Re: Bush to Blair: EU Citizens Have No Human Rights, Either

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:42:53PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> But it does, by virtue of the neo-con's desire to "export" their revolution
> internationally, and to the extent the US can and does use its influence - be it
> via economic carrots or military sticks - to shape the world.
> 
> While Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia both had repercussions throughout the
> world, at least the industrialized world, the US influence is markedly greater.

Hitler and Stalin were building an autarky and had the dictatorial
powers to do so. Don't forget that there are various forces in place that
prevent the US government to even try, for example not being able to fully exploit
the oil in Texas and Alaska. Or the constant obsession of the rest of the
world to involve the US in all affairs, Liberia being the latest case.

Plus I don't think the US has that much influence when counting population
numbers: middle twentieth century Europe and Russia might have had a larger
share of the world population than the US and its influences have today.
China and India are *big*.

I won't deny the US has a large influence on the world, but I don't think it
can be solely or even mainly attributed to intentional pressure to shape the
world.

> Excepting Tony Blair's recent failed proposal, I do not think anyone finds such
> reasons as sufficient.  In terms of invading sovereign countries I do believe in
> the last 20 years the US has the winning count on that score (Grenada, Panama,
> Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and this excludes the even larger
> count of "covert ops"), and apparently to most people that is not sufficient
> reason to joust the US government.

Grenada: sorry, that was before any of my political interest and never
mentioned in school or anything I read. Will dig up.
Panama: both a French and UK UNSC veto supported the US.
Haiti: you'll need to credit the UNSC and Boutros Boutros Ghali for that as well.
Somalia: credit goes to the UN here as well.

There was broad international support for Afghanistan and Yugoslavia (in
fact, the US was asked to get involved after failing European-Russian peace
attempts) and you cannot deny that - regardless of Bush administration
policies and intentions - resolution 1441 provides legal basis for military
action.

> > By that analogy, it's hypocrite for the world to
> > condemn the Bush administration for the things it allowed the Baath party to
> > do.
> 
> As I recall there was an international coaltion that removed Iraq from Kuwait. 
> Show me, where is the international coaltion removing the US from Iraq?  Can't
> do it?  Then where, I ask, lies the hypocrisy?

Up to you whether you decide whether international support is a very good
measurement, given the UN involvement in pretty much every conflict. It's
tough to decide who's right and wrong in a lot of these cases when we can't
determin who can make the call and I don't think there is really an
international referree we can agree on completely that doesn't dissapoint us
in some way or the other.

> > It is a serious issue for US citizens and residents though, a dictatorship
> > in Washington would violate their rights. Not my rights though, I don't have
> > any rights, at least not under the Bill of Rights, since I am not residing
> > in the US at the moment. Sob - esp. since I can't import Pepsi Blue anymore.
> 
> Nobody has any rights under the Bill of Rights anymore.  The moment the "enemy
> combatant" wand empowered the government to deprive anyone of all their rights,
> the Bill of Rights themselves became a relic.

You'll never hear me say the Bush administration is doing a perfect job on
this issue. As long as the Bill of Rights lives in people (like Martin
Luther King, or to be more up-to-date even Lawrence Lessig), it will always
be more than a relic.

> > Besides, it's not that simple. A free republic can still be imperialistic or
> > colonialistic, see Golden Age Holland, pre-monarchy.
> 
> Sure, and I don't have to look that far away or that long ago.  But yet I see a
> difference between Germany of the 1920s and Germany of the 1830s.

And I see a difference between Germany of the 1920s and the US of these
days. For one thing, there will be elections within a year. If those get
cancelled, I'll worry a lot. If we'll see another Kristallnacht, "Muslims
not welcome", revisions to eligable election candidates, mass removal of
citizenship, I may very well hope the US people will step up against their
government. And if not, I'll do it for them!

> In this regard I would hold forth Messrs. Christ, Gandhi and King as examples. 
> A simple failure to cooperate, if widespread enough, is sufficient to bring down
> any government.  The rule of thumb is that a government requires 25-30% of the
> population's support to continue in power, though, with the advent of
> technology, that percentage is unfortunately quickly and steadily decreasing. 
> Hence the need to act - or fail to act, as the case may be - before it is too
> late.

And the need for you to expand beyond kde-cafe, then. Seriously. Your
examples are not exactly known for staying in small circles. :)

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/FLpCtppIl2G1SjcRAmfMAJ95mn0CNaKAFQAG2FbR0IPgEy6tjACfcxFO
d+dLbU4UdRLPlp3xJoARM/4=
=jdn6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----