| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| VDH on America and the right to protest | |
| 2003-11-19 | |
| Hey ANSWER dolts! Listen up and listen good! Why are so many thousands on the streets of London so furious at an American President and the ongoing war in Iraq? Let us examine their misguided reasons, before getting to the truth.
But that doesn’t matter to the ANSWER crabs. Is it that protesters are angry at America’s purportedly cavalier treatment of Muslims? Are they ignoring that over 20 years we have helped to expel Stalinists from Islamic Afghanistan, led the effort to restore Muslim Kuwait, fed Muslims in Somalia and bombed Christians to preserve Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia? We give more than $3 billion a year to the Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians to match our aid to Israel. And don’t get much reward. Do they think it a bad thing that Noriega, Milosevic and the Taleban are gone? Whatever the endemic cynicism over US aims, the "national liberation" mantra of the 1960s seems close to realisation, if the nascent democratic movements in Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication. The demonstrators should at least harbour no sympathy for our enemy’s agenda: the fundamentalists’ treatment of women, homosexuals, religious dissidents and ethnic minorities is from the Dark Ages. Once again, ANSWER doesn’t give a fucking damn. Are the protesters repulsed at a "new" American preemption? If so, we in America do not remember that Hitler first sent V2s to our shores or that Milosevic cleansed Americans before we sent planes over their skies to stop the butchery. In the recent Balkan conflict Americans thought European omission, not American commission, allowed the loss of 250,000 lives a few hours from Berlin and Paris. Mr Bush’s Christianity, cowboy metaphors, and drawl might grate on European sensitivities. But he sought approval of the US Senate and went to the UN before attacking Saddam, unlike a lip-biting Bill Clinton, who bombed the Balkans, Africa and Iraq without either national or multinational sanction. And, by the terrible arithmetic of war, the Anglo-American effort to defeat the worst regime in the Middle East has been remarkable in its efforts to minimise casualties, both ours and Iraqi. But of course, only the Donks have the right to be unilateral. In fact, the rage of so many Europeans against America has more fundamental roots. The world onslaught of our culture remains a deep sore, whose scab Iraq has ripped off. But such a strange anger. American popular culture from jeans to rap and fast food is simply a manifestation of an inclusive democracy, just what the protesters, both in their slogans and appearance, might seem to appreciate. Indeed our music, fashion, entertainment and technology require few prerequisites for participation and spread precisely because people from all backgrounds and nations find common ground in easily acquired tastes and appetites. So Starbucks and McDonald’s are not promulgated through gunboats, but are a result of the choices of free consumers. Disruptive globalisation is a source of legitimate concern, but the poor from China to Mexico seem to be better fed, housed and cared for through the adoption of open markets than was true under Mao or state socialism. Because there’s an incentive to innovate and to work hard. Far more likely the shrillness of the London protest reflects the mood of the new Western citizen; the most affluent and privileged individual in the history of civilisation, who, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, can afford to find patriotism, civic militarism and the singularity of Western culture all so passé. In an era when the horrors of the Somme, the Great Depression, the Jewish Holocaust and even SS10 Soviet nukes are dim memories, we have riches and unrivalled freedom. So we demand perfection, expecting that we can stop racism, class oppression, sexism and environmental desecration as quickly and easily as we can find information on the internet or communicate across the globe. We almost can, as internet connections are not always reliable. In this unrealistic view of the perfectibility of human nature, far from being appreciative of our fragile peace, accomplishments and luck, well-off Westerners demand more. Furious over our perceived failures, we equate the pathologies of man exclusively with the sins of an all-powerful West, especially those of its most powerful nation as it is symbolised now by George Bush. America reads daily about this growing anti-American sentiment and I wonder whether those abroad stop to ponder the effect of all this easy invective on those of us who live here. Americans as never before are re-examining all the old alliances and friendships, from troops in Europe and bases in the Mediterranean to peacekeepers in the Balkans and ships in the Gulf. If privileged Western protesters cannot tell the difference between what Saddam did and what America is trying to do in Iraq, if they think that tomorrow’s Saddams, Milosevics and Kim Jong Ils will be awed by Nobel Prize awards, barristers in The Hague and EU resolutions rather than aircraft carriers, or if they assume in their end-of-history world that their worship of reason is equally shared by all those outside the West, we may be soon entering a far scarier world, when America in exasperation — as it did for most of its history before the European wars — will simply shrug and say: "Good luck to you all." | |
| Posted by:Atrus |
| #15 "about a second Bush term as well" As Frank Zappa once said so eloquently, that is 'the crux of the biscuit' - the key to our future as Free people. The man "gets it" in spades. Kudos, jarhead, to you and your fellows. You make me so damned proud and grateful! Kick ass and live forever, bro! Rummy's listening, as Rantburgers well know, so you, SecretMaster, and Yank will all (probably) be happy (within reason!) with coming changes, I'd wager. The man's got his shit wired tight - and takes none from the ankle-biters and whining leeches. He and Mondo Condo are the only other people I'd consider voting for in our present circumstances. |
| Posted by: absentee ballot 2003-11-20 12:01:24 AM |
| #14 I believe we need foreign bases. Yes, I've been "over there" too, and I loved every minute of it - in most places, most of the time. That's not why we need them there, though. We need the ability to rapidly respond to ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME - not just a military response, but also humanitarian response and support for legitimate national leaders and the rights of free men and women. That means keeping a few bases in both Western and Eastern Europe. That means keeping basing options in Iraq, possibly in Qatar and Bahrain. That means working with the Aussies and trying to expand our basing options in Southeast Asia after having withdrawn from the Philippines (Guam is just too %^$&%%^*!%$ small!). We need to stay in either Japan or Korea, but not both, and wherever we stay, we need enough room not only to base a division, but to EXERCISE it, with and (but not "or") without our local partners. It would be nice to have agreements that would let us station a divisional response team in South America, Southern Africa, and India, and to exercise with local military leaders until they have both the confidence and the experience to work with us in keeping the peace locally. To do that, we'd need a much bigger army - something on the order of sixteen fully manned, fully augmented, divisions, plus the air power, sea power, and intelligence to keep them operating wherever they may be. The world respects the strong, capable man. The same goes for nations. For too long, the world has perceived the United States as militarily powerful, but spineless and without character. We're under attack because of those perceptions. We should never give anyone the opportunity to make those mistakes again. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-19 11:53:10 PM |
| #13 Let's pray your right Yank (about a second Bush term as well). |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 10:00:28 PM |
| #12 From what I understand jarhead you will get half of your demands. Rummy wants a few bases out there, prefering mobility, and carrier based operations. I would be surprised if the US forces in Okinawa, South Korea and western Europe are still around by the end of the Bush second term, if they are there they will be much, much smaller. Of course we will still have troops in Iraq and Syria, nearer to the action. Hopefully by the time the War On Terror is over the nitwits of the world will understand that if you kill Americans you die. Leave the US alone and you probably won't be noticed (Zimbabwae) but draw attention to yourself and you are history (Iraq) A lesson that was forgotten over the past few decades. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-19 9:42:46 PM |
| #11 100% isolationism will never happen, I know this to be true. None the less, I believe in bringing back as many of our troops from foreign bases as possible. Been there, done that, still remember the hangover, as a lot of you have. I believe in absolute vigilance. I understand the WWII analogy all too well from having Grandfather's fight in both theaters, and I agree, Chamberlain & the French should've acted sooner. Their militaries were quite formidable at the beginning of the war. We (the U.S.) were not in any position at the time to do much. If you all recall, our military was in a dismal state just prior to WWII, the same can be said of us just prior to WWI. Things are different now, the Wot will still be fought, but I believe we can greatly diminish our presence in other parts of the world while definitely not diminishing any of our technical, tactical, or military superiority in all facets of the game. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 7:55:52 PM |
| #10 The US of A - the world's plumber. No, no, go back to the party. Billy just tried to flush a whole potato down the can. Have some more chips. Close the door and turn up the music so we don't have to listen to him work. He'll be gone soon. Pour me another glass. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-19 6:48:23 PM |
| #9 Jarhead, I think 95% of America (Minus Berkley) agree with that course of action. However Secret Master is right. We had your attitude prior to WWII. "Let them work it out" "It's not our war" "Tojo hasn't hurt us" These were common statements and in the end is cost us many more lives. A historical point could have been made when Hitler invaded the Sudetland and the world did nothing in return. Guess what happened? Well Saddam invaded Kuwait and we sent him packing. He didn't learn the lesson, so now he is out of power FOREVER! If the LLL don't like it, they can go to the far corner of the world and create 'Saddam land' and elect him leader. Just don't call us when he shoves your kids into a shreadder. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-19 6:33:36 PM |
| #8 Secret Master - LMAO about the neighbor analogy. However, thinking about being the parent of some of these third world schmucks and the son of europe only reminds me why I'm not opposed to either euthanasia or abortion. I know y'all, I'm just a dreamer. However, look at it this way. I'm not saying there would be any sort of decline in our training as Yank raises a good point of. We could rededicate that money to a lot of great defense items and re-fitting our forces. Our training, retention rates, and morale would go through the roof. Think about it, slow down the op tempo for meals on wheels and other b.s. ops = more families happy = more troopies stay in. Re-deploy a lot of our troops to our southern border to augment the Border Patrol guys. Plug that spewing hole of illegal immigration & drain on our tax payers & infrastructure. Let's actually uphold and defend our constitution by protecting our borders - one of the mandates of having a military in the first place. In the meantime, we'll keep training like possessed bastards and let the rest of the world worry about their own shit. Let them miss us for awhile, although trust me, I won't miss any of those places. Matter of fact, let those morons go ape-shit wiping each other out, we'll have a great trade agreement w/the winner! Fortress America baby! Bring back the mystique. I'm getting so motivated just thinking about it veins in my head are poppin' bros! I better stop writing now, I feel the delusions of grandeur starting to set in...... |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 6:29:43 PM |
| #7 Jarhead: No can do my friend; we cannot, in clear conscience, disengage from the world because it will never again disengage from us. Those times are past and so the sweet seductive song of isolationism (as sung by former Mayor of Vermont Howard Dean) must go unanswered. If it makes you feel any better think of it this way: we are the world's parents, in our 30's and in our prime. The Europeans are our half-senile father and mother, bitching about everything we do because it doesn't measure up to how they USED to do it back in the day (Sure, Pops, sure. Here's your medication....) The developing world are our bratty, know-it-all teenage children who have grown to the point that they ‘re inconvenient to spank. The Arab world are our crappy, noisy neighbors who seem intent on driving the neighborhood's property values down. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-11-19 5:34:47 PM |
| #6 The scary thing is how appealing jarheads comments were when my instincts tell me pulling back would just mean more soldiers and marines die when we finally have to get involved again. Still, if we kept that foreign aid for the defense department and kept our military far, far superior to all comers the plan just might work... |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-19 3:44:13 PM |
| #5 ...and while you're at it, please slap Harold Pinter around severely. Feel free to use the brass knuckles. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2003-11-19 3:17:29 PM |
| #4 Exactly. Fine by me. You don't want me and my kind Damn, Jarhead. You brought a tear to my eye with that. If only we could follow through with it. *sniff* |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-19 2:26:17 PM |
| #3 Not a bad plan, Jarhead, but it's got one downside: If Bush announced that today, the immediate spike in world demand for clean underwear would massively outstrip the capacity of the textile industry, thus setting off a round of global price inflation. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-11-19 2:01:33 PM |
| #2 "when America in exasperation — as it did for most of its history before the European wars — will simply shrug and say: Good luck to you all." -Exactly. Fine by me. You don't want me and my kind in Kuwait or Djibouti - sounds good. You don't want us in South Korea up in Osan, Suewon, or in Seoul - good to go. You don't want me in Okinawa or mainland Japan - awesome. You don't want us in Stuttgart, Naples, Ramstein, or Rota - outstanding. You don't want us in Roosevelt Roads or Vieques - I couldn't agree more. Get us the f*ck out of all your countries. We'll keep the aid we send as well, because my American brethren here in the states could really use that money instead for education, child care, etc. Thanks folks, it's been real, no hard feelings, good luck. BTW - if someone attacks us, we're still coming in whatever country harbored them and wiping the place out. Sincerely, The Ugly Americans....... |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 1:46:04 PM |
| #1 Why are so many thousands on the streets of London must be a typo. Should read hundreds. snicker. |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-19 1:23:07 PM |