Conclusive proof, again, that WMD's exist and have been used in Europe.

(WMD - Weapons of Mass Delusion).

The little blurb about "motives" is right on...

Those who are naive enough to think that Bush cares about freeing the Iraqi people please raise their hands...

Why are we in this war? And if it is just why is the world questioning it...

And without pointing any fingers here, there's probably feeling among some in the US that the European willingness to look the other way as long as no one seems to rock the boat and profits are made is one of the reasons why things in Iraq (and perhaps even Africa) have gotten as bad as they are...a lot of the current situation in a number of parts of the world could be seen as the legacy of European colonialism, (which the UN can be perceived as not really helping to solve very much...)

So no doubt this mutual distrust and misreading of each other's motives is leading to a realignment of sorts...

And I thought my Canukistan brothers were the biggest dim-wits. Some of the innuendo and puffery I saw on the BBC was simply, for lack of words, fucking dumb!

{"Welcome to 'Old Europe,' " a German television reporter sarcastically said as he began an interview [with Colin Powell].}

This guy sounds like the German Bill O'reilly.

The only major WMD is the US mass media, firmly ignoring inconveniences like that fact that the US gov't *made up* most of its evidence against Iraq. These facts haven't even been reported in the American media, of course, but I'm sure it will be quickly dismissed as craziness by the Good German...I mean Good Americans.

So far the most dastardly part of Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction plot is that he's allowing his entire regime to fall without once using his "vast" and "threatening" stockpile to so much as make one coalition soldier sneeze. Now THAT'S some clever plotting - good thing they went in and got him.

At what point will we see media reports of "There are deep suspicions of European motives" ?

Asshat Mike -

Read this: http://www.axisofweasels.com/blog/archives/000152.html

This is why we are in this war. Freeing the Iraqi people is in OUR best interests. Selfish, maybe. But it beats the Hell out of creating more Rwandas or nations that sponsor terrorism.

Gore lost the election, Mike. Get over it.

Who cares about of they think. After all they these Europians are the once that cut deals with these terrorist regims. This includes English too. What a stupid comment by Jack Straw calling Iran an emerging democracy. He knows that once US gets rid of the Mullhs their access to cookie jar will be cut too.

It continually amazes me that as evidence of Hussein's atrocities, his current violations of every international law, and his WMD's come to light how the Europeans keep thinking that this war wasn't a good idea or wasn't just.

I wonder how they'd feel if THEY were the one's suffering these horrors?
Probably be screaming for the US to come and rescue them. Again.

Orion

Yeah this idea that somehow Europeans are a more noble breed that Americans is certainly not backed by any proof from history. They (especially the French) are so extremely cynical and self-centered in their national and international policies that to blame the US (who kept them from goosestepping, whether it be in German or Russian) for being the root cause of evil in the world is absurd. We certainly didn't need to

The little blurb about "motives" is right on...

Those who are naive enough to think that Bush cares about freeing the Iraqi people please raise their hands...

Why are we in this war? And if it is just why is the world questioning it...

Posted by Mike at April 5, 2003 02:08 PM
___________________________________

For one, Mike, I'm naive enough. I'm just real uncomfortable with crazy arabs and atom bombs and mutated microbes. If Bush gets the oil in addition to that, more power to him.

Orion

I think many who opposed the war have simply invested too much political, "intellectual", and, perhaps most importantly, emotional capital in their position to possibly change unless a free Iraq gives Bush a tickertape parade down the streets of Baghdad.

I dont see how losing billions of dollars and trying to nation build even though we can't is in our best interests?

Historically, America is terrible at nation building, any economic advantage gained from a saddamless Iraq will be spent in war costs and rebuilding efforts...so I can't see how we would gain anything....

Cowboy Bob, please try to argue on an intellectual level only, name calling is juvenile..and pointless...

Arguing is what makes America great but we have to respect opinions here and keep open minds. Cowboy, if you make a point, I just might change my mind, and I would hope that you would extend the same grace to me.

Mike,

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, but it has to be kept clean do it doesn't stink.

Historically, America is terrible at nation building

I don't think we did too terribly in Germany and Japan... What nations have we completely conquered, only to do a "terrible" job at building back up?

Europe is having a hard time facing the real world. After creating and (understandably) enjoying a short-lived "paradise" of post-WWII peace, multinational agreements and socialist welfare states, they are reluctant to admit that their comfortable lives have been achieved by the equivalent of running up huge credit card bills, hypocritical foreign policies and short-sighted decisions.

Embedded reporter today with the 101st: large weapons caches being unearthed, a few of the weapons from Jordan, the majority from France.

German engineer says Hussein's bunker can withstand nuclear attack - he designed and managed the building of it.

French oil executives discuss endemic corruption ... payments to both French and foreign leaders ... massive oil deal signed with Hussein to go into effect just as soon as the French manage to gut the UN sanctions.

EU corruption being probed.

Of COURSE many in old Europe are pissed -- they were so cozy in their sactimonious self-regard. Now the political bill is coming due, as is the economic one as their welfare states face the reality of an aging baby boomer workforce and the fact that they have to import mid-Eastern workers because they can't be bothered to bear and raise children of their own.

Mike,
I don't think you've made a valid point or are capable of changing your mind. If you were, you'd be willing to free the Iraqi people from tyranny.

"Naive enough"? Read through Bob Woodward's book, "Bush at War". Pretty clear that Bush places a high priority on the populations of Iraq and North Korea, and loathes their dictators for what they've done to their people. Could be a little unsettling to think that a leader might act on his moral convictions, rather than political ones. (If Bush was pandering for political capital, he'd be following Chirac's and Schroeder's populist tacks, not leading). Some would claim the same convictions drove Osama, but they'd be moral relativsts, undiscerning and rather incapable of judgment.

"Motives"? Look into the motives of those who backed Saddam over the US, who built his power and broke their own rules to do so. The whole world questioned acting against the Nazis in the 1930s. The vast majority of Europeans and Americans were unwilling to address the slaughter and devastation in Europe. Certainly didn't make them right, just because they were the majority. We honor ourselves for acting when we did, to end Hitler's march. We need to temper that with shame that we waited as long as we did.

Since when is it good or right to bend to the will of internationals who refuse to stand by what is just? When did we elect our representatives from the likes of France, and Syria and China? Every nation reserves the right of self-determination, when push comes to shove, so why is it incumbent upon the US to breach the trust of its own citizens at the behest of those who wish us ill?

Mike,
Yeah, we did a terrable job nation building Germany and Japan after WWII.

Bill, I agree with what you said about worring about Saddam obtaining Nuclear weapons good point....

However, I still think if we would have simply contained Saddam we would be in better shape, politically and economically. History has shown that he is containable.

It's pretty obvious that Europe is primarily occupied by cowards and communists...who cares what they think?

All it takes is one crazy Mohammed Atta to break a containment.

Mike:

Look at your television screen. Do you see the depravity of this regime before your eyes? They have violated every tenet of customary international law on the books, but you would have walked away and done nothing, leaving these thugs in power to continue to oppress their people and pursue WMDs.

I realize that soft-headed liberals are often uncomfortable with terms such as "evil," but "evil" this regime is, and so it must be removed from the face of the earth. Failure to do so would only invite disorder, resulting in a much greater loss of life and treasure in the long term.

"Historically, America is terrible at nation building,. . . "

Where do you get this from? Germany and Japan are two of the greatest success stories of the 20th century. Not to mention the fact that South Korea and Taiwan have prospered under our protection.

Mike says:

"However, I still think if we would have simply contained Saddam we would be in better shape, politically and economically. History has shown that he is containable."

Funny. The same people who make this argument are the same people who were trying to end the sanctions, only a year ago. So what would you propose to do, Mike? Keep the sanctions in place? How does that work, over the long haul?

And how does "containment" work against terrorists? Tell the Israelis who have lost family members to suicide bombings, funded by Saddam, how well "containment" works when you are dealing with a state sponsor of terrorism.

Your arguments were tried, Mike. They haven't worked. Move on.

History has also shown that all one's assumptions can be shattered on a perfect September morning. The countries 'over there' have to be encouraged to take care of their problems.

Contained? Not when his regime

a) purchased advanced weapons technology from Security Council members: France, Russia, Germany

b) provided chemical weapons "cookbooks" to terror camps (just recently demolished by the US) in NE Iraq, who in turn hosted and protected Al Qaeda member from Afghanistan and produced the terror cell apartments in France & London

Containment only works if countries like France and Russia actually live by it rather than hypocritically posturing while making a lot of money undermining it.

"Containment" Mike?

I guess as long as he only kills and tortures his own people, it's none of our business. Saddam is just misunderstood.

Who cares that he has tons of VX Gas. He runs a secular government and would never associate with the radical Islamists.

I mean it's not like his Govt uses terrorist tacticts like pregnant women blowing themselves up and his government is not calling for Jihad.

Oh, wait - thy are.

---"History has shown that he is containable."---

Uh huh.

What I wonder is why none of the religious groups that underpin American values aren't speaking more loudly or creating a movement for discourse on this subject? It is their mandate to promote peace, goodwill toward mankind, and affirm life, not death. Or am I getting this whole Jesus/God thing mixed up?

President Bush's decision to get this guy, now, has already been vindicated. No one can now doubt the connection between Saddam and terrorism. And this connection has only been growing stronger while we politely debated over what to do. Thank God we have a leader who is willing to take responsibility for our future safety.

Mike,

Containment? How? As Salam, posting from Baghdad said, "You didn't bomb us into the stone age, you sanctioned us into the stone age." The sanctions were killing the Iraqi people. They surely weren't hurting Saddam or his drive for WMD's.

Orion

Eric,
This is a military campaign, not a religious conversion. We are sending in tanks, not priests. I think they have the good sense to keep their mouths shut on political/military matters and just support the troops.

Eric Rolph:

What the hell are you talking about? Are you German? Perhaps you might remember a guy named Neville Chamberlain. He thought that he could make peace with a ruthless dictator. All of Europe paid a horrible price for that mistake.

Sure, everybody wants peace. But religion is not a suicide pact.

++++++++++

The WAPO'S reporter's POV is as bad as the "old European's/"eurabians"!

The USA does NOT need to go to Europe to get their opinion-makers to "forgive and forget" us!!!!!!!

What should WE be forgiven for?!?!?!?
For doing the right thing?!?!?!?!

The eurabs should be seeking forgiveness from us - and I say fuck'em!

Eric Rolph?

Did you misspell your name? Are youy really Eric Ruldoph the Abortion Clinic and Olympics bomber?

I think the FBI is still looking for you in the mountians somewhere.

I sometimes feel that making blanket stereotype statements and over-generaliziations hurt discourse. I would suggest taking a few minutes and reading the article, "Debating the war -- without the confrontation" or visiting Public Conversations Project suggested guidelines.

May I suggest reading the essays at http://www.ejectejecteject.com

Start with History, also read War.

Orion

The reporter should have said :

"Welcome to dumb, unwashed, naive, ignorant and fascist Europe".

That would have been a far more accurate description. Reporting the news is something European reporters are clearly not accustomed to. These naive nitwits have no clue, but like to blame the US for being clueless.

Eric,
Want me to read "Debating the war -- without the confrontation"?

What are you afraid of "confrontation" in the Middle of a "War"

Don't impose your silly rules on me. I think for myself and speak my mind when I please.

Eric Rolph:

If you have something to say, then say it. Don't waste our time by spamming the board with pablum.

We could turn this discussion into a twisted version of nit-picking. If I were to use your argumentive logic, I would try to purposely misunderstand some word, phrase, or analogy and shift the focus to it instead of the subject. This ploy would likely derail the other person into a defense of the word, phrase, or analogy instead of the case at hand. I might then counter with a right by association with something like, "I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated, and those who quickly recognize the validity of the point to be more educated."

Brant,

I am not sure where the Connection between Saddam and terrorists with ability to hit the U.S. would come into play? What do you know....

To the best of my knowledge so far, the U.S. has been looking for links but has found no strong links yet....

Just want to be educated...

Europe, read this thread well. This is normal, everyday Americans speaking here. Not wild-eyed maniacs. Seeing the reality of this regime on TV, on top on 9-11, has America wound up like it hasn't been since December 7, 1941.

Which side do you want to be on?

Hmmmm Eric Rolph, I guess you dont follow the pope? You sound like an athiest. You probably scream "Separation of church and state!!!" everytime you see a fellow student bow thier head in the cafeteria.... and yet you whine when America makes an unchristian (to your ignorant, addled mind) move to protect life and promote peace.

Why is there a deep suspicion of American motives? And I am seriously asking this question: haven't we always promoted democracy and hasn't that democracy always worked out for those whom we promoted it to?

I perfectly understand the American rage about European short-sightedess. But be real... where all these bad guys got their backing in the first place: Osama (Afganistan against Soviet), Gaddafi (seculars against tribal chiefs), Saddam (seculars against Khomeini)? Are everyone sure that some dumbheads in Washington aren't feeding another monster right now?

This is how this war is perceived even by the not-so-long ago pro-American Europeans like me: a rape of a sovereign country by the hypocrite Americans.

America is the number one sponsor of dictators and terrorism. She decides that American soldiers (dumbos as they are) are heroes, while innocent Irakies are "collateral dammage." America decides unilaterally what is evil.

Well, this is my prediction: that if not militarily, America will lose this war in the long run. It has already lost in the eyes of Europe and the rest of the world.

Personally, I strongly believe that America is no longer a beacon of freedom, nor of freedom of speech, nor a democracy. Undereducated and misinformed as average Americans are, they are by no means in a condition to tell the rest of the world that they are right, that the rest of us are confused.

HM

Well, Mike, I can be reasonable and I'll give it a shot. First of all, if you're right, you're right [impersonal 'you'] and even if every single other person in the world thinks you're wrong that doesn't change the fact that you're right. Our mothers were correct when they said, "If everyone else jumps off a bridge does that mean you will, too?" I cannot understand the argument that if Europe disagrees then we are wrong. We may be right or we may not, but what does what anyone else thinks have to do with it?

Point second: The UN and Europe did nothing while Rwanda killed 1/5 of it's population. The Sudan is *at this moment* engaed in the slave trade and Europe and the UN does nothing. I see no moral superiority there.

Point third: Many countries in Europe have fiddled while a serious militant muslim problem has developed in their country. They were in part *afraid* to back this war. No moral superiority there.

Point fourth: The 'gang of four' had obvious and criminal (according to their own vaunted UN) financial dealings with Iraq the entire time they cried for more sanctions and more time. To make more money? No moral superiority there.

That's enough for now. If you would address these points with your own arguments? Mostly anti-war people don't seem to want to. In fact no one I have discussed the war with would address these four points at all. They just change the subject.

Eric,
You want to debate about the debate?

I'm outta here. Someone call me when Eric actually has a point to make that is SLIGHTLY ON TOPIC.

MIKE! MIKE!

You are a liberal CHICKEN SHIT!

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing's worth a war is worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable coward who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

Europe has been creating dialouge about the validity of war in Iraq, but I would like to continue to leave the question open: why hasn't religion played a larger role in creating discourse about the war?

Joel Mackey, I'm not sure what your point is, but surely you don't need to pick a fight about atheism. You prob. don't know very many (we're a TINY minority), but I'm sure there are atheists on both sides of the argument about this war. I'm in favor of this war myself.

Point One: The U.S. is in this war to protect itself and other democracies. Democratizing Iraq is a means to an end: a safer world. Don't forget that people who believe in democracy also believe that no other form of government is legitimate, and that the existence of totalitarian states threatens democacy.

Point Two: Europeans and others -- cynically or naively -- often impose a different standard on U.S. behavior than they do on the behavior of their own countries. They wish the U.S. to operate as some kind of global aid society, responding to polls and street demos, rather than in our own self interest.

Eric:

I have come to the conclusion that I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Mike:

"To the best of my knowledge so far, the U.S. has been looking for links [to terrorism] but has found no strong links yet...."

Hmm. I don't suppose suicide car bombings, calls for "martyrdom" operations and jihad, the deliberate killing of civilians by the fedayeen, the execution of prisoners, not to mention reports from the Marines that they were fighting a division of Arab "volunteers" on the way to Baghdad. And just try telling the Israelis that Saddam has no links to terrorism. In fact, the Iraqis are on the public record as supporting terrorism. The first reported casualty of this war was a terrorist from the Palestinian Liberation Front, an organization whose claim to fame was the "courageous" execution of an elderly American paraplegic aboard the Achille Lauro. This terrorist was in the bunker that we bombed in the opening "decapitation attack" at the beginning of the war. His death was publicly announced in a press release from the PLF.

This is just a short list of what we know, so far.

But if you don't want to see it, then you won't. So why do I even bother?

enloop, Point Two is very perceptive. I wish I'd thought of it myself.

(Point One of course is being endlessly argued. Those who don't agree with it now never will.)

Brant,

I was getting at serious ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

Obviously Iraq terrorizes Israel, so does just about every other Arab state...

To the best of my knowledge Saddam and Al Qaeda have bad blood between them...

HM,

Few on this side of the Atlantic believe that Europe's opposition to this war has been principled in the least.

What did Europe do for the Bosnian muslims as they were being systematically murdered by the Serbs?

Nothing.

Who stopped the killing?

Americans.

What did Europe do about genocide in Kosovo?

Nothing.

Who stopped it?

Americans.

Who is losing the peace in the former Yugoslavia, through bureaucratic incompetence?

The E.U., U.N. and OSCE.

Take that from a well-educated American who lived in Europe for several years.

HM --

I wonder how much you know about real Americans?

I'm one, born & raised here. I speak 3 languages, read 2 more, have read most of Europe's literature from the Classical Greeks onward, hold 2 graduate degrees, teach at one of the top undergraduate schools in the world.

I've travelled in Europe, done business with both the Middle East and the Far East.

I wonder what your credentials are for analyzing current events or for assuming Americans are undereducated. Have you travelled throughout the US? Are you familiar with our literature and political theory, how our political structures and economy work, what the current demographics of the US vs. Europe are? or do you just console yourself by adopting uninformed ideas?

Europe has created dialogue, in my opinion, by opening up an opposing view on the war in Iraq.

In any case, I'll rephrase my question: why hasn't religion created a serious conversation between the groups with opposing views (those for war versus those against war)? Has religion has become irrelevant? Or, again, do I not understand some of the basic tenants of religion: love, peace, friendship, understanding, and life. Am I missing part of the picture?

And the above dialogs are a great example in the abyss that has developed and separates US and European perceptions, and why there is such a divergence in viewpoints. Interesting, from a socio-historical viewpoint.....

"What did Europe do for the Bosnian muslims as they were being systematically murdered by the Serbs?"

Of course we now kwo know that many of those Bosnian Moslems were Al Queda members staging killings of other moslems.

Same in Kosovo. Please note that many of the "Arab-Aghans" we now have in cuba served in Bosnia and Kosovo killing Serb civilians as well as other Moslems.

Hmmm, with HM's history, I would think he could determine what is evil.

But med/dental care and 6 weeks off is more important.

So, HM, the atrocities are just starting to come out. How many will it take for you to decide what is "evil?"

Besides, we know who's behind the peace marches in Europe. Where do you think all the marxists, anti-globos, bolshies, commies, anarchists, greens, and their ilk went after the fall of the USSR? Why during the Italian protest a couple of weeks before the Feb protest were they singing marxist anthems?

Follow the money. And while you're at it, start reading samizdata.net. You're well on your way to communism. You Europeans should also begin reading europundits and innocentsabroad.blogspot.com.

As to ties between al qaeda and Saddam? He was the largest money launderer in the world. Start reading Laurie Mylroie and Jayna Davis.

Gotta go, Mike.

Tell Alice I said hi!

Eric; gosh no son; you're not missing part of the picture!!

Eric,

Yes - you are missing something. "Religion" could be any combination of orthodox, new age, extremist, protestant, catholic, muslim, jewish, satanism - get the picture?

Mike:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. From what I hear, the terrorists in the NE of Iraq were linked to Al Quada. But besides that, Al Quada may be the most known about terrorist cell, but it's not the only one, nor are the others any less dangerous to America. Most of them are anti-US (to put it mildly) by default.

About Religious Folk(I think it was Eric):
Here's the thing--Americanism is a religion. It's a belief system, based on a moral outlook and a script called The Constitution, that also allows for belief in a more traditional religion (or not, your choice). Afterall, America is the only country in the world that has people flock to it because they feel they are American. Don't look to find many religious Americans for a voice of peace through hanging our soldiers--and that's how they would see it.

And just for the record, I'm Polish-Canadian, but I've never felt as strong a bond for either country as I do for the good ol' US of A. Suppose that makes me a convert. Now all I have to do is get in. Maybe we could trade citizenships. I'd even give you a deal: my two for your one?

And as to Americans being ignorant?

We on the web need a good translation program and we can read what you think. You forget that.

Also try merdeinfrance and dissidentfrogman. Plus Andrew Sullivan.

It's time you became less ignorant about US. You forget your vast history precedes you.

Eric,

I'll assume that by "religion" you mean Christianity in some generic form. I think there are several reasons you aren't seeing organized Christian groups trying to promote peace dialogue between the coalition and the Iraqi regime.

First, dialogue requires a willingness on both sides to seek truth and justice. There is substantial evidence that this regime has no such motive or desire.

Second, Christianity (among other major religions) calls our attention to two different high values: peace/love on the one hand, including forgiveness, and justice on the other hand. The bridge between them is repentance - a willingness to acknowledge and leave behind wrongdoing. Where that is present, reconciliation can happen. Where it is refused, as this regime has refused, justice ultimately will be done. There ARE some actions that are evil and those who cling to those actions ultimately must be stopped in the name of justice.

For this reason most Christians have accepted the sad necessity of some wars as just, in the face of great evil.

Sorry folks for the slight rant. But you all know converts tend to be the most hardcore:)

America, more specifically the American public, are showing themselves to be much more "sophisticated" than the increasingly conspiracy-theory-nutcase European media.

As the European media tries to prove this war is a Zionist-Oil-World Domination War, Americans know it is simply the right thing to do. For American security, the Iraqi people, and for the ingrateful, morally degenerate Europeans whom we have protected and fostered for the last 60 years.

Does anyone have HARD evidence not JFK like circumstantial evidence strongly connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda....

If the CIA can't find this stuff it would be interesting to see who can....

If America is a religion, who is it's leader? God, I would assume. Who is acting as God's spritual leader in America's religion? George W. Bush?

Could we split off the "Eric is an idiot" discussion into a separate blog? I'm sure there would be plenty of material.

Eric Rolph

Europe wasn't needed for an opposing viewpoint to arise. That would have arisen from Asia and Africa if Europe had immediately fallen in line with the US.

As for religion, I wouldn't say that religion has become irrelevant, just that it offers little that isn't expressed through normal political channels. The moral arguments for and against the war, to a large extent, are not bound to a particular belief system. And the natural tendency in the West (particularly in Europe) to avoid the controversy inherent in appeals to religious authority means that even when religion has something to say, many would rather find other ways to say that something.

But if you have an idea of what, specifically, communities of faith could contribute to the debate that hasn't been covered, what would it be?

To follow up my previous post re: Eric's question,

as to religious groups promoting dialogue between pro- and anti-war-in-Iraq groups, I see little evidence that the anti-war groups (for the most part) respect or understand religion.

Most Americans, whether devout or not, value religion. A minority of intellectuals and many "celebrities" here neither understand nor value it, of course, but by far the vast number of Americans do. They in many cases have done and are talking about the issues involved in the war on terrorism and the coalition entry into Iraq . But I repeat, to have a dialogue across parties requires that both parties respect the other side. I see no evidence that the antiwar movement here in the US is interested in dialogue and even less evidence that Europeans, by and large, would be open to a dialogue mediated by religious groups.

If there is evidence I've missed I'd love to hear / read / see it, so do pass it along if you know of any. But none of my experiences working with French, German or Italian colleagues and customers over the last 20 years suggests this would be a context they would value ....

If America is a religion, then the leadership is a triumvirate between the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President. It is, by the way, a secular religion.

Many people know merde in France and Andrew Sullivan, still I would not give the advice to use these sites as premium sources of information ! lol

These people keep on saying that French are anti-Semites, that Jacques Chirac wants Saddam Hussein to remain in power etc. etc.

Sorry, but some people should get some information from normal French people, not from Americans living in France, a racist French or some English living in America, daily quoting Ruper Murdoch's media.
Sure, very few Americans can read what is not written in English, but the main problem is: they wouldn't know what to think about what they read.

While most of the europeans can read English and have access to all sources of information, I'm afraid that Americans can't.

Still if you want me to translate something, to ask me something about France or Europe, just ask, I, among others will be pleased to help.

From HM:

"Personally, I strongly believe that America is no longer a beacon of freedom, nor of freedom of speech, nor a democracy. Undereducated and misinformed as average Americans are, they are by no means in a condition to tell the rest of the world that they are right, that the rest of us are confused."

I wonder HM, if you've actually ever BEEN to America? I wonder if you've noticed how we've treated the anti-war protestors? I live in San Francisco, where there have been violent protests, molotov cocktails found, and what have we done? Cited and released people who refused to get out of intersections. No one has been interned, or shot, or prevented from any peaceful protest. No one. Including those who have called for the overthrow of the government.

"Undereducated"? Excuse me, but who invented the computer you are using? How invented the medicines that keep you alive? Who wins more Nobel Prizes than anyone else? Who is exploring outer space? Who is creating nanotechnology? Who decoded the human genome. Who created the most powerful economy on earth?

Just luck?

Sorry, pal. You ARE confused. But that's ok, Americans are also famous for forgiving-and-forgetting. You come around, take a hard look at reality, and we'll shake hands.

An American Quote for HM:

"In times of change, learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer

Even if your "undereducated" remark had any merit at all (and it doesn't), education is really only half the story. You need to use it, and use your head. But that's neither here nor there, because I am here and you are there. I am proud of my country for not repeating the errors of the past, regardless of the incessant complaints of the elitist Europeans. It is just as it was when I was in Europe in the 80s. Scads of Europeans complaining about how vulgar Americans are, and then going out the same night to drink Tequila and listen to Willie Nelson music in bars lined with American state flags. If it's fashionable to bash Americans, then go right ahead. But don't think we don't see through it.

rkb, thank you for your thoughtful discussion, I appreciate the time you've taken to address questions I've posed.

I would like to further clarify my position here, when I say dialoge between two groups, I do mean dialouge between the United States and Bathis political leaders. Saddam is a genocidal Seinfeld-like freak of chaos, George Bush is a comical political leader far too mired in his own self-importance and religious zealotry to discuss issues properly.

I am talking about dialoge between ordinary individuals who share differeing viewpoints; why do devisive issues create the only common ground that I see: hatred, alienation, and a sense of cold disrespect. Shoul religion offer an alternative arena for the discussion that might impart some peace, understanding, and little lovin?

Eric,

I definitely agree with the hatred, and animosity feeling that emanates from certain members of this board. I dont think Washington and Jefferson would have discussed politics this way.

Religiously though I would have to disagree and would definitely keep the religious aspect of things out of the forums. Religion is good on the whole but fires people up and complicates the already cloudy situations.

Just my two cents...

I remember when I lived in Europe for a short time. I heard them complain often that they didn't have access to American diplomats in the way the American news does. After seeing the treatment that they are having with the Europeans it doesn't surprise me.

The news media in Europe is also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than that of the rest of the civilized world. Yes, there is a civilized world outside of Europe, though with the elitism that runs rampant over there, they never see it.

One thing the Europeans never seem to accept is that the American president serves the American people. They seem to have this strange idea that the American president should serve them as well as the American people. I chalk this up to the socialism that is rampant in Europe. As socialists think the powerful should serve their needs and wants, and the powerful should never worry about their own.

This also ties in with the fairy tale belief that the powerful can do no good and the weak can do no evil.

Mike:

America has one of the best record in nation building in the world. Some would say it was the best. Unless your a communist and think the Soviets did a better job in Eastern Europe, then yes the U.S. Does a bad job, as they don't build communist countries. That is the nature of the myth, " The U.S. Isn't good a nation Building."

Mike, I suppose I have a different view of religion than yourself, but this is probably what makes freedom so great, we can have differening opinions.

Why does religion + war: touchy feelings? I feel religion would be the answer to war. Then again, I do not study nor participate in religion on a regular basis. I would also say that I am not a religious person, but would like to believe in it's ability to foster peace, love, and understanding.

If justice is in the equation of all religions, I would probably want to question what interpretation individuals here have about justice. My quick definition is: the legal system or the act of applying or upholding the law.

HM and Kyotodioxide,

Here's another American who speaks multiple languages: English, French, Japanese at a near native level, Spanish conversationally, and Portugeuse to a limited degree. Here's an American who has lived in the US, Israel, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, and Brazil, all before I was 25. And here's an American who's visited another couple dozen countries not on that list.

So please take your condescension elsewhere.

As to the mild amount of substance in kyotodioxide's post - I have many friends and family in France, and believe you me I know what is going on there. I know damn well that the French are every bit as bad as our newspaper articles in the US can make them out to be - and they have hardly scratched the surface.

There are some things that I just do not nor can I ever really comprehend.

1) Containment. As if to say that the mass murder of a people who are within defined borders that does not involve me directly is acceptable.

2) "There is no link between Sadaam and Al-qaida" Well ya know what? This may be true. I'm not 100% sure. For the sake of argument, let's say there is no connection between sadaam and al-qaida.

There are however Ansar al Islam terrorist training camps in Iraq. Whether or not these camps have relations with al-qaida is irrelevant.

They are terrorist camps, and that is not debatable.

Stating that we will do nothing against regimes that harbor terrorists that do not directly attack us is much like saying it's okay for sadaam to remain in power because his actions against his people subjects do not directly effect us.

This war is just. Saying otherwise is an act of moral relativism. Saying otherwise is selfish.

-Shoul religion offer an alternative arena for the discussion that might impart some peace, understanding, and little lovin?

No. Peace, understanding, and universal brotherhood are not traditional Western religious ideals. In the Christian tradition, justice, mercy, and grace are the primary ideals. "Love thy neighbor" is an application of the three. Remember, this is same religion where Jesus separated faith from government, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," and who also said "I come not to bring peace, but division." Besides, there are too many divisions in Christianity in America, as well as Jewish sects, Islamic sects, Hindi and Buddists sects, plus the secular philosophies and designer mysticism, which, contrary to popular belief, do not share identical values, for a religion-based dialogue of any issue to be taken seriously or to hold any authority over a majority of the population.

-why do devisive issues create the only common ground that I see: hatred, alienation, and a sense of cold disrespect.

Alas, I believe it is human nature to despise things because one does not like the person who created it, one did not have input in creating it, or the object of one's wrath not fitting in with one's perception of the world.

Mike,

I see you've acknowledged Saddam's connections to the Arafatistani terrorists. Here's some more info for you:

* Iraqi diplomats have been expelled from the Phillipines for having ties to Abu Sayyaf. Abu Sayyaf is an Al Qaeda linked group.
* The terror camp in NE Iraq belonged to Ansar al Islam. They are heavily backed by Iraq, and have ties to Al Qaeda.

You can confirm these by doing searches on Google News. For the first, search for "Abu Sayyaf" and Iraq. I haven't tried the second yet, but I imagine "Ansar al Islam" and Iraq would work.

Our CIA does not see the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda for a very simple reason. Since the 1990s, the CIA has accepted the Steve Emerson theory that terrorists are comprised of loose networks. (As an aside, Steve Emerson's investigative journalism is excellent. He just drew the wrong conclusions from the data here.) The CIA has not been investigating state sponsorship of terrorism for a long time since it no longer believes that it is a major factor. This has hobbled the CIA; finding state sponsorship after having said it would not occur would be a great big fat egg on the face. Post 9/11, major CIA bureaucrats would probably not like the additional investigation into 9/11 that that would entail.

Achariyth, when you say, "I believe it is human nature to despise things" do you believe this applies to everyone? Is it necessary to show evidence or does the facts of life merely bare this out?

You also say, "Peace, understanding, and universal brotherhood are not traditional Western religious ideals." Does anyone believe in these ideals? Should anyone believe in them? Could someone be accused of acting immorally when using these words without believing in them?

I have always believe that western religion believe in peace, understanding, and brotherly love, but through our discussion I am starting to wonder if justice is the main tenant behind religion, with mercy and grace following behind. And, furthermore, I do not understand the ideas of mercy nor grace ? what is their purpose?

Thanks for the info Ariel,

I will look into that...either way I didn't know of a CIA embraced Steve Emerson theory so either way I will learn more...

Secondly, as a response to Achariyath's reply on it being human nature to naturally hate people who oppose you. I think you are right on...
However, in a civilization part of the price of being civilized is holding back human impulse and the like.... If we are truly the enlightened democracy we claim to be we musn't only talk the talk we have to listen to others opinions respectfully.
-Mike

Thank you for your response to kyoto, ariel, that is one of the roots of the problem between Old Europe and US.

They're condescending elitist fill-in-the-blank.

Sometimes it really is so simplisme.

To think we are so ignorant that while we read, we cannot understand.

Oh, kyoto, and to denigrate those bloggers, fine. I was talking about the articles they link to. You might not like the messenger, but the message is coming thru loud and clear. We don't need someone to "interpret" the message for us.

we we we, they they they, you you you, us us us, them them them, me me me, simple simple simple, simple.

Not getting enough attention, Eric?

Eric,

You are asking important questions about the nature and role of religion. As another person noted, this forum isn't the place to discuss whether or not a given religion is true or good, but I think it's useful to answer your question about justice and mercy.

Different religions will answer this differently. The central Christian doctrine (shared by Judaism and Islam) is that all matters of justice, mercy, right and wrong, forgiveness and peace are rooted in the fact that we are created by and accountable to a higher power which we call God. That power is in and of himself holy -- that is, questions of how we should behave are not just a matter of what "right thinking" people believe, but in fact derive from an outside, ultimate source. In these 3 "religions of the Book" justice demands that we be held accountable for the ways in which we choose not to live according to God's laws / holiness. Mercy is his acceptance of us when we acknowledge our shortcomings and ask forgiveness.

Therefore, in these religions, peace and brotherhood can only be understood and achieved in the context of justice and mercy. Where there is no willingness to be held accountable for doing right rather than wrong, then justice must be done.

I hope this helps explain the ideas a bit. (This is not necessarily a statement of my own beliefs, just an explanation of some concepts central to these religions.)

This business of bashing europe seems totally unjustified to me. The US has done plenty of things in its past to be ashamed of so I think we are the last ones who should be pointing fingers. Not only have supported the rule of fascists like Saddam in other countries (the shah of iran anyone?) but many of the biological WMD that Saddam possessed after the first gulf war were connected to strains sold to him by US companies during the 80s. While I do believe that we should remove Saddam from power, I think all of this flag waving and patting ourselves on the back is a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. Just because we are doing the right thing today doesn't give us the right to claim that we've always held the moral highground.

Coming in late, don't suppose anyone is likely to read these words. If they did, I would first like to ask those who say the CIA says this or the CIA says that, please tell me about your personal top secret briefings from the CIA. I would really like to know how to get one.

And to mdwood, those biological samples were available to every nation on Earth with which we had normal trading relations. There are legitimate medical and agricultural reasons for studying standardized strains of diseases which affect populations and livestock. Turning it into some kind of shadowy conspiracy to arm Saddam is either disingenuous or ignorant or both.

It's a stupid argument anyway. Even if it can be argued that we did or did not support a particular tyrannical government in the past, it does not mean we have to continue that policy in the future. Indeed, if we have done wrong, it is incumbent upon us to rectify the situation.

isn't it about time europe had another case of plague?

Gee, "kyotodioxide," I think that it is racist to -not- expect the Sarcelles crowd to act like decent human beings, at the least avoiding things like rioting, rape and immolating others. I suspect that the Dissident Frogman and W feel the same way.