled group, which is a noble endeavor, because regardless of how strongly the white racist believes he is superior to the black man, the black man is simply not going to agree with him.
Similarly, a theocracy is not a good fit for a diverse society. It does not matter whether the cleric Robertson is correct or not in his belief that feminists cause bad weather, or whether the cleric Falwell is correct in his belief that plush cartoon characters without genitalia nevertheless possess sexual preference. They should be free to hold those beliefs, cherish them, and express them.
What they should not be permitted to do is legislate them, cause them to impact on the lives of feminists, people with any particular sexual preference, or plush cartoon characters without genitalia.
So it is with “exceptionalists.” No one is going to change their minds, and criminalizing an ideology is counter-productive and absurd. What a global community can do, what world society can, must, and will do, is protect themselves from exceptionalist policies, exceptionalist bombs, exceptionalist crimes against humanity, and exceptionalist world domination, leaving the exceptionalist free to sit on his porch and expound on the superiority of his culture to anyone who cares to listen, over iced tea with sprigs of mint.
I’m not leaving you without comment, I’m just trying to navigate my graphics back the other way — no small technical feat for a net newbie. So, if we shall continue, scroll <—– that away. But, if you grow tired. I can understand. I do to. It is interesting conversation. But, at some point…. someone has to get indicted.
I can’t come flat out and say that the U.S. is a more just society than Saudi Arabia. I don’t know enough about Saudi Arabia to compare the two, frankly. But, given my own conclusions about American society vis-a-vis being a just society, if I were a handicapper, I would have to place it as an even money bet, that after studying their society, I would conclude just the opposite of you — or perhaps call it a justice draw.
I don’t want to be painted as an American-hater. It is very Ward Churchillian to be painted that way. But the inability of my countrymen to honestly assess their own injustices, and compare themselves favorably around the world — I mean it calls for a Chuchillian moment.
I can admit my biases/opinions. They are based on what I’ve seen, and no more valid than anyone elses, I suppose. Mine are this: America is not a just country. American people are controlled to the extent they don’t even know it. Americans enrich themselves on the backs of the world, and don’t know it, or won’t admit it. Americans are today, both environmentally, and in terms of military aggression, the power on this planet to be feared. That is my perspective. Is America without good, historically, or within its individuals? No. I won’t be that absolutist. But is there a ton of bad, that is difficult to even say without being shouted down, even on the most liberal of websites. Yeah. A ton. For those willing to open their eyes and see it and admit it to themselves. Those are my biases or judgments based on the life I’ve observed as an American.
Now I will ask you. Can you admit your own biases? Do you not see, looking at your last comments comparing leaders of the world, and concluding that Americans were better — that your very conclusions, while I am quite sure they are honestly held, are built on a lifetime of indoctrination to believe your culture and your cultural ideals are superior. I think an outside observer, say from Mars, watching this discussion, might be able to draw that conclusion. I could be wrong. But that is my guess. Or are you so indoctrinated that you actually believe that American ideals are the penultimate ideals in the history of the world? Or is that too unfair a choice for you? Is there some nuance. Some gray area.
we’re going to need a lot of beer to finish this conversation.
I’ll just say that I think you are way, way, way off.
My biases are progressive biases. That means that I look down on the Jim Crow south as an unenlightend and oppressive culture that was inferior to the modern day south. I look down on Pat Robertson as a troglydyte, who rejects all the progress made in human rights and science over the last 60 years. I judge people’s beliefs and cultures and political systems by comparison to my beliefs and by where we are now. I don’t look at George Bush and say that he has his right to his beliefs that are just as valid as mine, nor do I look at Saudi Arabia and say that their treatment of women is an equally valid cultural decision to our treatment of women.
To get into the consequences of American power and consumption for the rest of the world, I need beer.
BooMan:
It was not difficult at all to get Americans to slaughter a quarter million civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone. It was not difficult at all to get Americans to kill tens of thousands of retreating or surrendering Iraqis in the “Turkey Shoot” at the end of the Gulf War. It has not proven difficult at all to get American troops to kill prisoners or civilians in Iraq. Fallujah can be directly compared to the worst the German Army did to any city in WWII, although the bombing of London comes close (again, the Luftwaffe was a newer institution than the Army, and a Nazi creation).
Your faith in Bush’s innocence is . . . oh, hell, I don’t know what it is but I don’t share it. You are content that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. don’t have malicious intent comparable to Hitler . . . I don’t share that faith. And I certainly don’t share your faith in American exceptionalism. The belief that Americans just wouldn’t do those things is belied by what they in fact have done and are now doing in Iraq, not to mention historic brutality and mass murder from the Indian Wars to the Philippines to Viet Nam.
I bet that just a few years ago your faith would have led you to declare that Americans would never institutionalize torture . . . we just don’t do that sort of thing I was told when growing up . . . but now . . . how many thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have been tortured and killed in American custody?
I don’t believe that it is your intention to defend any of these things, but I do believe there is great danger in the denial of how bad they actually are, and maintaining the fiction at this late date that somehow Americans are still somehow better than everyone else, somehow above it all. Our well crafted image of America’s “goodness” is no different from the similar self image held by Germans (with at least as much justification) and yes, even Japanese and Russians, who had plenty of justifications and excuses for doing what they did . . . just like the Americans beating prisoners to death at Baghram do.
America has military bases in more countries than Hitler ever did. Bush is now occupying two countries and threatening war against at least four more, and counting, while facing a failing economy that can be saved, within his scheme of thinking, only by more war. That’s a lot further along than Hitler was in his 5th year in office . . .
There is nothing in the history of mankind that can compare to the Eastern Front of World War Two. And as for Hiroshima, I might remind you that almost no Americans had any say in that decision, they certainly didn’t ‘do’ it. And if they were grateful the war was over they were still horrified and terrified of the result.
Falluja is being compared to the Ukraine in World War Two? Falluja got a bloody nose. More people probably died in New Orleans. More people probably died in the first hour of the war during shock and awe.
How many people has our military tortured to death? We have about two dozen documented cases and I assume the number is much higher. But I’d say the Russians destroyed 40,000 at Stalingrad after they surrendered. Neither the Germans or the Russians were very much interested in feeding prisoners, let alone refraining from torturing them. That is, unless they needed some slave labor.
What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously. As for the turkey shoot, what are you crying about? We were there to destroy the Iraqi Army. That is what generals do. They called the destruction off, and we have hardly benefited from the result of Saddam being able to retain power.
I was against that war because I thought it would make us unsafe here at home. But I have no problem with them decimating an armored column, even one in retreat. What? We wanted Saddam’s army to survive intact to fight another day? Of course not. What did that do for us but cause us 13 years of migraine headaches?
Our soldiers have killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. I don’t think it was necessary for our soldiers to be there, so I don’t think any of those civilians should have been killed…at least, not by American troops. But I will bet you that our refusal to engage in Nazi tactics, or Saddam’s tactics, has cost us a lot of soldiers and also contributed to the strength of the resistance. Our WWII army would have had the country largely pacified by now, and certainly the German army would have, or the Japanese, or Russians.
War is a brutal thing. We wage it with one arm behind our back because we have values, because we no longer think it is okay to do things like the Dresden bombing, or Japanese internment camps, or rounding up whole villages and machine gunning them. That’s progress, in my opinion, but it also means that we have to limit what kind of missions we undertake, because we aren’t willing to do what it takes to win in these type of guerrilla wars. And I’m glad we aren’t willing to do it. And I will raise holy hell when I see us doing the types of things that Saddam did, and had to do, to maintain order in his country. Because we don’t believe in doing those things (any more).
It is such a joke to compare our armed forces to the Nazis. They are absolute timid wusses compared to even our Vietnam forces. It is absolutely unbelieveable to me that you would compare our armed forces to other armed forces. I bet the cost of this war is 30 times what it would have been if we used cheap dumb bombs. We’ve spend tens of billions of dollars for no other purpose than to limit civilian casualties. That would have never been done by the Germans.
We have a bunch of scared to death kids over there being targeted by roadside bombs and car bombs and they are trigger happy. They get pissed off and do things they shouldn’t do. That is why we should never start a war we don’t have to fight. It happens in every war, whether noble or ignoble.
Sorry, but your argument is just so wrong-headed I can’t take it seriously. The problem with this war is that is was a war of choice. If it was a war of necessity, our tactics would be called too timid. If our national survival depended on the outcome of what happened in Iraq, you would not be complaining to much about Falluja, just as very few Americans complained about Dresden. That is the real issue. That, and the fact that we have made enough moral progress that the Army no longer carries out Dresdens, even when it is losing a war.
Am I happy about Abu Ghraib? Hell no. Did Falluja accomplish anything? Not that I can tell. Should we be in Iraq? No. But how the fuck can you compare these things to Hitler’s march to Moscow? How can you equate Abu Ghraib to Treblinka, or Falluja to the Warsaw Ghetto? Whatever. To me it is a almost worthless comparison that detracts from the main point, which is that we should not be Iraq, we should not be torturing people, and that George Bush should be impeached.
“How can you equate Abu Ghraib to Treblinka, or Falluja to the Warsaw Ghetto?”
I didn’t. You won’t find that comparison in any of my posts. You are the first to make it . . . conveniently setting up a straw man of your own creation, presumably to further your argument that American murderers are somehow more moral than German murderers. And then proceed to defend what was done in Fallujah? Just a “bloody nose”?
“It is absolutely unbelieveable to me that you would compare our armed forces to other armed forces.”
You believe Americans are so much better than everyone else as to be beyond all comparison ? ? ? I don’t. I remember Viet Nam . . . and Fallujah . . .
“We’ve spend tens of billions of dollars for no other purpose than to limit civilian casualties.”
Balderdash. We’ve spent billions of dollars to insure that our weapons hit their intended targets, like hospitals, and water treatment plants, and bridges (with predictable negative impact on civilians), and women and children in air raid shelters (remember Gulf War I ?). Five hundred billion dollars a year squandered on a killing machine, and you want to argue that Americans are morally special, and feel more guilt and remorse about killing civilians than anyone else in the world?
American exceptionalism is the disease, of George Bush and much of the rest of the country. As long as the disease is rampant in America getting rid of Bush means nothing . . . there will always be another to fill his shoes.
Please reconsider . . .
.
I am not my brother’s keeper, unless you begin to strike at him.
To debate the Iraq War and get hostile over WWII makes no sense to me. Such a complicated flow of events leading up to WWII, the Anschlüss of Austria and the Blitzkrieg of the Pantzer divisions of the German Army, the most disciplined group of men any Army has ever seen. The SS, Gestapo, occupying forces, later new battalions added with enlisted nationals from the Ukraïne, France, Belgium and the Netherlands fighting at the East Front of Stalingrad.
The rules of engagement in fighting a war has evolved from the period of Napoleon and his defeat at Waterloo, where both sides agreed on a timetable of warfare and breaks when hostilities would cease, and let the forces get some rest.
The worst kind of wars and most brutal are the civil wars between brothers and families of a single nation: U.S. Civil War, Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the nineties. The world community find it difficult to engage in these battles, the United Nations could not provide legality to intervene within a sovereign nation. This is starting to change, the reformed U.N. will also address these conflicts in the future.
The most devastating wars are the great World Wars in the 20th century, WWI fought in the trenches of northern France and parts of Belgium, the use of lethal gas killing millions of soldiers. Yet there were moments, soldiers from both sides got out of their respective trenches to call a period of truce at Christmas, shortly thereafter to retreat into the trenches and continue the slaughter of men. It’s very depressing to travel the route through Verdun in France and see acres filled with crosses of the slain, every small village has its WWI memorial in city square for their fallen heroes.
WWII was a direct consequence of the peace agreement imposed on the German nation, which made it easier for a dictator like Hitler to rise to power. The Germans are know for its discipline and commitment to the nation, Hitler made use of both and vilified the Jewish race and most minorities not meeting his standard of the Arian race.. The German war industry, the cooperation with large corporations to meet the contracts supplied by the government, engaged and provided jobs for millions of citizens. Jobs, food and security gave Hitler all the support needed for him to win democratic elections to continue his path to occupy most of Europe.
WWII saw the battles fought in clear front lines, only when small towns or villages came into a cross fire, were they destroyed. Paris was saved by agreement between the aggressors and the French generals and government. The Netherlands was not involved in WWI after they declared to remain neutral, and was left alone by Germany. Quite different in May 1940 when Germany surprised the Netherlands with a Blitzkrieg invasion of pantzer divisions of the regular German army. They swept into Holland from the South and needed to cross the Rhine river bridges, the Moerdijk bridge near Dordrecht in the route to Rotterdam was crucial. My dad was engaged in the defense of the Moerdijk bridge on Sunday morning, May 10, 1940. The bridge was fully lined with explosive charges to be destroyed whenever the Germans approached. Of course the Germans had infiltrated the Dutch military and civilians with corroborators and that night all explosives had been defused and the German colonnes of armor and truck loads of soldiers crossed into central Holland. There was a Dutch defense on a few locations, and the Dutch authorities did not agree to surrender. That is when the Germans decided to bomb a defenseless civilian heart of the city of Rotterdam, of course not any harbor infrastructure, which the Germans needed to keep intact.
Later on, the Germans failed in their attempt to invade Great Britain and the bombing of cities started, often with V1 and V2 rockets from the coastline of the European continent. The Wernher von Braun designed rockets were launched from Dutch cities like The Hague, the launching pads were located in the city heart Haagsche Bos. Trying to take the sites out with allied bombings led to a fatal mistake when a nearby residential area was bombed causing hundreds of civilian deaths. The Dutch know what warfare is, its destruction and the occupation of a foreign power. Yet the Dutch had relatively little destruction compared to Belgium, France and Germany itself of course. The Germans bombed not only London, the center of government, but also Coventry. In retaliation the allies bombed Dresden, killing more than 100,000 civilians in a single raid. The German people regard this bombing as a war crime, even today when a memorial is held to commemorate all victims of that one night.
The American people have no sense of the horror of war, one cannot have the emotions from tv coverage, photos or even from witness accounts. That is a profound reason why the Europeans are still reluctant to wage a war and get involved unless they themselves are under direct threat. The UK and USA with imperial political eyes cross that line much too easily and engaged in the Iraq War with no scruples.
Does the German people and nation bear a responsibility for Hitler, the war and its atrocities, and the death camps? The German people have the feeling that they are responsible, even sixty years later. I would agree, without having the new generation to be held responsible what their parents have done. Same question for the United States, are its people and nation as a whole responsible for the acts of its leadership, the elected President, his cabinet and Congress for their acts or instances when they fail to act. My answer will be once again: yes.
The Vietnam war was in essence guerrilla warfare, not only in the jungle, but throughout South Vietnam in all rural area, small towns and villages. Friend and foe could not be distinguished, the battle very similar to civil strife with all its cruelties. The might of the U.S. meant unleashing air power with unprecedented bombing raids over Hanoi and North Vietnam, destruction meant also civilian populated areas, industry, infrastructure and harbor facilities. The number of deaths in excess of two million is a heavy prize to pay for a nation. The Christmas bombing of 1972 above the city of Hanoi, most likely can be considered a war crime by Nixon, Kissinger and the War cabinet. I’m glad Nixon was impeached for a burglary into the DNC HQ in Watergate, its cover-up and further acts of law-breaking by Nixon’s cabal.
I see no balance to compare the Iraq war with the acts of the Nazis during WWII, it’s sufficient to deal with the Iraq war by itself, and try to kick the Republicans out of the White House and all political power in Washington DC.
Compare the discipline and training of the German army during WWII and the U.S. forces in Iraq, comprised of a large portion of NG forces. I do worry that the US army, in Iraq by comparison, is made up of a group of irregulars, poor leadership in Army command and some soldiers are little better than civilians armed with a M16 rifle. It’s very worrisome, looking at an article recently covered, a training stage of three months and send to the battle front!
That’s my take on the issue, but just do not make a comparison with Nazis, fascism, massive deaths and destruction and the holocaust. That’s just not right, nor necessary.
<<< MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR >>>
▼ ▼ ▼
Oui:
Thank you for the thoughtful (as usual) comments. Comparisons are always difficult, and I suppose it was too much to expect the kind of nuanced and reasoned response across the board that you and some others have presented. I sought to compare the behavior and tactics of the German Army in WWII with the US Army in Iraq . . . others chose to misread that as comparing the US Army to Nazis, neglecting both the distinction between Armies and political systems and the divisions within Germany at the beginning of WWII.
I did not make the comparison to defend the German Army. We rightly condemn, for example, the bombing of civilian Rotterdam and London, and rightly question the tactics used against the Yugoslav resistance, again directed largely against civilians. The comparison was made to remind all that the American Army in Iraq is no better, and in at least some ways is worse, both in strategic and tactical choices and in actual behavior in the field.
If I were comparing primarily the political systems I’d be comparing Nazi Germany in ’38 or ’39, or perhaps just after the invasion of Poland, with the Republican/Fundamentalist/Fascists of today . . . each about five years in power, each about equally far along in dismantling the democracies they superseded. It is at least possible that even at that late date the German people could have rejected the Nazis and changed the course of history. It is at least possible that at this late date the American people can reject Republican/Fundamentalist Fascism.
If we do then, and only then, there will be some slight opening for the argument that Americans are somehow, taken as a group, a little bit better than some of the rest of the world. There will still, of course, be at least fifty (not just five) years of blundered and wrongheaded foreign policy to be undone. At the moment the only thing to be noted about American exceptionalism is its exceptional blindness and arrogance . . .
now this is a conversation I’d be open to have… but your original comment didn’t get us there. I apologize for my strident response, but generalities are never conducive to debate.
unfortunately I’m at work and can’t get into a lengthy reply right now, but I wanted to let you know I appreciated the continued discourse.
cheers,
spider
You Can’t Get Me Angry, Even If You Tried! :: German vs Iraq Occupation Debate
by Oui ● Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 12:24:30 PM PST
▼ ▼ ▼
.
I’m willing take this topic and put it up as a new diary, so that you can have a debate of substance. I do understand it important enough, for a discussion between both of you.
I did my best to differentiate in an historical reference, that in time and other circumstances, comparisons always go lame. I always try to understand how war changes ordinary citizens, neighbors who choose for opposite sides, end up killing each other. In a state of occupation, the Dutch resistance acted without remorse to liquidate collaborators with the Nazis, both men and women, who forwarded strategic information to the Gestapo. See movie: “Resistance Fighter – the Girl with the Red Hair”.
By comparison, what the German troops were for the Dutch in WWII from 1940-1945, are the U.S. troops for a majority of Iraqis today: occupying forces. The Dutch underground, similar to other countries, kept communications with London to provide intelligence for Allied bombing raids. The film A Bridge Too Far of Operation Market Garden led by General Montgomery, was only possible with support of Dutch intelligence. With failure to gain a position across the Rhine river, the Allied forces had to pull back, again supported by the Dutch underground organization.
The German occupying forces couldn’t tell the difference between the Dutch who were friendly or opposed the occupation. The worst part of the war in Holland, one could never trust a neighbor, friend or relative. The resistance had to operate in cells, to avoid Nazi raids where more than a few countrymen would be arrested, tortured, jailed or executed by German firing squad.
How similar to the circumstances the U.S. forces have to operate in Iraq today, not seen as liberators but as occupiers. The Germans never razed villages, bombed bridges or were confronted with resistance as the U.S. faces today in Iraq. The German SS did retaliate against civilians whenever an ambush led to the death or injury of a German officer.
▼ ▼ ▼