Sunday's blog shows very well how people at the government expected things to be. That all experts gave a different forecast did not worry them.

Who is to fault, the Iraqis that did not follow the script (but followed the established pattern from hundreds of years), or those who expected reality to conform to their wishes.

Makes you wonder what other things they expect to conform to their wishes too.

José

I am trying to think positive about the upcomming election. It is obvious to any thinking person that we don't need another four years of the same. Unfortunatley, now that we are in the quagmire that is Iraq what in the hell can we do? Should we just pull out and let them fight it out to decide who gets to lead the country? That dosent seem quite right and yet on the other hand sticking around very much longer will not lend much legitamacy (sp/) to who ever gets elected over there. That is if we HAVE to stick around just to keep the elected officials in office what does that say about the government that is in place?

quote:

---

Originally posted by striv:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M:
So when will the Americans discover they are less safe with Bush?

---

I'm very much afraid they will learn the hard way; enduring four more years of his administration.

---

I don't think that will work. Anybody who doesn't
already feel less safe because of Bush will
consider any additional attacks on the US as somewhat
inevitable and deny that another president could've
done any better.

[edit] Of the people who will vote for Bush, I think it
should be pointed out that there are actually two
groups of through wrt foreign policy: Those who don't
realize the US' Asshole Score is so high, and Those who
are proud of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marshdrifter,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bravus:
This point has been made in a number of places - so far the rest of the world has pretty much made the distinction: love Americans, hate the administration. But if Bush is elected (not re-elected) this time, will that change? I think the rest of the world still has to remember that half of US population voted for Bush and half against him, either way - and, as a sweeping generalisation, I suspect more of those Americans with whom the rest of us come into contact, either because they're online or because they travel, are likely to have voted against Bush, because they are the ones who know what is going on in the world.

---

A part of my mind said "Bravus Hits Nail. Home Run." The other part felt strangely uncomfortable. Your post reminded me of a chap I met here in Montreal at a bar I frequent. A chap from California came in some months ago - extremely delightful fellow, who was a walking joke machine. But he took attacks on Americans personally. "We have the balls to stand up for our beliefs" he said. "It pisses me off when we go in 'cause someone asked us to, and then we get shat on for going in when someone asked us to."

I wasn't certain what incident he was talking about exactly. Fighting the Huks? The Communist party in Italy? Arbenz in Guatemala? Arguing isn't my forte, so I just sat and listened.

There are those who vote for Bush abroad (and I hesitate to use the Republican/Democrat divide, making it into a fundamental issue of sides has been one of the most painful tragedies of recent years for me to watch from Canada) feel that the interests of their country comes first, and that by at least wearing their motivations (mirky facts aside), they're at least honest about why the US government does as it feels it needs to, and doesn't, as this Californian told me, "act like wusses."

Many Americans do not - and very possibly - will continue not to care about their image abroad. And they don't care. Because foreign policy to them is not based on image. It's based on something else. Willpower, decisiveness, and the idea that talk is cheap and action is what matters. It is not a cowboy mentality, but rather, some modern permutation of or distillation of Puritan morality.

Just a thought based on hours of meandering contemplation. Do with it what ye will.

quote:

---

And if anything positive comes out of Iraq, at all, it will be the end of shock-therapy economic theory. The radical free-marketeers are already palpably less cocksure.

Anyone following the situation in the former East-Block will know that we have a ticking bomb there, too, for the same reasons. And much will depend on how the EU manages that situation.

---

Not sure I follow you here. Are you equating the bogged-down war in Iraq with globalization? Or with the kind of "shock therapy" advocated by the IMF after past economic crises?
I don't see what Iraq has to do with globalization or with free markets for that matter. I've lived and worked in North America, Europe and now in Asia and it has been my general experience that countries which embrace globalization are better off than those that don't and that countries where markets are free are in a broad sense freer socially and politically than those that don't. There are exceptions of course, but in general I think the argument holds up. The IMF and others who advocate shock therapy for economies in trouble have made mistakes but if you look at the evidence in places like South Korea, a short sharp shock seems better than dragging out a crisis.
Are you suggesting people in the East Bloc were better off under communism or totalitarianism or whatever you want to call their former regimes?
I would classify myself as anti-Bush and think the U.S. has completely screwed up in Iraq but I would also argue against your assertion that nothing good has come out of what happened there. The Baathists are out, along with Sadaam, and that can only be good. Or do you think the mass graves and history of brutal repression in Iraq are just pro-war propaganda?

"I don't see what Iraq has to do with globalization or with free markets for that matter."

Read the article linked by remotepush two posts earlier. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, at least you will be able to see why some people make the connection.

"objecting to the careless one-size-fits-all application of neo-liberal dogma"

Sometimes it's easy to tell who's Australian.

Thanks, misty!


Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Shev: I've made this point to dayliner before so perhaps I should have not bothered, but in matters economic we are not confined to choosing between an unrestricted free market (or whatever form of corporate welfare is this week being passed off as an unrestricted free market) and Stalinism; there are many alternative economic structures to choose from instead. And the idea that the Yeltsin goverment and its IMF advisors had no option but to pursue shock-tactic policies or see Russia return helplessly to totalitarian state-capitalism (or "communism", if you're not fussy about terminology) is also a ludicrous over-simplification. In fact, this false dichotomy is reminiscent of the Cold War catchphrase "If you don't like it here why don't you go live in Russia". Not every economic model the financial sector diapproves of is tantamount to communism.

Basically, Dayliner made a false rhetorical point and I called him on it. I'm sorry if that seemed glib.

This American election Topic seems to keep on dominating the Blog, so I think, I'll give some European input once again.

Over here, there is a TV Channel called arte.
It is some wired half German, half French culture channel that caught my intention by it's reports and news programs.

One of the best programs they have running at the moment, and by one of the best, I mean one of the best in the whole television landscape, is: mit Offenen Karten.
Unfortunatly I don't see it that often, mainly because I do not watch that much TV – now that doesn't mean I spend no time looking in that big black box – I do, but I prefer my own program ... my own DVD's and files.

But, enough, lets get to the point.
By chance it happened that I watched arte yesterday ... and at the moment they have something running called USA, DIE UNVERSTANDENE SUPERMACHT. (USA, the not understood superpower.)

Now this series seems to have one purpose: To let us Europeans better understand the Americans.

They try to do that by showing us a lot of there migrations programs, there way of life, there cars and motivations, there strange definition of democracy (and why they believe only her way is right), there view of history, there school system, there radical religious fundamentalism, there nationalism, there gun craziness and so on. – They try to deliver all that in an understanding non judging way.

The problem is, while watching this with my girlfriend, we where shocked about there (in our eyes terrible wrong) methods and amused about there funny view of history. So in the end, the report did exactly the opposite of what it meant to cause!

Now, I have been in the USA and had quite some time to talk to people over there and in the end, they are just normal people like we are over here. I truly believe that, as long as you stay in cities, you will always meet the same multicultural crowed of people, and there way of life will always be mostly comparable.

After talking so much, you might wonder where is my point? My point is simple: what arte should have shown, is the majority of commons between Europeans and Americans instead of stressing out there differences.

One question to all non-Americans here on the board: "Are you happy with your government?"
As a teacher of mine once stressed out so beautifully: "Democracy is one of the worst political systems I know, unfortunatly I don't know any better."

I don't really understand the rest of the world's fascination with everything the US does. They seem to think because we are a superpower our people must be supermen. We're just people, like you.

Our multiculturalism sometimes leads to a bizarre social schizophrenia. I think most of us feel it is our duty to use our dominant finacial and military positions to do good in the world, but the structure of our markets favors us taking positions that are sometimes not so good to local populations.

And of course, half of us did not vote for Bush (if you really think about it, since only half the voters actually vote, only a quarter of the population showed up and said Bush is the guy...) There's a very large number of people here who do not support the current administration, but there's also a pervasive feeling that not much can be done to change things.

Too much of our current politics is in favor of market forces, forces which unfortunately seem focused on short term goals which lead to short term profits at the expense of long term stability. This system seems designed to distract people from deeper issues by politicizing trivial issues that are given the majority of coverage. But what can we do? The people who are supposed to be watching out for the interests of the people, the elected politicians, seem to profit the most from the current situation. It is a difficult quagmire to extract ourselves from, all the more so because so many don't recognize it.

quote:

---

I can't wait to see Dubyas "fall-down-face" when he loses....

---

I'll settle for that, but I'd rather see his "perp-walk-face" when he's indicted for war crimes.

i don't think the Bush family has to worry about such things, unfortunatly. They can afford Jonny Cochran....

quote:

---

You'd better hope that American Presidents don't start getting hauled in on war crime charges. That would be a bigger cluster fuck than the Iraq war.

---

Yes... imagine the mess. Having to reprint all those history books...

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuldog:

quote:

---

You'd better hope that American Presidents don't start getting hauled in on war crime charges. That would be a bigger cluster fuck than the Iraq war.

---

Yes... imagine the mess. Having to reprint all those history books...

---

Could you explain that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty:
are you asking for a fight?

i'd say so

---

If I was asking for a fight, I'd bite his ear. How dense are you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newromancer:
there strange definition of democracy (and why they believe only her way is right),

---

Ah, so in reality you're being given insight into American hillbillies. Trust me, many Americans don't think that only our way is right.

I appreciate the sentiment of the post, though, New.

it's not a question of black and white. i severely doubt the world will end. life as we know it will probably totter on for a good while yet.

doesn't mean what's happened and what will happen doesn't matter. because i too have a daughter, a whole family in fact. and their general wellbeing is very important to me.

Please don't reduce democracy to elections. There's quite a bit more to it than that. The greatest democratic advances in the U.S. in the last 60 years have come as the result of our courts suddenly deciding to enforce laws that had been on the books for more than 100 years. Elections certainly affected those, but not very directly. They came mostly as the result of mainstream culture changes and new tactics pursued by the downtrodden.

Democracy is not on its way down the tubes in America. Elections are. There will eventually be consequences for this, both for the electorate and the elected.

As a wiseass once said, "When your politics are only about the contest, you can win the contest, but you will always lose the polity."

quote:

---

Originally posted by vecna:
What example of democracy-in-action, other than elections, can you come up with (at least in America)? I can't think of one.

---

Dude? Did you read my whole post, or just the first sentence? That's why I made it so short, you know.

Expansion of voting rights to non-whites? Democracy via the courts.

The most significant advances in green politics in the U.S. in the last 10 years? Democracy via the courts.

Massive reductions in police brutality in the last 50 years? Democracy via the courts.

Massive reduction in old-school public corruption in the last 40 years? Democracy via the courts and civil servants with badges.

Increase in fairness of criminal trials (still with lots of room to go further) in the last 40 years? Democracy via the courts.

Reductions in unfair treatment of non-whites in regard to access to public services (still with lots of room to go further) in the last 40 years? Democracy via the courts.

Are ye catchin' on?

quote:

---

and vec, it may not seem to do a whole hell of a lot of good to vote, but if you don't, i say you have no right to complain.

---

There are various reasons why this argument doesn't sit well with me. The most important of those is this: As far as I see it, if I vote for Kerry, I get the same thing as I get if I vote vore Bush and vice versa. If I vote for the Greens (which I can't do anyway) I have no hope of seeing said candidate in office. I am most literally (as far as I see it) given no choice in the matter. So whether I vote or not, I am still stuck with someone in office that I am going to be forced to bitch about. I AM going to vote... but, like I said before, the system itself will perpetuate with or without my consent.