Why American Democracy Succeeded and European Democracy Failed

[Skeptic]

In the history of the USA, it has been a democracy for over 220 years, and had been--with the single exception of the civil war--at peace with itself, at least, and prosperous. In those 220 years, continental Europe had been wrecked by war after war, culminating by the two most horrible wars in human history, and was ruled by one dictator or thug after another, from Napoleon to Hitler to Miloshevic. If Europe exists today, it is solely due to American help and power, which first saved it from Nazism and then from Communism.

Why has European Democracy so often failed, while American one succeeded? I think that the answer is simple. Americans are pragmatists. They look for PRACTICAL ANSWERS for ACTUAL PROBLEMS, while the Europeans keep looking for UTOPIAN ANSWERS to IMAGINARY PROBLEMS.

For example, consider the problems workers faced in the 1900s in both the USA and Europe. They were exploited, indeed, in the "gilded age" of the time, with no labor laws and unlimited, cuttthroat competition. The American solution? Pass reasonable child-labor laws, minimum-wage laws, working-hours laws, and so on: all of them people could agree with as just and that actually worked in practice. The result? Today America is socialist in the good sense: look at the socialist party's platform from 1910, say, and you'll see that virtually everything was implemented.

The European solution? "Solve" the problem by embracing utopian, unrealist Marxism, and go through a series of revolutions that, needless to say, made the worker's situation in the entire block "liberated from opressive capitalism" into a hellhole. The reason it failed was because the "problem" the Europeans wanted to solve in the first place was not the real "make sure workers are treated right" one, but the imaginary "break the evil capitalistic conspiracy against the masses" one.

Consider totalitarianism. America's solution was that of achieving a realistic goal (defeat of Hitler & co.) by real means (tanks and planes). Europe's "solution" was the achieving of an utopian goal (make Hitler a peace-loving person who will keep his word) by utopian, unrealistic means (agree to his every demand).

Examples could be multiplied endlessly, but the point is that the SAME THING is operating today in the war on terror. The USA's goal is realistic, if not easy: defeat terrorist like Al Quaeda by killing them. Its methods are realistics: fight. Europe's goal is utopain: an imaginary "brotherhood of man" where bin Laden will realize the errors of his way and, presumably, retire to become a Koranic scholar. It's method is as usual unrealistic: grovel before the terrorists, send countries that support them money (under the ludicrous idea that the "root cause" of the terror is poverty, and the even more ludicrous idea that sending money to tin-pot dictators will actually alleviate povery).

Europe calls this "sophisticated policy" and "soft power" that works on a "deeper level" than American "simplistic cowboys". In reality, such "sophistication" never leads to anything but surrender, at most buying a little more time in the meanwhile, as history amply proved--because the dictators and terrorists are not too likely to fit the role of changed pentinents who embrace freedom, a necessary, but impossible, precondition for Europe's utopianism to work.

As long as Europe remains utopian and unrealistic, the US, unfortunately, must fight the good fight alone to preserve its, the world's, and in particular, Europe's own freedom. Ah well, this isn't new: the useful idiots in Europe opposed the US's missiles on its soil, under the utopian belief that if they will do nothing their "good will" will really influence the Soviets not to attack, when the US was as usual far more realistic in realising that it is nuclear warheads, not talk about good will or "detente", that would stop the Soviets.

The good news, of course, is that while the USA would like to have Europe's help, it can certainly do without it. It can fight quite effectively alone. If push comes to shove, all the US needs to do is simply not listen to what Europe says, and let it try its "sophisticated diplomacy" of groveling in an attempt to change its policy, just like it tried to do with Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere. It never worked anywhere, so there isn't much chance it would work against the US, either.

[Gem]

I can't beleive how many factors you're ignoring.

Gem

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gem
I can't beleive how many factors you're ignoring.

Gem

OF course I am; I support this evil, "simplistic" American policy (fight) instead og the good, "sophisticated" European one (surrender), ain't I?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Gem
I can't beleive how many factors you're ignoring.

Gem

Can you please state those in a detailed manner rather than "You're wrong!" and then run away? I am very curious to what you have to say. And I do disagree with Skeptic on some level. For example the government by means of government strikebreakers suppressed the worker rights before they were solved by means of law and enforcement of that law. I also think there are deeper reasons for this as France -- during one of its revolutions, which one I do not recall -- was like USA for individuals rights and not for societal rights like it and most of Europe is right now.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As long as Europe remains utopian and unrealistic, the US, unfortunately, must fight the good fight alone to preserve its, the world's, and in particular, Europe's own freedom. Ah well, this isn't new: the useful idiots in Europe opposed the US's missiles on its soil, under the utopian belief that if they will do nothing their "good will" will really influence the Soviets not to attack, when the US was as usual far more realistic in realising that it is nuclear warheads, not talk about good will or "detente", that would stop the Soviets.

The good news, of course, is that while the USA would like to have Europe's help, it can certainly do without it. It can fight quite effectively alone. If push comes to shove, all the US needs to do is simply not listen to what Europe says, and let it try its "sophisticated diplomacy" of groveling in an attempt to change its policy, just like it tried to do with Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere. It never worked anywhere, so there isn't much chance it would work against the US, either.

Amen.

[headscratcher4]

For the sake of provoking arguments...I'll put in my little bomb.

Premise for further discussion:

The two great intelectual movements in Europe in the last 100 years were Communism/Marxism and Facism. Both have millions of bodies underfoot, not to mention a history of opression and repression wherever they've taken root. Indeed, too many Europeans are still bedazzled by these movements, looking for a "pure" form to correct for the massive failures of the past 100 years.

Now, I am making no claim on the wonders or beauty of American politics, ideology, democracy, etc. It is a very flawed instrument. I am merely noting that the movements that caused the most death, grief, opression and repression in the last century comes firmly out of European traditions and history.

This is an Essay question, grades will be accorded on wit, brevity and focus. Extra points for really good anti-American insults that are based on wit, brevity and focus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the history of the USA, it has been a democracy for over 220 years,

Actually, no; we've never been a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. And that distinction is a large reason for the effect that you're seeing.

For example, consider the problems workers faced in the 1900s in both the USA and Europe. They were exploited, indeed, in the "gilded age" of the time, with no labor laws and unlimited, cuttthroat competition. The American solution? Pass reasonable child-labor laws, minimum-wage laws, working-hours laws, and so on:

And let the free market generate enough wealth so that those problems cost more than the benefits that are derived from them. That had the greatest effect, but that's the one thing the Socialists left out. We've always had a market much freer than Europe; that's exactly why we're so prosperous that we can be worried about not buying tuna if dolphins were harmed in their capture, or pay $1 more for a dozen eggs if the chickens were treated nicely.

The USA's goal is realistic, if not easy: defeat terrorist like Al Quaeda by killing them. Its methods are realistics: fight.

Then why is its track record so atrocious?

And make no mistake: there are plenty of these utopian ideals at work here in the US. Fortunately, we've still got enough of a free market that we can still prosper, but it's becoming much, much harder. Look at how much LBJ's "great society" has stifled economic growth.

[Dorian Gray]

Your extended and drawn-out post is one possibility.

Another would be the lack of major conflicts on American soil SINCE the Civil War that gave democracy 120+ years to develop and gel HERE vs. half of Europe only breaking from communism in the last 14 years or less and a cold war being played out across the border countries for 45 years.

Another still would be the fact that America is one country with one government and essentially one language and culture, while Europe is a collection of many sovereign nations with differing customs, laws and languages.

Let the EEU and the Euro gel and develop for 120 years, and you would STILL have to deal with the cultural and linguistic differences.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Another still would be the fact that America is one country with one government

Nope; we're one country with 51 governments.

and essentially one language and culture,

One language, yes (but with several dialects), but not one culture.

One thing Skeptic said is right: Europe has to let go of the failed big government policies of the past to achieve the prosperity that the US has, something they're showing a great reluctance to do.

[Skeptic]

Actually, no; we've never been a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. And that distinction is a large reason for the effect that you're seeing.

Agreed, of course; I meant "democracy" in the wider sense of "open free society".

And let the free market generate enough wealth so that those problems cost more than the benefits that are derived from them.

Indeed so. But that, of course, was one of the realistic factors those who wrote such laws took into considerations when writing them. The labor laws didn't intend to "free the opressed workers" by making factories unprofitable or "eradicate the class unfair class differences" without regard to how much it costs business. Instead, they made specific, usually reasonable, demands on specific issues, such as worker's safety or overtime.

Then why is its track record so atrocious?

I dunno. I'd say winning WWI, WWII, and the cold war is a rather good track record in fighting for freedom.

[Tmy]

I have some theories!

#1 There are too many white people in Europe: They dont have enough multicolored folks to pick on so they just turn on each other and constantly implode. Everyone needs a local scapgoat to focus negative energy on. I mean in Europe you can only pick on the jews just sooo much. In the states you had the blacks, indians, irish immigrants, asians. You name it. Our outsiders were on the inside!


#2 No baseball: Our national pastime caught on right after the Civil War and wevee never looked back. Whiel baseball bonds as as a country it alos gives us that local team to cheer for. It a great outlet to release interstate tension rivalry and tensions. Europe didnt have that, so they settle things thru wars


-By the way. In case you didnt notice Im joking. So please no freaking out.

[geni]

The US has 220 years of democracy? What was all that stuff about women demanding the vote sometime early in the 20th century?

Did you miss that the idea of Europe as an entity that could be look at as a whole is not very old?

Claiming that Europe as a who has any particluar problem is a waste of time. Try sticking to indivdual countries.

[geni]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I dunno. I'd say winning WWI, WWII, and the cold war is a rather good track record in fighting for freedom.

So Russia had nothing to do with winning WWII? You had barly got into WWI when it finished and that was largely due to a certian martime blockade. But credit where it's due you did win the cold war.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by geni


So Russia had nothing to do with winning WWII? You had barly got into WWI when it finished and that was largely due to a certian martime blockade. But credit where it's due you did win the cold war.

First of all it's USSR, Russia was republic of it. Second, I don't want to give USSR credit since they took a chunk of Poland and Finland before the war begun and lastly they did not help with fighting Japan.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In the history of the USA, it has been a democracy for over 220 years, and had been--with the single exception of the civil war--at peace with itself, at least, and prosperous. In those 220 years, continental Europe had been wrecked by war after war, culminating by the two most horrible wars in human history,

Ignoring the obvious fact that the US is a nation where the people have a shared language, shared culture, shared history, shared monetary system etc etc and Europe is not.


The American solution? Pass reasonable child-labor laws, minimum-wage laws, working-hours laws, and so on: all of them people could agree with as just and that actually worked in practice.

Most European countries did this too. What point is the author getting at?


The European solution? "Solve" the problem by embracing utopian, unrealist Marxism,

Factually innacurate. Europe did not embrace marxism.


Consider totalitarianism. America's solution was that of achieving a realistic goal (defeat of Hitler & co.) by real means (tanks and planes). Europe's "solution" was the achieving of an utopian goal (make Hitler a peace-loving person who will keep his word) by utopian, unrealistic means (agree to his every demand).

Comparing two utterly different situations. Germany declared war on the US, forcing Americas hand. The Europeans (and indeed the world) had the problem of trying to contain the conquests of an egomaniacal dictator within the framework of the league of nations.

Originally posted by Skeptic
The USA's goal is realistic, if not easy: defeat terrorist like Al Quaeda by killing them.


Or perhaps entrenching US imperial power in a vitally important region.


blah blah blah... utopian.. blah blah blah... unrealistic.. blah blah blah....groveling...blah blah blah

Yeah, we've heard it all before. Only US military power can keep the world free of the twin evils of terrorism and communism. Naturally US economic interests could not possibly be a motivating factor.

[geni]

Originally posted by Grammatron


First of all it's USSR, Russia was republic of it. Second, I don't want to give USSR credit since they took a chunk of Poland and Finland before the war begun and lastly they did not help with fighting Japan.

How ever much you dislike the USSR they did defeate Hitler. As to fighting Japan have you forgoten the invasion of Manchuria and Korea?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by originalgagster

Comparing two utterly different situations. Germany declared war on the US, forcing Americas hand. The Europeans (and indeed the world) had the problem of trying to contain the conquests of an egomaniacal dictator within the framework of the league of nations.


Yes, of course you are ignoring some key facts here. Firstly Europe robbed Germany because it was a loser thus creating a climate for Hitler to rise up, then it did not act when Hitler broke all the orders set by the league allowing Hitler's power to grow to a point where it was too late to do anything else but fight the war. Second, Germany only declared war after Japan attacked and America's hand was already forced.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by geni


How ever much you dislike the USSR they did defeate Hitler. As to fighting Japan have you forgoten the invasion of Manchuria and Korea?

They helped defeat Hitler that's about it, however so did the English. Yeah Japan did fight USSR, but not when it was needed. Creating a second front for Japan might have let to a quicker resolution of the war in the Pacific.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by shanek
Nope; we're one country with 51 governments.

One of which is sovereign. This is an important distinction betweem the US and Europe, and an important reason why the Civil War went the way it did.

[Skeptic]

So Russia had nothing to do with winning WWII?

Well, it did, but if the US hadn't supplied Britian with weapons before the decleration of war, opened the aerial front in 1942, and the second front in 1944, the USSR might very well have lost, since Germany would probably have conquered Britian and then could have used all its power on the USSR, not half of it.

Any any rate, even if Russia HAD won in such a case, the victory would have made Western Europe into a Gulag, not a democratic society (which is what happened in Eastern Europe, of course), and thus make the victory almost meaningless, merely a replacement of one totalitarian system by another.

You barely got into WWI

You forgot to add that if it wasn't for the US "barely" getting into WWI, the central powers of Germany would likely have won.

that was largely due to a certian martime blockade.

Of course that had something to do with it; hey, after all, you wouldn't want the USA to be an evil, agressive nation and declare war against Germany for no reason, would you?

But credit where it's due you did win the cold war.

During the presidency of the "mentally defective cowboy actor", Ronald Reagen, who "simplistically" considered communism evil and the USSR a menace to world peace.

Before that, there were two decades of Soviet expansion and western demoralization, due to the Soviets laughing up their sleeves at the attempts to find a "detente" and "reconciliation" recommended by the "realistic and sophisticated" liberal politicians on the USSR question. (E.g., Carter and LBJ, and, of course, virtually all the European leaders, except Mrs. Tacher).

Sounds familiar?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The USA's goal is realistic, if not easy: defeat terrorist like Al Quaeda by killing them.

To paraphrase the great David Cross:

"Fighting a war against terror is like fighting a war against jealousy. That's not something you're going to win. At no point in the future is the US going to be able to sit back and say:

"Whew! That's it, got 'em all! Everybody loves us again!""

[hammegk]

Originally posted by originalgagster


Naturally US economic interests could not possibly be a motivating factor.

What motivating factor does Scotland pursue? And you personally?

[geni]

Originally posted by Grammatron


They helped defeat Hitler that's about it, however so did the English. Yeah Japan did fight USSR, but not when it was needed. Creating a second front for Japan might have let to a quicker resolution of the war in the Pacific.

Cheak out the numbers of troops on the eastern and western fronts during WWII. The key battles (moscow stalingrad kursk) all occured on the western front. As to fighting Japan earlier I think they were a little busy fighting one of the greatest armies on the planet on their soil. To be quite honest I don't think it would have made much difference anyway. Japan wasn't going to surender so all that would have been atchived would have been even more bombing raids (plus if the USSR had been able to invade Japan do you think it's fate would have been any different from Poland?)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Valmorian


To paraphrase the great David Cross:

"Fighting a war against terror is like fighting a war against jealousy. That's not something you're going to win. At no point in the future is the US going to be able to sit back and say:

"Whew! That's it, got 'em all! Everybody loves us again!"" '

Perhaps you're right about this; so?

The US thinks, rightly, that just because the war on terror is hard and the end isn't in sight it is no reason not to fight it. At any rate, even if it cannot be defeated, it surely can be minimized and stopped as much as possible. And, sometimes, it CAN be defeated; "unbeatable" forces far stronger than it, and seen by far more people, even in the west, as the "inevitable" wave of the future, WERE utterly defeated--e.g., communism and fascism.

The European alternative is to surrender in advance because it is an "unwinnable war". This sounds really smart (why fight if it's "unwinnable"? Aren't you just "wasting lives" by such "war mongering"?) but what it REALLY means is that Europe only sees two options: immediate and easy victory or "unwinnable conflict" which must be stopped at any price. In practice, what this means is that all you have to do to win against Europe is to make things difficult for them; the prophets of the "unwinnable war" will do the rest.

By the way, the European criticism of American "cowbody mentality" and its determination "to fight an unwinnable war" was not unknown to the ancients. I believe it was Tuchidides who said: "The brave man is always called stupid and reckless--by the coward."

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Skeptic

By the way, the European criticism of American "cowbody mentality" and its determination "to fight an unwinnable war" was not unknown to the ancients. I believe it was Tuchidides who said: "The brave man is always called stupid and reckless--by the coward."

This may be so, but the 'coward' is often right about that. Unless, of course, you think 'bravery' is admirable no matter what the situation or circumstance.

Fighting an unwinnable war may very well be that situation.

[corplinx]

I love how everytime someone critizes Soviet Russia, someone else goes "if it weren't for the USSR, you would be saying heil hitler".

We would have eventually defeated Hitler without Stalin, however, Stalin would have been defeated after winter if there had been no US/UK.

"Stalin may have been a mass murderer and all but he defeated Hitler". If someone said this to my face they would likely be laying down shortly afterwards.

[Dancing David]

Well, gee Sceptic while I admire the usa , you leave out a lot that might countermand your argument.

-oh yeah, the us was so gung ho to fight hitler that fdr had to let the japanese bomb pearl harbor. you ignore that fact, the americans let france go down and most of the cccp before we entered the war.

-the americans so generously wiped out the indeginous inhabitants of the north american continent

-the usa , most notably the texas ranger practised genocide on our border with mexico, and killed citizens of mexican descent

-the usa deported quite a few citizens to mexico during the depression

-the usa allowed for the lynching of many people for a very long time, especialy arfican american americans

-the usa destabaklized a democraticaly elected leader of two nations (chile and iran)

So while the usa is the greatest place on earth, it is not all that you hold it up to be, in europe many nations do not allow thier citizens to starve to death.

[Gem]

First, let me say I agree with you that European foreign policy is screwed right now. Second, that doesn't mean democracy has failed.

One major key difference between America and Europe is that it was divided all the time, not united. If you check right now, they are uniting, albeit slowly, but democraticly.

America never had any real enemies and threats of invasion. After the British were out of the picture, there were never any foreign nation that could actually invade your country. Europe ALWAYS had to worry about invasions, Napoleon, etc. Having enemies at your borders will often result in wars.

Also, America is larger than Europe, has a single federal government and army. If Georgia didn't want to fight during World War 2, but all other states wanted to, that's too bad, they're in it too. If any country in Europe wants to abstain, they can, and nobody can do a thing about it.

Consider totalitarianism. America's solution was that of achieving a realistic goal (defeat of Hitler & co.) by real means (tanks and planes). Europe's "solution" was the achieving of an utopian goal (make Hitler a peace-loving person who will keep his word) by utopian, unrealistic means (agree to his every demand).


Here, you ignore that America never went against totalitarianism until after world war 2, and in fact supported totalitarianism in Latin America and MIddle East. (Yes, because it was against communism, I know the drill) During world war 1, you stayed out of it until far later. During world war 2, things were better thanks to FDR, but guess who was preventing him from declaring war? It took Pearl Harbor and a stupid move from Hitler to declare war on the US of A to get you in.

send countries that support them money (under the ludicrous idea that the "root cause" of the terror is poverty, and the even more ludicrous idea that sending money to tin-pot dictators will actually alleviate povery

Reverse the situation. The US gives aid uzbekistan.

http://www.uzland.uz/2001/november/18/10.htm

Surprise surprise:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uz.html

republic; authoritarian presidential rule, with little power outside the executive branch

Current concerns include terrorism by Islamic militants, a nonconvertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization.


that it is nuclear warheads, not talk about good will or "detente", that would stop the Soviets.

So then explain why Nixon was in China? Weren't they evil communists back then? There's more than nuclear warheads on the chessboard of the world.

The good news, of course, is that while the USA would like to have Europe's help, it can certainly do without it. It can fight quite effectively alone. If push comes to shove, all the US needs to do is simply not listen to what Europe says, and let it try its "sophisticated diplomacy" of groveling in an attempt to change its policy, just like it tried to do with Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere. It never worked anywhere, so there isn't much chance it would work against the US, either.


True, you can fight alone quite effectivly. Can you rebuild everything without theirs?

Gem

P.S.: I don't want to argue for Nazism, but it was pretty practical until everybody was against them.

P.P.S.: Churchill was European. Are you saying he was groveling? Wasn't he elected by Britain in 1939, just in time to say no to Hitler about Poland?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well, gee Sceptic while I admire the usa , you leave out a lot that might countermand your argument.

-oh yeah, the us was so gung ho to fight hitler that fdr had to let the japanese bomb pearl harbor. you ignore that fact, the americans let france go down and most of the cccp before we entered the war.


Woah there buddy, France let France go down. They had the perfect, golden, once in a lifetime opportunity to attack German when the main force was in Poland. What did they do? Cross the border then came back.

As far as USSR goes, they were getting ready for war as much as Germany it's just that Germany fired the first shot...but that's a different discussion all together plus I already stated my opinion on USSR in a previous post.

[jj]

My opinion on why Europe had so much trouble:

Historical Baggage, and a desire here to do things differently.

Now that we've accumulated a bunch of historical baggage, we seem to be having some of the same problems.

When we started, people took the whole idea of government seriously, and understood things like the threat of religious intrusion in government, and they didn't have a history of two parties trying to take each other down every 4 years.

Now, we have failed to study that history, while having created a bunch of our own, and we have exactly religion seriously intruding into government.

At the same time, we have two political parties concerned with the special interests that they support, and who don't give a rat's behind about the people who vote, thanks to their baggage and their desire NOT to do things differently any more.

That is, of course, but one example. I could also bring up the issue of education, and of republic vs. democracy...

[geni]

Originally posted by corplinx
I love how everytime someone critizes Soviet Russia, someone else goes "if it weren't for the USSR, you would be saying heil hitler".

And if It were not for the US we would all be saying heil Starlin.

We would have eventually defeated Hitler without Stalin, however, Stalin would have been defeated after winter if there had been no US/UK.

You relly belive that? Lets think about this. Without the USSR the UK would have lost. Looking at what happened we would have been able to hold Germany off for quite a while but not forever. It is a very real posibilty that in 1943 you would have found youself facing Japan and a Germany that had the recourses of Europe behind it at the same time. Doesn't look good does it. Rember with one exception the Germans were ahead of you in every branch of militery technology. So it would boil down to wether
the Germans would be able to develope the bomb. What odds would you put on that?

"Stalin may have been a mass murderer and all but he defeated Hitler". If someone said this to my face they would likely be laying down shortly afterwards.
Force is not a valid argument.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Why has European Democracy so often failed, while American one succeeded? I think that the answer is simple. Americans are pragmatists. They look for PRACTICAL ANSWERS for ACTUAL PROBLEMS, while the Europeans keep looking for UTOPIAN ANSWERS to IMAGINARY PROBLEMS.

For example, consider the problems workers faced in the 1900s in both the USA and Europe. They were exploited, indeed, in the "gilded age" of the time, with no labor laws and unlimited, cuttthroat competition. The American solution? Pass reasonable child-labor laws, minimum-wage laws, working-hours laws, and so on: all of them people could agree with as just and that actually worked in practice. The result? Today America is socialist in the good sense: look at the socialist party's platform from 1910, say, and you'll see that virtually everything was implemented.

The European solution? "Solve" the problem by embracing utopian, unrealist Marxism, and go through a series of revolutions that, needless to say, made the worker's situation in the entire block "liberated from opressive capitalism" into a hellhole. The reason it failed was because the "problem" the Europeans wanted to solve in the first place was not the real "make sure workers are treated right" one, but the imaginary "break the evil capitalistic conspiracy against the masses" one.

Are you making an accurate comparison?
The United States is one nation with one national policy and two partisan parties, and you are comparing United States at the turn of the century with Europe which is many Nations with many greater cultural spectrum than the United States, and many more ideologies and a greater political spectrum. Didn't United States have a "melting pot" policy/approach to cuture and society while Europe was culturally diverse.

Didn't United States also try ensure, up to a short time ago (through genocide, and displacement, might is right and institutionalized racism) that its uptopian homogenous society would live on without internal threats such as Mormon's which set up a provisional government, Hispanics and various Amerindian's that it attempted to decimatate or assimilate? Please inform me where my history is wrong, before stating that I am practising historical revisionism.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the U.S.'s other "Practical Solutions to real problems", some examples:

crime : "get tough on crime" Nixon?still ongoing

drugs : "The war on drugs"

homelessness: "War on homelessness."

Consider totalitarianism. America's solution was that of achieving a realistic goal (defeat of Hitler & co.) by real means (tanks and planes).

This is an "after the fact argument". This was not possible because America had the insight and wisdom to build a huge army in case someone bent on world conquest rose to power and threatened world peace and prosperity. The US's response was to build an army in a technologically driven war, the terms which had been set by NaziGermany's arms development.


more later after I get back from a party...


:)

[geni]

During the presidency of the "mentally defective cowboy actor", Ronald Reagen, who "simplistically" considered communism evil and the USSR a menace to world peace.

Yes you managed to find someone who the USSR thought was ready to end the world to win. By that stage the leaders of the USSR were no longer prepared to end the world. Now image a Reagan Starlin stand off. I prefer my planet non radio active.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by corplinx
I love how everytime someone critizes Soviet Russia, someone else goes "if it weren't for the USSR, you would be saying heil hitler".



And naturally you never hear anyone make the 100 times more moronic argument that "if it weren't for the USA, you would be saying heil hitler".

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes, of course you are ignoring some key facts here. Firstly Europe robbed Germany because it was a loser thus creating a climate for Hitler to rise up, then it did not act when Hitler broke all the orders set by the league allowing Hitler's power to grow to a point where it was too late to do anything else but fight the war. Second, Germany only declared war after Japan attacked and America's hand was already forced.

My only point was that the two situations being compared were entirely dissimilar.

Of course Europe (and the rest of the world) made mistakes combating the rise of fascism. Powerful Americans were hardly immune to the allure of fascism during the 1930s.

I'm not sure how the point about Japan is relevant.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Another would be the lack of major conflicts on American soil SINCE the Civil War that gave democracy 120+ years to develop and gel HERE vs. half of Europe only breaking from communism in the last 14 years or less and a cold war being played out across the border countries for 45 years.




One might suggest that fighting a threat on someone elses soil, before you have to fight it on your own is wise.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Woah there buddy, France let France go down. They had the perfect, golden, once in a lifetime opportunity to attack German when the main force was in Poland. What did they do? Cross the border then came back.

As far as USSR goes, they were getting ready for war as much as Germany it's just that Germany fired the first shot...but that's a different discussion all together plus I already stated my opinion on USSR in a previous post.

I think they should have marched after the anschluss or the annexation of the sudatenland, Speer said the german military was very fearful at that point. I just really feel that america would have let europe go up in flames had the japanese invaded dutch territories instead of bombing pearl harbor.. I am not a fan of stalin either, I agree with churchill that he would have worked with the devil to defeat hitler.

I was responding to sceptic's claim that there was this shining american knight saving europe's butt.

A very savvy friend of mine once pointed out that chamberlin bought the time for the british to build all those spitfires.

[shanek]

Well, I don't see how this thread can continue on without me interjecting the always hilarious rants of Tim Slagle:

Quality of Life: Is Europe Really Better?
This one is guaranteed to offend most Europeans, and all the French. I take Europhiles to task, and straighten out once and for all, who has the superior culture.

http://www.timslagle.com/NATIONAL.html

Quality of life is a vague meaningless term, used to paper over the fact that Europe’s median aftertax income is not far from our poverty line. I think the most basic way to assess quality of life is to look at a nation’s suicide rate. Certainly the desire
to remain alive in a given place is a legitimate barometer of its desirability.

Sweden tends to be held in the highest regard by American socialists for her highly progressive tax structure and universal health care. But according to statistics provided by the World Health
Organization and the Center for Disease Control, Swedes are 50% more likely to kill themselves than Americans. Some theorists speculate that this stems from cold winters and/or cultural influences. Yet in Minnesota, (where it gets colder, rains just as much, and is full of Scandinavians) the suicide rate is still 36% lower than that of Mother Sweden. I don’t think it’s coincidental that the Swedish suicide rate is close to that of her socialist sister, Canada. For all the talk of gun violence here in the United States, your average Canadian is more than twice as likely to take his own life as an American cousin is to be murdered by an act of gun violence.

Take THAT Michael Moore.

And take France, while you’re at it — one of the least desirable countries on the Slagle Quality of Life Scale — with a suicide rate almost double that of the United States. This should be a comfort to any nation put in the improbable situation of being at war with France. Apparently the French are a danger only to themselves. No surprise then that some of the few victories ever recorded by French armies were in civil wars. You might not like the French very much, but isn’t it funny to realize that they don’t like themselves much either?

When it comes right down to it, France is essentially a third world country with good food. The cuisine is marvelous, so perhaps we should allow France to remain under the protection of NATO, if for no other reason than to ensure that we can always find good kitchen help. In fact, that’s pretty much how I picture France: a sniveling waiter grumbling about the arrogant, English-speaking, American-tourist-pigs while he counts his tips for the day.

I honestly don’t see why we bothered asking the French for help with Iraq. Haven’t we tripped over enough retreating Frenchmen over the past hundred years? In fact, I would suggest that we mobilize our European forces down into the Gulf and let Europe fend for itself for a while. And if something happens? Cèst le vie. What do we need Europe for anyway, so college kids have a place to go backpacking?

The kids all rave about Europe, and I think it’s because everyone over there lives like a college student: Nobody has any money, they take trains and bicycles everywhere, and everyone starts drinking at noon, right after their nap. They all live with their parents; they get a month off in the summer; and there’s always a protest breaking out somewhere. Not to mention that free clinic just around the corner. Europe is actually the biggest college campus on earth.

I’m tired of being compared with Europe as if they’re an ideal to which we should aspire. Europhiles remind us that American history is adolescent compared with the antiquity of Europe. I usually have to remind them that we are the oldest surviving democratic republic on the face of the Earth, and that our Constitution has served as the model for those few European countries that have one. We are the leaders. They are the followers. Where do they get off claiming to be more civilized? Europeans are hairy-backed savages that have been at war with each other for thousands of years, and would have annihilated each other twice in the last century if we weren’t there to break up their fights.

They are so proud to have finally produced a new common currency called the Euro. This will replace their previous common currency known as the dollar. The elite of Europe have convinced millions of Americans (most of them college professors) that social democracy is the wave of the future, and—the collapse of East Bloc Communism not withstanding—they are determined to prove it. Much like a frustrated 19th century inventor taking his flying machine out to the cliff for one more go, the leaders of Europe are certain that their new common currency will be the economic fix that will once and for all allow them to rival the United States, a nation that they both envy and loathe.

To put it on a high school level: America has the coolest cars, the greatest jobs and the best-looking chicks. We are the popular country that everyone imitates, the tough guy that very few nations dare to fight. (Granted there will always be a couple of freaks in the corner lobbing spitballs when you’re not looking). The real reason the world hates us is that we have it all, and the fact that we know it infuriates them even more. Meanwhile, U.S. State Departments around the world are deluged with people submitting applications to become Americans. We need no more assurance that our quality of life is second to none.

Much like the soufflé that always falls, the government of France is actually making a fifth attempt at a working republic. In the two centuries since our revolution, they have experimented with as many empires and monarchies. Their arrogance and belligerence have made it virtually impossible to maintain a consistent government, and it’s no surprise that their latest, and probably most stable, government is based on a Constitution closest to ours. Had they listened to Jefferson back when he was an ambassador there, they might have prevented lot of bloodshed. And yet, many Americans insist on elevating Europe to the status of role model. You hear it all the time, “In Europe they have gun control!” “In Europe they have socialized medicine!”

Yes, and in Europe they also have kings, monarchies, and state religions—do we want those too? Europe is populated by the descendants of peasants who didn’t have the ambition to emigrate to the United States or the courage to overthrow the tyrants that run their little duchies.

[Ed]

:D

[Gem]

Well, I don't see how this thread can continue on without me interjecting the always hilarious rants of Tim Slagle:

For a moment, I thought you were serious. Thank goodness for double reading. I read the guide on how to vote in america: hilarious.

Also, a related thought: Are there any examples of countries that did acts for teh good of people world wide, but solely for that reason?

Here's one that I can think of: FDR wanting to go to war in 1939 and Churchill declaring war on Hitler.

Gem

[geni]

Originally posted by Gem
Here's one that I can think of: FDR wanting to go to war in 1939 and Churchill declaring war on Hitler.

Gem

Churchill did not declare war on Hitler. His predecessor did that.

[epepke]

Originally posted by shanek
Then why is its track record so atrocious?

To play with the Devil's Avocado for a minute, compared to what?

Social conflict is a hard problem, and there seem to be, speaking roughly, three approaches:

1) Do little or nothing.

2) Do something reasonable, knowing that you're lucky if you get a 50% chance of solving 50% of the problem.

3) Do something idealistic, which is almost guaranteed to fail.

Option #2 is, so far, the best option. It's also the option that's guaranteed to give you an atrocious track record. If you pick Option #1, you can always blame anything on someone else. Remember Srebrenica? If you pick Option #3, you can always claim after the fact that the ideals were perfect, but they just weren't implemented right. Talk to any remaining Marxist about this one.

In a way, it's like alternative medicine with respect to difficult diseases. Practitioners of alternative medicine pick a combination of #1 and #3. Nobody ever blames them when the patient dies. People blame those who pick #2 when the patient dies.

You can always be pure and better and supercilious if you pick #1 and/or #3. That's the way you want to go if that's what you want.

That having been said, I don't think the current European democracies (in the broad sense) are doing that terrible a job. But I'll wait to be impressed, should I live so long, if they go a century without a significant genocide. So far, they're working on six or ten decades, depending on whether or not you count Bosnia. History having been what it is, I think it would be premature to extend credit.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Tmy
I have some theories!

#1 There are too many white people in Europe: They dont have enough multicolored folks to pick on so they just turn on each other and constantly implode.

While I know you have your tongue in your cheek, there is something to this idea.

Of course, it also has to be pointed out that there is a reason that Europe has so few mature minority groups (except for the guys down the street who talk funny). The reason is Zyklon-B. This is not a nice thing to point out, but it needs to be pointed out.

[Gem]

Churchill did not declare war on Hitler. His predecessor did that.

You're right, damn me for not checking facts.

So it was Chamberlain, avoid war at all costs, who declared war. I guess there are limits to how much a pacifist you can be.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
For a moment, I thought you were serious. Thank goodness for double reading. I read the guide on how to vote in america: hilarious.

Yeah, that one was great!

As you might guess, I’m a proponent of stupid people staying home on Election Day. To that end, perhaps we should purposely make ballots more confusing. For instance:

Candidate A and Candidate B are heading towards Washington on separate trains traveling at 60 MPH. Candidate A is 45 miles out of town, and Candidate B is 24 miles out of town. It is now Noon. Please select from the following times when your preferred candidate for US Senate is expected to arrive in Washington…assume neither candidate is traveling on Amtrak.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, I don't see how this thread can continue on without me interjecting the always hilarious rants of Tim Slagle:

Quality of Life: Is Europe Really Better?
This one is guaranteed to offend most Europeans, and all the French. I take Europhiles to task, and straighten out once and for all, who has the superior culture.

http://www.timslagle.com/NATIONAL.html









first question:

Are you Tim Slagle? If not, is he the one major source of information and simplistic, generalised truths for you?

How are suicide rates an indication of superior or inferior culture?

Why are suicide rates the best way to assess quality of life? How robust of an assessment tool is this?

What do tax structure and the availability of a nation's healthcare to its citizens have to do with suicide rates?

Why are Europeans, who did not migrate to United States, labelled as having no ambition, and why is it significant that the people of Europe are descended from peasants? What robust studies are there that show that Europeans in the past or in the present are lacking ambition compared to say the U.S. as it is being held up as the model of citizens with ambition?

What is the significance of Europeans being hairy backed savages?

Besides speculation, what does this article have to do with proving any of the many claims contained within it, including the headline's premise?


How does this article support the origional premise of the thread?

[shanek]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Are you Tim Slagle? If not, is he the one major source of information and simplistic, generalised truths for you?

Tim Slagle is a COMEDIAN. It's funny. Laugh.

[Zero]

On ething that I find interesting is teh idea that America worked mainly because of the huge wealth of natural resources, plenty of room for expansion for most of our history, and a bunch of pure luck.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zero
On ething that I find interesting is teh idea that America worked mainly because of the huge wealth of natural resources, plenty of room for expansion for most of our history, and a bunch of pure luck.

The plethora of both room and natural resources is a big reason for our large economy, but as Japan proved, you really don't need either to get a good economy going. On a crowded little island with very few resources, they have been able to import the resources they need and make good use of what they do have: capital and labor. This also drove their tremendous technological advances since the fewer resources they have to import the better off their economy is.

The biggest thing that made us a superpower was, in my opinion, the removal of the tariffs in the early to mid 1800s and the establishment of an independent banking system. We boomed after that happened.

[Zero]

Originally posted by shanek


The plethora of both room and natural resources is a big reason for our large economy, but as Japan proved, you really don't need either to get a good economy going. On a crowded little island with very few resources, they have been able to import the resources they need and make good use of what they do have: capital and labor. This also drove their tremendous technological advances since the fewer resources they have to import the better off their economy is.

Well, I agree with you, but the timing of American expansion combined with industrial and agricultural trends over the last 500 years put the U.S. in a unique position to thrive. Japan was lucky to be rebuilding new factories at the same time when electronics technology was becoming the leading edge in economic growth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I agree with you, but the timing of American expansion combined with industrial and agricultural trends over the last 500 years put the U.S. in a unique position to thrive. Japan was lucky to be rebuilding new factories at the same time when electronics technology was becoming the leading edge in economic growth.

I don't think you can attribute all of that to luck. It is very likely that it wouldn't have happened at that time to that degree had those economies not been there to take advantage of them in the first place. The increase in agrigultural trends was one reason for the big push west in the US, for example. And electronics only became the leading edge with miniaturization, something Japan excelled at doing.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:
In the history of the USA, it has been a democracy for over 220 years, and had been--with the single exception of the civil war--at peace with itself, at least, and prosperous."At peace with itself"? I guess territorial wars with Mexico, campaigns to wipe out indigent populations and regular assasinations of the head of state, don't count?

It appears that your understanding of "at peace with itself" is "no civil war". OK.
In those 220 years, continental Europe had been wrecked by war after war, culminating by the two most horrible wars in human history, and was ruled by one dictator or thug after another, from Napoleon to Hitler to Miloshevic.Wrong. Europe has never been ruled by anyone, let alone a thug or dictator. You see, Europe has never been a country. Since countries were invented, the continent of Europe has always consisted of many countries. All of these countries have been "at peace withselves" except when they had civil wars, just like the US.
If Europe exists today, it is solely due to American help and power, which first saved it from Nazism and then from Communism.Wrong. Europe exists due to plate tectonics.
Why has European Democracy so often failed, while American one succeeded?What is European Democracy? Are you referring to democracy within the EU institution?

If you are referring to the democratic process within countries in Europe, then it is untrue that they have often failed. Offhand, I can only think of Germany, Italy and Spain as examples.
I think that the answer is simple.The answer to what? Why the democratic process in the above countries failed? I doubt there is a single answer. You would need to look at each country in turn.
Americans are pragmatists. They look for PRACTICAL ANSWERS for ACTUAL PROBLEMS, while the Europeans keep looking for UTOPIAN ANSWERS to IMAGINARY PROBLEMS. Wow. Nice Europe bashing you've pulled out of your ass, here.
For example, consider the problems workers faced in the 1900s in both the USA and Europe. They were exploited, indeed, in the "gilded age" of the time, with no labor laws and unlimited, cuttthroat competition. The American solution? Pass reasonable child-labor laws, minimum-wage laws, working-hours laws, and so on: all of them people could agree with as just and that actually worked in practice. The result? Today America is socialist in the good sense: look at the socialist party's platform from 1910, say, and you'll see that virtually everything was implemented. I don't believe what I'm seeing! Skeptic sees something positive in Socialism: "socialist in the good sense"! Congratulations, Skeptic. You are growing up.
The European solution? "Solve" the problem by embracing utopian, unrealist Marxism, and go through a series of revolutions that, needless to say, made the worker's situation in the entire block "liberated from opressive capitalism" into a hellhole.Well, I guess you aren't quite grown up yet. What are you on about, here? Which country in Europe embraced Marxism? Perhaps you are thinking of the East European countries who were forced into Soviet style of Communism?
The reason it failed was because the "problem" the Europeans wanted to solve in the first place was not the real "make sure workers are treated right" one, but the imaginary "break the evil capitalistic conspiracy against the masses" one.Sorry, I have no idea what the above means.
Consider totalitarianism. America's solution was that of achieving a realistic goal (defeat of Hitler & co.) by real means (tanks and planes). Europe's "solution" was the achieving of an utopian goal (make Hitler a peace-loving person who will keep his word) by utopian, unrealistic means (agree to his every demand).You are not making any sense. At the start of this thread you wrote how Europe was continously wrecked by one war after another and how the US was at peace with itself. Now, suddenly the war-loving nations of Europe are peaceniks and the US is into solving problems with wars. Which is it?BTW, have you ever opened a history book?
Examples could be multiplied endlessly,..What examples? Could you provide even one example of whatever it is you are talking about? I'm betting your example will be Chamberlain, the guy who declared war against Germany.
...but the point is that the SAME THING is operating today in the war on terror. The USA's goal is realistic, if not easy: defeat terrorist like Al Quaeda by killing them. Its methods are realistics: fight.
This is just too laughable. Eradicating terrorism through war is a REALISTIC goal? It is totally unrealistic! Please tell me when the last member of the terrorism army has been shot.
Europe's goal is utopain: an imaginary "brotherhood of man" where bin Laden will realize the errors of his way and, presumably, retire to become a Koranic scholar.Once again, what are you talking about? Could you provide just one clue?
It's method is as usual unrealistic: grovel before the terrorists, send countries that support them money (under the ludicrous idea that the "root cause" of the terror is poverty, and the even more ludicrous idea that sending money to tin-pot dictators will actually alleviate povery). Finally, something approaching a concrete statement. Please tell me which terrorists are receiving funding from European countries. And just from European countries, no need to include the American funding of the IRA.
Europe calls this "sophisticated policy" and "soft power" that works on a "deeper level" than American "simplistic cowboys".It does? Would you have a link to an EU representative who said this? (Once again, I'm assuming when you say "Europe" you mean the EU.)
In reality, such "sophistication" never leads to anything but surrender, at most buying a little more time in the meanwhile, as history amply proved--because the dictators and terrorists are not too likely to fit the role of changed pentinents who embrace freedom, a necessary, but impossible, precondition for Europe's utopianism to work. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but I just don't understand what the above means. What is European utopianism? And who expects terorists or dictators to embrace freedom? In short, what are you talking about?
As long as Europe remains utopian and unrealistic, the US, unfortunately, must fight the good fight alone to preserve its, the world's, and in particular, Europe's own freedom.The crap never stops, it seems.

When the US was attacked on Sept. 11, NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the "muskateer paragraph", where an attack against one member was seen as attack against all members. The help was spurned by the US, but many European countries nevertheless have troops in Afghanistan today. When the US decided to invade Iraq on flimsy evidence concerning WMD (subsequently shown to be not only flimsy but non-existant) several European countries rightfully wouldn't support this aggression.

Those are the facts. If you wish to live in a fantasy world where the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is "fighting the good fight" for Europe's freedom, you are certainly entitled. Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
Ah well, this isn't new: the useful idiots in Europe opposed the US's missiles on its soil, under the utopian belief that if they will do nothing their "good will" will really influence the Soviets not to attack, when the US was as usual far more realistic in realising that it is nuclear warheads, not talk about good will or "detente", that would stop the Soviets.Its confirmed. The crap never stops.

First of all, the Pershing nuclear missiles were installed in Europe, despite the protests of the "useful idiots". Secondly, Europeans were rightly concerned that with the emplacement of these nuclear-armed missiles on their soil, Europe would become the primary battleground for a nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

BTW, why was the US so concerned about nuclear missiles in Cuba? The US already had nuclear weapons to retaliate against a strike. Could it be because they were too close to home?
The good news, of course, is that while the USA would like to have Europe's help, it can certainly do without it.Fine. Then please stop begging for funds for rebuilding the countries you invade.
It can fight quite effectively alone. If push comes to shove, all the US needs to do is simply not listen to what Europe says, and let it try its "sophisticated diplomacy" of groveling in an attempt to change its policy, just like it tried to do with Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere. It never worked anywhere, so there isn't much chance it would work against the US, either. It should please you to know that this is already the case. The US doesn't listen. At least not its current administration.

[Gem]

The plethora of both room and natural resources is a big reason for our large economy, but as Japan proved, you really don't need either to get a good economy going. On a crowded little island with very few resources, they have been able to import the resources they need and make good use of what they do have: capital and labor. This also drove their tremendous technological advances since the fewer resources they have to import the better off their economy is.

There's also a key important factor: industrialization. Japan was able to do a land war against China for ten years, and then fought the Americans at sea for 4 years, while still fighting in China. Japan was able to rebuild so well because they knew what to do with capital and labor. (Also, I think there could be a lot of investment because the Japanese average worker saved a relatively high percentage of his income, which translate into more bank loans.

Same thing applies to France and Germany in post war Europe.

The plethora of both room and natural resources is a big reason for our large economy

What a lot of natural ressources do to the economy is what a big underground supply of oil on your land does to your wealth. If you don't use the former to your advantage, you won't get as much of the latter. Look at how much could be accomplished in the middle east if the oil revenues were given into tax cuts, health care and education? Look at Africa too, they have a lot of natural ressources, but because of political problems their economy is suffering.

Compare it to the United States, who had a land mass larger than Europe, vast natural ressouces, few real enemies, and an industrial revolution after its civil war, coupled with vast immigration. Put all that in a tolerance melting pot and there isn't much to stop it.

The United States was placed in a very good place to develop. That is well managed luck.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
There's also a key important factor: industrialization. Japan was able to do a land war against China for ten years, and then fought the Americans at sea for 4 years, while still fighting in China. Japan was able to rebuild so well because they knew what to do with capital and labor. (Also, I think there could be a lot of investment because the Japanese average worker saved a relatively high percentage of his income, which translate into more bank loans.

Good point, but keep in mind that the market for loanable funds is as affected by supply and demand as other markets. If those funds hadn't been able to be put to good use, then either the market forces would lower interest rates and reduce the amount of money being invested, or there would have been much more money out there for the few goods and services and they would have experienced inflation, possibly hyperinflation. So there had to be the structure there to have a use for the capital otherwise it would have had a detrimental effect.

What a lot of natural ressources do to the economy is what a big underground supply of oil on your land does to your wealth. If you don't use the former to your advantage, you won't get as much of the latter.

Of course, it's only one factor; capital and wealth being the others, and all of them can be made more efficient by technological advances.

Look at how much could be accomplished in the middle east if the oil revenues were given into tax cuts, health care and education?

Or even if those dictatorships hoarding the money were converted to a free market, letting workers get the wage they demand and making a better life for themselves.

Look at Africa too, they have a lot of natural ressources, but because of political problems their economy is suffering.

Very true. There is absolutely no reason for the starvation and poverty that is occuring there given the population and natural resources, other than the corruption and tyranny of their governments.

[Zep]

On the original subject, blurred and crack-pot though it is.

By comparison with the USA: AUSTRALIA

Large continent the same size as the USA, European-style democracy since 1788, settled by Europeans, one language, one (essentially British) culture originally, expanding to embrace many more European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures more recently. Strong central government, and what would probably be called by some Americans as "socialist" community support for health, education and other social services (we will argue about the details of this, I'm sure).

In effect, very similar to what Skeptic called "European". But...

In over 200 years we have had no civil wars, no assassinations of heads of state, no invasions, no major overthrows of power, no dictators, etc, etc.

I was going to say "no gulags" but these did essentially exist, although they were phased out by the 1860's, i.e. before the US Civil War.

So the premise that "Europeanisation" alone causes those perceived ills is basically crap, so try thinking of another explanation.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zep

In effect, very similar to what Skeptic called "European". But...


I find Australia & Europe about as similar as a horse-chestnut and a chestnut horse. One has little meaning on the overall flow of geopolitics, the other a significant amount.

[Zep]

Originally posted by hammegk
I find Australia & Europe about as similar as a horse-chestnut and a chestnut horse. One has little meaning on the overall flow of geopolitics, the other a significant amount. Which shows how little you know about the connections between Australia and Europe, in that case.

To explain more simply, we are a very good parallel of "European socialism" as implemented by Europeans, yet we do not seem to have exhibited the social upheaval that Skeptic seems to think is a result of same. So I would suggest his specific reasoning for such an assertion is false.

I believe it was mentioned earlier that this issue is way more complex than can be encompassed in just a few words of summary.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zep

In over 200 years we have had no civil wars, no assassinations of heads of state, no invasions, no major overthrows of power, no dictators, etc, etc.

Yes, Australia has always been a Utopia. But could you please inform us ignorant bloodthirsty Americans what happened to the indigenous Tasmanians?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Skeptic, while I usually admire your political posts and agree with your position, I must say as you yourself have admitted, the above was simplistic, verging on ridiculous. It could for example be asked why Americans are so much more "practical" then those "wishy-washy" Europeans?

Also why other "democracies" have done well while their american "Pragmatism" is questionable. Nations like Japan, Canada, and Australia.

You also ignore European geography and fragmentation, something lacking in the United States.

This opened up Europe to a lot more wars, and hence the sort of radical ideologies that arise in times of instability.


Next there is the issue of how Europe was ahead of America for most of US history. Prior to World War 1 Germany and Britain were the leading industrial powers, and between world wars 1 and 2, Britain still had the largest empire in history. Clearly then America's "advantage" is more or less a recent phenomenon, in terms of history, not the natural tendency.

In regards to America's "practicality" in regards to Hitler, you ignore the isolationist policies of the Republican party and much of the US, policies no different then the European.



Your thesis thus fails because of four main reasons:

1) Other more "European" and non-American demcracies have done just as well.

2) Your theory ignores the fragmentation of Europe, into many political powers, which is a primary cause of war and radical ideologies.

3) The US was behind Europe for most of known history, and in many ways is behind Europe as a whole today.

4) The US has been just as idealistic and impractical as Europe on many occasions, including that of Hitler, and the Great Depression where many expected the system to "fix itself."


Such facts make more plausible a theory that the US has won out due more to its political unity, and less because of some intrinsic "practicality" in its ideology.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by geni
You relly belive that? Lets think about this. Without the USSR the UK would have lost. Looking at what happened we would have been able to hold Germany off for quite a while but not forever. It is a very real posibilty that in 1943 you would have found youself facing Japan and a Germany that had the recourses of Europe behind it at the same time.
Has everyone here forgotten about the lend-lease (http://uboat.net/allies/documents/lend-lease.htm) program?
The Lend-Lease Act was approved in March 11, 1941 by the Congress. This act gave President Roosevelt almost unlimited freedom in directing supplies, tanks, aircraft and ammunition to the war effort in Europe without sacrificing US neutrality at that time.

When the war had ended the Lend-Lease programme had extended over $41 billion in aid to more than 40 nations (some sources say the aid was as high as $50 billion). Britiain got the biggest share or roughly $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. China got $1 billion.

Less than $10 billion of that aid was ever repaid, making this appear more like the donation and support it really was.

The US was actively supporting the war effort against the Axis powers months before we were involved in WWII as a combatant. One of the key reasons that Germany didn't defeat the USSR was the enormous number of fighter aircraft (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p39.htm) supplied to them by the US.
When P-39 production ended in August 1944, Bell had built 9,584 Airacobras, of which 4,773 had been allotted to the Soviet Union. Russian pilots particularly liked the cannon-armed P-39 for its ground attack capability.
Since the Germans saved their best planes for the Western front, this was a key factor in their failure in the east. A Stuka was no match for a P-39.

[Shaun from Scotland]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WildCat
[B]
Has everyone here forgotten about the lend-lease (http://uboat.net/allies/documents/lend-lease.htm) program?

No, but everyone seems to forget why lend-lease was actually necessary.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Last, I should note that Skeptic only takes into account recent economic progress, not other times in which Europe has been and is ahead of the US.

These include moral and social welfare policies such as:

- Ending slavery before the US.

-Having less problems with psuedoscience and creationism then the US.

-Having less racial discrimination and "Jim Crow" type laws then the US after world war 2.


-Having overall better social and educational programs then the US.

-Having less problems with availability of certain essentials then the US.


For example, according to the Pew Research Center:


In the US 15 percent of citizens can't afford adequate amounts of food.


This contrasts to Canada-10%, Britain-11%, Italy- 11%, France-8% and Germany-5%.

So much for American practicality.



In regards to availability of Health care, the numbers are even more dramatic:


In the US about 26 percent of americans cannot afford adequate health care.


In Canada this number is a mere 13%, Britain 11%, France 5%, Italy 12% and West Germany 7%.


I should note here that Japan does an amazing job in both those above categories, with a mere 4% of its citizens unable to afford adequate food and health care.


http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75

[c0rbin]

First, nice topic, Skeptic. I am impressed that mature discussion has occured before the Bashers have chimed in (must be past their bedtime).

Intriguing, but a difficult topic to approach in broad strokes, as is evident by the pedantery going on.

Here is my drive by reply to a number of points made by several different folks.


What was all that stuff about women demanding the vote sometime early in the 20th century?


The 19th amendment? See we have a government that the citizens can change to suit the purient interest of the times. And we allow ourselves to arm so that when the government gets too uppity we can retake it for the people and to avoid Cambodia- or Balkin-type shinannegens(sp?).

Generally though in the US one is expected to work as hard as you can to better your situation. Luckily for our country, people are willing to roll their sleeves up and go to work to make it a better place and we have the opportunity to improve our station.

No one ever became an evil capitolist ceo oil man in America without working hard for it. I know, I know wealthy people tend to retain the wealth they and their forebearers earned. For me it's just incentive to work harder to try and acheive the life I want for me and my family.



Ignoring the obvious fact that the US is a nation where the people have a shared language, shared culture, shared history, shared monetary system etc etc and Europe is not.


So many in Europe have tried to fix that problem and you keep slapping them in the face :P with your silly resistance.


Regarding 51 governments vs 1 government...


One of which is sovereign. This is an important distinction betweem the US and Europe, and an important reason why the Civil War went the way it did.


Another difference I would like to point out is that the elected leaders of Arizona would never be able to mass troops and march into southern California without the federal gov slapping them down.


And this person had a string of statments I couldn't let go...


-the americans so generously wiped out the indeginous inhabitants of the north american continent


Europe started this party. We just followed their lead as was acceptable in the times. Africa and South America speak French and Spanish and Portugese? What are all those Dutch names in the Carribean? What was Ghandi so pissed off (or not pissed?) about? What's that Midnight Oil Song? Come on. Let the nation without sin cast the first stone.



-the usa , most notably the texas ranger practised genocide on our border with mexico, and killed citizens of mexican descent


That was a two-way street, mi amigo. Come visit San Antonio or Houston, learn some spanish and watch these proud, hard working individuals make a life for themselves and their families.


-the usa deported quite a few citizens to mexico during the depression


Interesting. We imported a ***** load of people during European depressions, wars, famines, pograms, putches, coups, insurrections, revolutions, genocides...


-the usa allowed for the lynching of many people for a very long time, especialy arfican american americans


How did all those African Americans get here?


-the usa destabaklized a democraticaly elected leader of two nations (chile and iran)


European countries raped at least three continents (Africa, South America, Asia) and I see you guys eyeing Antarctica.



So while the usa is the greatest place on earth, it is not all that you hold it up to be, in europe many nations do not allow thier citizens to starve to death.


I wonder why you still call it the greatest place on Earth? If you are starving, you can get food in this country. While a small European country might have the means to hold together 5 million people, in the US, some will fall through the cracks.


Wrong. Europe exists due to plate tectonics.


Funny stuff. Made me laugh out loud.


Nice Europe bashing you've pulled out of your ass, here.


Hey. It's Europe's turn.

[geni]

Originally posted by c0rbin



The 19th amendment? See we have a government that the citizens can change to suit the purient interest of the times.

so at some point it was a good thing that women did not have the vote? The idea behind the original point was that you had to have a pretty lose defintion of democracy to say that the US had been a democracy for 220 years. The UK has had some form of democracy for far longer (see gloroius reverltion)

And we allow ourselves to arm so that when the government gets to uppity we can retake it for the people and to avoind Cambodia- or Balkin-type shinannegens(sp?).

Do you have anything to back this up? (Tiger scarer in london comes to mind)
[/B]

[DialecticMaterialist]

Corbin, your response misses the point. Yes many tried to unite Europe, like Hitler, and Napolean, but this is diffuclt for two reasons:

1) Europe's geography.

2) The fact that Europe has a long, long history of political fragmentation, making these distinctions established unlike the US.

Uniting Europe then is somewhat like uniting the US, Mexico and Canada. This is because European states have not been different members of a federal government, but different nations.

Lastly I wouldn't be talking about people being up "past their bed times" with the immaturity you just displayed with such jewels as:

Interesting. We imported a ***** load of people during European depressions, wars, famines, pograms, putches, coups, insurrections, revolutions, genocides...


and such thought provoking responses as:


Funny stuff. Made me laugh out loud.


Such reflects not a mature, and responsible analysis but the simplistic attitude of someone who childishly follows "Mama says" style rhetoric.

[Jim Lennox]

Swedes are 50% more likely to kill themselves than Americans. Some theorists speculate that this stems from cold winters and/or cultural influences.

I have heard that the explanation for this is the way in which suicides are categorised. In the UK (don't know about elsewhere) a suicide note is required for a coroner to pronounce a suicide verdict, otherwise they will put it down to death by misadventure or whatever, whereas in Sweden any obvious suicide is treated as such.

As for the rest of the thread I am astounded at the viewpoint that many americans have of the world.

I have read somewhere that 90% of americans don't own passports.

Finally, are there any terrorists in America?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
On the original subject, blurred and crack-pot though it is.

By comparison with the USA: AUSTRALIA

Large continent the same size as the USA, European-style democracy since 1788, settled by Europeans, one language, one (essentially British) culture originally, expanding to embrace many more European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures more recently. Strong central government, and what would probably be called by some Americans as "socialist" community support for health, education and other social services (we will argue about the details of this, I'm sure).

Australia is, culturally, more like the US or Canada than either is like Europe. Both were settled largely by Europeans, both had a large influx of European criminals, etc.

Australia also has fewer than one-tenth the number of people as the US does.

"Socialist" health care is largely overrated. The US does not have socialized medicine, but any indigent can walk into an ER with serious problems and get a CATscan that night; whether or not he has to be flown by helicopter to another hospital, and not have to pay for it.

[Skeptic]

Well, OF COURSE my post was simplistic (if I truly had a one-page defintion of all the differentiates Europe from the USA, I'd be the head of the Harvard school of international affairs by now). The point, however, that it is precisely the American strong points, what made America succeed, that is criticized in some European circles today as the "problem" with America.

Thus, America's moral sense is seen as "simple-mindedness"; America's willingness to confront dictators as "cowboy mentality"; its realistic view of life as "money grubbing soullessness"; and so on. Sure, there's a lot to criticize in America, but why is precisely what America does so obviously CORRECT that is the subject of so many sneers?

The tone of most of such criticisms is that America "cheated": it became powerful and important by its "soulless" concentration on "unimportant" things like industry, development, etc., instead of the "really important" things like the next socialist utopia or the new trend in modernist painting. Well, I say that America didn't cheat, and that the real reason behind the criticism is jealousy.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Well, OF COURSE my post was simplistic (if I truly had a one-page defintion of all the differentiates Europe from the USA, I'd be the head of the Harvard school of international affairs by now). The point, however, that it is precisely the American strong points, what made America succeed, that is criticized in some European circles today as the "problem" with America.

Thus, America's moral sense is seen as "simple-mindedness"; America's willingness to confront dictators as "cowboy mentality"; its realistic view of life as "money grubbing soullessness"; and so on. Sure, there's a lot to criticize in America, but why is precisely what America does so obviously CORRECT that is the subject of so many sneers?Skeptic, what exactly is the criticism that you find is unfair? Is it the criticism of a pre-emptive invasion of a member of the UN based on contrived evidence and without UN approval? Or something else?
The tone of most of such criticisms is that America "cheated": it became powerful and important by its "soulless" concentration on "unimportant" things like industry, development, etc., instead of the "really important" things like the next socialist utopia or the new trend in modernist painting. This is news to me. Who says the US cheated?
Well, I say that America didn't cheat, and that the real reason behind the criticism is jealousy. Oh, god, not this old ghost again. I suppose your thinking is along the following lines:

1. The US is God's own country and therefore infallible.
2. The US is the sole remaining superpower.
3. Therefore, any criticism of the US, which is infallible, must be due to jealousy.

Does that about sum it up?

[c0rbin]

so at some point it was a good thing that women did not have the vote?


::Laughing:: I guess so. Those who made the US were following the social norm of the time. Men owned property. Men made the rules.

At some point scientist thought the sun circled the Earth. Hurrah for self-correcting systems. Hurrah for revolution from within. Hurrah for governments stable enough to suffer such revolutions of thought.



Such reflects not a mature, and responsible analysis but the simplistic attitude of someone who childishly follows "Mama says" style rhetoric.


Bah. I told you it was a drive-by reply.

Your ad-hominem belies no better than you accuse. You think it immature of me to state that the US expiriences mass immigration? Ever been to New York City? Jesus. As for laughing at DanishDynamite's post about plate techtonics, if you didn't laugh at that I think you might need to lighten up a bit.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:Skeptic, what exactly is the criticism that you find is unfair? Is it the criticism of a pre-emptive invasion of a member of the UN based on contrived evidence and without UN approval?

That, for startes. You see, here we have typical European behavior: high-flying rhetoric to disguise morally disgusting behavior. The EU was all agog about getting "UN approval" for removing Saddam. That sounds nice, but consider what the UN is for a moment.

The UN is not much more than a morally bankrupt, cynical, anti-US (and anti-israel) organization, a stage for tyrants to spread hate (remember the "anti-racism" UN conference in Durban, which turned out to be the biggest "death to the jews" rally since 1930s Nuremberg?). For goodness' sake, in the UN, Syria heads the security council, Libya the human rights commissions (whose members also include Zimbabwe and Sudan), while Saddam's Iraq held the disarmament commission.

For the US to require approval for its actions from such an "august" body lest it lose "the world's" backing is about as logical as asking Bush not to do anything without the approval of Charley Mason, the Unabomber, and the late Ted Budy--after all, they are (or were) Americans, and he doesn't want to lose the "support of Americans", doesn't he?

So, what were the real reasons for the EU wanting UN approval? When we discard the "moral arguments"--made by the same people who did their best to keep Saddam Hussein in power and said nothing when he eliminates a million or more Iraqis he didn't like--the truth is clear: it was merely an egoistic attempt to placate Saddam and stop his removal at any price, lest such a war result (God forbid) in a rise in oil prices or otherwise disrupt Europe's immediate comfort.

It is this sort of thing which is PRECISELY the problem with Europe: self-important, patronizing "moral" arguments about the "international community", truth and justice, blah blah blah--which are in reality nothing more than a rationalization of their blatant self-interested policies.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Originalgagster:
Ignoring the obvious fact that the US is a nation where the people have a shared language, shared culture, shared history, shared monetary system etc etc and Europe is not.

Precisely, which is why IMO efforts to create a single European superstate are idiotic.

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
If you are referring to the democratic process within countries in Europe, then it is untrue that they have often failed. Offhand, I can only think of Germany, Italy and Spain as examples.

IIRC a lot of the European states formed in the aftermath of WWI eventually succumbed to some sort of autocratic government. Ireland didn't, despite facing serious internal threats. What mad eIreland different was that the culture of democracy had taken firm root during British administration. SOmething it had in common with America.

[Mike B.]

I wonder if the US and Australia had the advantage of the isolation that oceans give you.

The US never had to have the huge standing armies that Germany, France, and Austria-Hungary had in the 19th century. I think the US army was about as big as the New York City police force at the start of World War I.

This allows perhaps a less militarisitc society, also one that is not on the verge of war at all times.

That is why I am a bit amused when some posters say something to the effect, "This is all Americans understand: violence" or "it is the American way to just use force."

Throughout almost all of US history, America has been militarily inept and impotent. In World War I the US had to use French tanks and artillary because the US was so little prepared for war. Look how poorly too the US did at places like Kasserine Pass at the beginning of its fight in the European theatre in World War II.

It was only after Europe was completely devastated in 1945 that the US emerged as a military superpower.

(I have to assume the good old Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had a lot to do with the fact that the US wasn't devastated in 1945 as well.)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

What mad eIreland different was that the culture of democracy had taken firm root during British administration. SOmething it had in common with America.

Interesting.

Many of the big democracies around the world have the fact that they are former British colonies in common.

Canada, US, India, Australia, New Zealand

Of course there are counter examples...But I wonder if British institutions had something to do with it.

[Dancing David]

cOrbin:

My point was that while the usa is a great place, it is a mistake to say that we have has two hundred years of uninterupted democracy, nice gloss on the death of american citizens of mexican descent I suppose that is okay becaus ethere are more mexicans to take thier place? They were american citizens who deprived of thier lives by angloe's who got off scot free. As for your response to the lynching issue, what? I don't get your response.

It is not pragmatic politics that got the usa here, if there is one overwhelming factor to look at it is the natural resources and the death of the native americans from small pox.
After that I would say that it is a very intelligently designed constitution modeled on the best aspects of european democracies available for study by the founders.
Followed by the fact that in the us we are striving for a maritocracy where pure wealth and prestige do not have quite the sway that they do in other nations. Although I do detect a note of rising plutocracy.
Followed by the prior free press that we used to have.

Great country, does not mean that it is a perfect country. there are plenty here in our nation who do work but don't get ahead. But the system does seem to self correct which is a major benefit.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by MikeB:
Interesting.

Many of the big democracies around the world have the fact that they are former British colonies in common.

Canada, US, India, Australia, New Zealand

Of course there are counter examples...But I wonder if British institutions had something to do with it.

In the case of Ireland democracy was seen to work. The Irish Parliamentary Party often held the balance of power in the House of Commons, and were able to extract the maximum concessions from the two main parties in return for their support. While Ireland (at least the nationalist part of it) was never an enthusiastic member of the empire in the way Australia, New Zealand or Canada were, all countries have fairly similar legal and governmental systems.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Skeptic:Skeptic, what exactly is the criticism that you find is unfair? Is it the criticism of a pre-emptive invasion of a member of the UN based on contrived evidence and without UN approval?

That, for startes. You see, here we have typical European behavior: high-flying rhetoric to disguise morally disgusting behavior. The EU was all agog about getting "UN approval" for removing Saddam. That sounds nice, but consider what the UN is for a moment.

The UN is not much more than a morally bankrupt, cynical, anti-US (and anti-israel) organization, a stage for tyrants to spread hate (remember the "anti-racism" UN conference in Durban, which turned out to be the biggest "death to the jews" rally since 1930s Nuremberg?). For goodness' sake, in the UN, Syria heads the security council, Libya the human rights commissions (whose members also include Zimbabwe and Sudan), while Saddam's Iraq held the disarmament commission.

For the US to require approval for its actions from such an "august" body lest it lose "the world's" backing is about as logical as asking Bush not to do anything without the approval of Charley Mason, the Unabomber, and the late Ted Budy--after all, they are (or were) Americans, and he doesn't want to lose the "support of Americans", doesn't he?

So, what were the real reasons for the EU wanting UN approval? When we discard the "moral arguments"--made by the same people who did their best to keep Saddam Hussein in power and said nothing when he eliminates a million or more Iraqis he didn't like--the truth is clear: it was merely an egoistic attempt to placate Saddam and stop his removal at any price, lest such a war result (God forbid) in a rise in oil prices or otherwise disrupt Europe's immediate comfort.

It is this sort of thing which is PRECISELY the problem with Europe: self-important, patronizing "moral" arguments about the "international community", truth and justice, blah blah blah--which are in reality nothing more than a rationalization of their blatant self-interested policies.



Skeptic, America first off does the same amount of moralizing or at least should.


Secondly, the European response, if it is there, is obvious sour grapes. Europeans are just as much fans of industry and capital as the US. Every nation is just behind the US now by themselves, so they complain and form the EU.


This isn't a case of the European statements here being the cause but an effect.


In that sense, the above is like noting that people who run a lot, tend to have less illness and then saying "Well running boosts the immune system."


The problem is it could just as easily be the opposite; they run a lot because they are so healthy all the time.

We likewise get such complaints from Canada, Japan, and South Korea. It comes from being a super-power, but such nations are doing fine.

Also you need to note how success is measured, because in some way Europe is ahead of America.

And though the US is ahead of any one European nation, Europe as a whole is at least equal with us. Not noting this is itself a fallacy of composition.

[c0rbin]

My point was that while the usa is a great place, it is a mistake to say that we have has two hundred years of uninterupted democracy, nice gloss on the death of american citizens of mexican descent I suppose that is okay becaus ethere are more mexicans to take thier place? They were american citizens who deprived of thier lives by angloe's who got off scot free.



I don't follow the correlation. Is India not a democracy because Muslims die at the hands of Hindus? How does the death of "Americans of Mexican descent" negate American democracy? Do you ignore European colonialism to make your point of how evil white Americans are? Who is "they"?


As for your response to the lynching issue, what? I don't get your response.


My response attempted to bring up the European tradition of Slave trading that America took on for too long. We as a nation are still licking those wounds. But not to your satisfaction I assume?


It is not pragmatic politics that got the usa here, if there is one overwhelming factor to look at it is the natural resources and the death of the native americans from small pox.


Boats got us here. Our station on the globe however was earned with blood sweat and tears--a will to roll up our sleeves to get the job done. You claim natural resources and smallpox? European settlers and explorers set the tone, my friend.


After that I would say that it is a very intelligently designed constitution modeled on the best aspects of european democracies available for study by the founders.


No doubts. Taking the best of what has worked in the past and moving forward. Sounds pragmatic to me.


Great country, does not mean that it is a perfect country. there are plenty here in our nation who do work but don't get ahead. But the system does seem to self correct which is a major benefit.


Then we agree.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WildCat

Yes, Australia has always been a Utopia. But could you please inform us ignorant bloodthirsty Americans what happened to the indigenous Tasmanians? Or, indeed, many tribes of American native Indians.

Actually, my commentary was to show that the original argument about "European democracy" failing where "American democracy" succeeds (see the title of the thread) is not altogether true at all. It was not any attempt to portray Australian history or lifestyle as Utopia - it was and is far from it, as most historians and observers are all too painfully aware. Nevertheless, Australia remains an example of a European-style democracy that does not meet the criteria set out by the original thread-starter.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Skeptic:Skeptic, what exactly is the criticism that you find is unfair? Is it the criticism of a pre-emptive invasion of a member of the UN based on contrived evidence and without UN approval?

That, for startes. You see, here we have typical European behavior: high-flying rhetoric to disguise morally disgusting behavior. The EU was all agog about getting "UN approval" for removing Saddam. That sounds nice, but consider what the UN is for a moment.

The UN is not much more than a morally bankrupt, cynical, anti-US (and anti-israel) organization , a stage for tyrants to spread hate (remember the "anti-racism" UN conference in Durban, which turned out to be the biggest "death to the jews" rally since 1930s Nuremberg?).


.......


which is PRECISELY the problem with Europe: self-important, patronizing "moral" arguments about the "international community", truth and justice, blah blah blah--which are in reality nothing more than a rationalization of their blatant self-interested policies. [/B]


I've seen these arguments before all touted by Christian right groups, such as "The Friends of Isreal". They view the U.N. as the tool of Satan that will persecute the just and righteous American's; the next anti-Christ will be anti-American and anti-Isreal. Every U.N. secretary has been viewed as the anti-Christ. Boutros Boutros Gali was labelled as such and now Kofi Anan. Note the two men have strange names and they don't epitomize the values or physical features that are so desired by the Christian right.


United NAtions/ Anti-Christ (http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1075.html)

The moral bankruptcy of our society is well-documented.

But, few people understand why we have become morally bankrupt. However, when we look at society through the eyes of God, through the Bible, we can easily see why we are facing the unprecedented troubles today.

Each and every day now brings new information that shows the many ways in which the United Nations is being strengthened, with the clear intent of making it the One-World Government of the Anti-Christ, an all-powerful totalitarian dictatorship capable of ruling over every existing government on earth, including the United States.
gasp! stand guard, be wary, and vigilant against this insidious organisation!

What is the Plan of the United Nations? Simply stated, this Plan is to reorganize the world into 10 Super-Nation states, with a functioning United Nations at its head.

...

The outlines of the actual fulfillment of this scenario are becoming more clear with each passing day. and those 10 ruling nations are European apparantly, as whining morally corrupt Europe is the biggest supporter of the U.N., isn't it becoming evident?

[Gem]

with the clear intent of making it the One-World Government of the Anti-Christ, an all-powerful totalitarian dictatorship capable of ruling over every existing government on earth, including the United States.

I don't want to change the subject, but isn't this description also fitting for Jesus?

He will make the earth a One-World Government of Christ, an all-powerful totalitarian dictatorship capable of ruling over every existing government on earth, including the United States.

:halo:

:id:

I just had to point that out.

Gem

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:That, for startes. You see, here we have typical European behavior: high-flying rhetoric to disguise morally disgusting behavior. The EU was all agog about getting "UN approval" for removing Saddam. That sounds nice, but consider what the UN is for a moment.

The UN is not much more than a morally bankrupt, cynical, anti-US (and anti-israel) organization, a stage for tyrants to spread hate (remember the "anti-racism" UN conference in Durban, which turned out to be the biggest "death to the jews" rally since 1930s Nuremberg?). For goodness' sake, in the UN, Syria heads the security council, Libya the human rights commissions (whose members also include Zimbabwe and Sudan), while Saddam's Iraq held the disarmament commission. Sigh. The UN is an organization begun, among others, by the US for the purpose of arbitration of problems between nations and the overall goal of maintaining peace between nations. While it would be nice for this organization to promote the particular type of government which you (and I, incidentaly) find is the best, i.e. democracy, such has never been its goal, and rightly so.

You have a great problem with the UN not being a rubberstamp for your particular version of what is right. I don't. I do, however, have a problem with someone claiming that the UN has no moral authority. Flawed as it is, it is the only organization which CAN claim any moral authority at all. China has 4 times the population of the US. Can it claim moral authority? Russia covers the largest part of the Earth. Can it claim moral authority? Who exactly, on a world wide scale, can claim moral authority? The US? Why? Because they think their system of government is the best? How can that be a criteria, as every other nation would claim the same? NO, the only possible authority at this moment is the UN, as all countries have a voice.

For the US to require approval for its actions from such an "august" body lest it lose "the world's" backing is about as logical as asking Bush not to do anything without the approval of Charley Mason, the Unabomber, and the late Ted Budy--after all, they are (or were) Americans, and he doesn't want to lose the "support of Americans", doesn't he?For the US to stand by its commitments, one of which is the founder of the UN, would probably require a miracle, nowadays.
So, what were the real reasons for the EU wanting UN approval? When we discard the "moral arguments"--made by the same people who did their best to keep Saddam Hussein in power and said nothing when he eliminates a million or more Iraqis he didn't like--the truth is clear: it was merely an egoistic attempt to placate Saddam and stop his removal at any price, lest such a war result (God forbid) in a rise in oil prices or otherwise disrupt Europe's immediate comfort. Once again, you are talking out of your ass.

My reason for not supporting the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US is and has always been: No mandate from the UN. If the US had just waited for a few months, until all possible extensions from other member countries had run out, they would presumably have had the same backing as for Gulf War 1. They didn't, and therefore they didn't have this backing.

Simple.
It is this sort of thing which is PRECISELY the problem with Europe: self-important, patronizing "moral" arguments about the "international community", truth and justice, blah blah blah--which are in reality nothing more than a rationalization of their blatant self-interested policies. :D

Sorry. That made me laugh out loud. If anyone in the world is trying to promote their ideas of Truth and Justice, it is the US.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If anyone in the world is trying to promote their ideas of Truth and Justice, it is the US.

At least you finally understand something.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by c0rbin



I don't follow the correlation. Is India not a democracy because Muslims die at the hands of Hindus? How does the death of "Americans of Mexican descent" negate American democracy? Do you ignore European colonialism to make your point of how evil white Americans are? Who is "they"?



My response attempted to bring up the European tradition of Slave trading that America took on for too long. We as a nation are still licking those wounds. But not to your satisfaction I assume?



Boats got us here. Our station on the globe however was earned with blood sweat and tears--a will to roll up our sleeves to get the job done. You claim natural resources and smallpox? European settlers and explorers set the tone, my friend.



No doubts. Taking the best of what has worked in the past and moving forward. Sounds pragmatic to me.



Then we agree.

cOrbin:

Aye, no I do not feel that we should rub our faces in white shame, but for Sceptic to take america to the high moral ground was hyperbole, I was merely pointing out the inequality of the statements he made.

I don't feel that our nation should grovel in it's shamefilled past any more than I feel wew should glory in our pridefilled past. The past is what it is, imperfect and human. the same values that Sceptic applies to the US apply equaly to Europe and visa versa,

same:same.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by hammegk


At least you finally understand something.


He understands plenty.

[Luke T.]

It is unfortunate for me that I did not find this topic sooner. I would strongly recommend anyone who really wants to know why the United States succeeded where others failed to read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. I know I have probably brought that up too many times on here lately, but seriously, it is one of the best political science books you will ever read.

I can't compress such a huge book into one post, but I will mention a couple of major factors to our success. The first, and most important, is that we were isolated from the rest of the world. A democracy is incredibly fragile in the beginning. Just look to Iraq and see what I mean. The fact we were isolated gave us time to "gel" as some other poster so aptly pointed out earlier in this topic.

Another was our great unlimited bounty of natural wealth. A person was limited only by their ambition. This laid the principles of capitalism into our national DNA.

Another was universal suffrage. Yes, yes, I know that blacks and women didn't have the vote. But no one was excluded from electoral power based on the lack of a title of nobility or of property. And we now have universal suffrage to the fullest, and we are stronger than ever.

And as much as some of you are going to hate hearing it, the strong religious foundation of our country also held us together. And contrary to what you might believe, the early men of the cloth promoted the separation of church and state. They knew that a moral code or belief in a higher power was a natural instinct of man and would go on forever, and to tie it to something as temporal as a government would be a major error. The errors of the government would splash on their religions. The Middle East should take a page from this book, I tell you. Hell, they should take the whole book and read it.

I haven't gotten to the part of the book yet where de Tocqueville discusses what went wrong in Europe. Another day I guess. :D