Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The alternative, which is that they no longer share our western values, is even more frightening.

Or that you and the ruling party in America no longer share their Western values.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 08:13 AM

You misspelt 'Eastern values'.

Posted by Al at July 12, 2006 08:27 AM

You are absolutely correct Rand. Europe has evidently lost its collective mind.

The US (mainly) frees 25 plus million Iraqis and almost 30 million Afghans. China enslaves 1.3 billion of its own people and props up the enslavement of 22 million North Koreans. And of course Europe thinks the US is the bad guy on the world stage.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 12, 2006 08:34 AM

The US (mainly) frees 25 plus million Iraqis and almost 30 million Afghans. China enslaves 1.3 billion of its own people...

Just because you read it in Pravda, Cecil, that does not make it true. The average Iraqi or Afghan would gladly trade places with the average Chinese, if they only could.

What really concerns Britons and Germans is that so many Americans lie to themselves about these things. Inner honesty could be the most important Western value of all.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 08:59 AM

The average Iraqi or Afghan would gladly trade places with the average Chinese, if they only could.

What a fascinating fantasy. Did I miss that poll?

So are you also saying that the average Iraqi and the average Afghan would prefer a restoration of Saddam and the Taliban, respectively? If not, what the hell do you mean?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 09:04 AM

The average Iraqi would be happy to have a green card to come to the US, if the backlog of applications is any clue. So what does that mean?

Posted by Jim Bennett at July 12, 2006 09:12 AM

Little Birdie says: What really concerns Britons and Germans is that so many Americans lie to themselves about these things. Inner honesty could be the most important Western value of all.

And claiming to know what Germans and Britons are thinking is of course, not lying to yourself....please.

My mother is Danish and still well in touch with her family. At least those within our family are not amongst those who think Americans are lying to themselves.

Perhaps those that feel that China is a sterling representative of Freedom need to examine things a tad more closely.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2006 09:15 AM

The Europeans seem to have a dysfunctional bullshit filter. It's really not a surprise that they parrot back the BBC opinions.

At least the Soviet people knew Pravda was full of crap.

Posted by rjschwarz at July 12, 2006 09:32 AM

Little Birdie,
sounds more like YOU would trade.

Here is what I Know to be a fact from both of my sons who have been to Iraq.

The Iraqi people are so happy to be shed of Saddam, they are so happy we came and they are so happy we are still there fighting along side of them, that they are willing to give the very food off their tables and what trinkets they own to our kids on the ground there, in appreciation of their efforts.

Now, given what I read in the NYT, and hear from Dan Rather and what my sons tell me, I know your not just wrong, your not even looking for the truth.

You need to search out some troops fresh back from Afghanistan or Iraq and ask them what it's like, don't take my word, or the MSM's word.

Posted by Steve at July 12, 2006 09:40 AM

Hey Steve, please pass on this veteran's thanks for your sons' service, it is appreciated.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2006 09:48 AM

What a fascinating fantasy. Did I miss that poll?

Yes, you did, Rand, except that the real basis for this is basic facts of well-being. It's not something that you can poll because Iraqis and Afghans cannot conceive of trading places with Chinese because the cultures are completely different.

Whether you look at the CIA factbook or Iraqi blogs, or even Michael Yon's account of Afghanistan, the picture is consistent that life is getting better pretty quicky for the average Chinese. On the other hand, life is terrible and not improving much for most Iraqis and Afghans. For example, Iraqi blogger Zeyad was once one of the pro-American Iraqis who fully expected to be liberated. But now Zeyad is a refugee in Jordan.

The only serious exception is the Kurds. But they don't think of themselves as Iraqis, and at this point they are probably right.

So are you also saying that the average Iraqi and the average Afghan would prefer a restoration of Saddam and the Taliban, respectively?

No, probably they just don't care. Iraqis are deadened to the question because of civil war. A lot of Afghans still live under the same Islamic warlords who supported the Taliban, and see no difference.

What I'm saying is that the White House has not done what it claims. It has not liberated 25 million Iraqis and 30 million Afghans. Unfortunately many Americans, not a majority any more but still a large and well-organied minority, are gullible kiss-ups to the government. In some circles, this sheeplike naivete is even called "libertarianism".

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 09:50 AM

But that is a complete non sequitur. Just because someone is willing to give you food off of his table, that doesn't mean that he's happy with you, or necessarily happy at all. Arabs are well-known for their personal hospitality (as Michael Totten has explained many times), just like American Southerners. Like Southerners, their hospitality can mean more than one thing. Your testimonial is like the Yankee who had a fine catfish dinner in Mississippi in 1875, and went home thinking that the former rebels were grateful, happy children of the Union.

If you read any Iraqi blog about the present conditions of life in that country, you will get a different story. Hospitality is beside the point; even gratitude is beside the point. Iraqi bloggers agree that life there is hell, although a few of them don't blame America for it and therefore have room for gratitude.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 10:03 AM

Little birdie, Irrespective of if he feeds you, a Southron will tell you exactly where you stand. When you leave his dinner table, there will be no doubt. But please keep diggin' for flawed analogies.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 10:26 AM

Little Birdie says: If you read any Iraqi blog about the present conditions of life in that country, you will get a different story.

So then accounts of people who live there and say they've been liberated and feel a lot safer is all propaganda? You can find anybody you want to support anything you want. We promised liberation from Saddam and we provided it. We promised a self-governing Iraq and we are almost there. We should have promised doom and gloom, finger pointing, and defeatism because there is an awful lot of it going on from the other side of the aisle.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2006 10:31 AM

Irrespective of if he feeds you, a Southron will tell you exactly where you stand.

I am from the South, and I know beyond that. You're right that Southerners very much like to tell people where they stand. So do Arabs. But if your house guest happens to be an armed National Guardsman with the wealth of Manhattan behind him, then you will know to tell him what he wants to hear, whether you are a Mississippian in 1965 or an Iraqi in 2005. Certain Southerners like to whisper a lot of what they really think. So do Arabs, which is all the easier if they speak Arabic and the guests only speak English.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 10:45 AM

So then accounts of people who live there and say they've been liberated and feel a lot safer is all propaganda? You can find anybody you want to support anything you want.

Yes, it is Republican propaganda. As you say, you can find anybody you want to support anything you want. The Iraqis know full well what the rich, well-armed foreigners in their country want to hear. A lot of them refuse to toe the line on principle (Zeyad, for example), but there are enough left for the Red News Channel to report what it wants to report.

I'm going beyond that. I'm not just saying that I can find an Iraqi blogger who says that life is hell in Baghdad. I'm saying that you can't find an Iraqi blogger living in Baghdad today who says otherwise. Some of them are pro-American, and some are anti-American, but on the factual question they are unanimous. The difference being that when they blog, they aren't faced with cameras, M16s, and money bags.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 10:56 AM

"But if your house guest happens to be an armed National Guardsman with the wealth of Manhattan behind him, then you will know to tell him what he wants to hear, whether you are a Mississippian in 1965 or an Iraqi in 2005."

For someone who professes to be from the South, you seem to know very little about its inhabitants. I wager you know more about 'european attitudes'.

No, you will tell him what your Scotts-Irish blood tells you you feel, even if their is an Artillery Battery outside yoyur door.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 10:57 AM

For someone who professes to be from the South, you seem to know very little about its inhabitants.

I told you Mike, I'm from the South. I have not forgotten things like the old grade school chant, "a fight, a fight, a black and a white ! Come on Mike, beat that white !" That particular joke was one that you could hear when two white boys got into a scuffle. It was not exactly whispered, but it was also not something that Southerners liked to say on television.

I wager you know more about 'european attitudes'.

It's true that I have met a lot of Europeans lately, but that's a different story.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 11:23 AM

Little Birdie says: The Iraqis know full well what the rich, well-armed foreigners in their country want to hear.

Once again, you state that you know the Iraqi mindset as a whole....meaning that you've fallen for the propaganda generated against the United States efforts. Just as there are those that are opposed, there are those that are happy we're there. Both sides exist. As for life being hell in Baghdad, yeah, I can see why with militants blowing themselves up whenever they get the chance. It ain't us, its themselves.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2006 11:52 AM

That's odd... I've spent my entire life in the south (y'all) and I've *never* heard that disgusting rhyme.

Go ask a Kurd how they feel about the country compared to 15 years ago.

Economic progress and political freedom, while linked, do not march directly in lockstep. There are a heck of a lot of reasons why China is economically outperforming Iraq, not the least of which is that any terrorists there (or peaceful protestors, or anybody who disparages the Party) are shot or dragged off to prison, whereas in Iraq there is a low-grade war going on involving multiple parties, some of whom just want their power back, and others who want a caliphate.

Posted by Big D at July 12, 2006 12:16 PM

"That's odd... I've spent my entire life in the south (y'all) and I've *never* heard that disgusting rhyme."

Me either.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 12:28 PM

> Whether you look at the CIA factbook or Iraqi blogs, or even Michael Yon's
> account of Afghanistan, the picture is consistent that life is
> getting better pretty quicky for the average Chinese.

The same CIA that grossly overestimated the Soviet economy all throughout the Cold War, publishing frequent estimates that it would soon overtake the United States?

Somehow, that never happened. Perhaps the CIA's economic analysis is not in fallible.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 12:34 PM

Living in the South just now, I'd like to say that the likelihood "Little Birdie" is from the South is about as probably as the likelihood he actually has feathers.

Unless he's talking about Southern California or South Mass.

Posted by John Irving` at July 12, 2006 12:56 PM

A southron man don't need him around anyhow.......

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 01:06 PM

I've lived my entire life in the South, and if Birdie is from the South he is likly from some liberal bastion like Atlanta.

We don't need Neil Young around, or Birdie, anyhow.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 12, 2006 01:16 PM

Little Birdie says : "The average Iraqi or Afghan would gladly trade places with the average Chinese, if they only could."

I'm not sure how you are so sure of yourself on Iraqi or Afghan desires, maybe you are just "lying " to yourself.

More interesting to me is your statement: "if they only could." I wonder what the immigration policy is for China? Would they admit Iraqi's and Afghani's without pause? Would they welcome them with open arms, to be left to their Islamic customs and mores? If you think so , you are delusional beyond my belief. Feel free to slam the U.S. and build up China all you want. Tell me though, do you believe that more people die trying to get into America or trying to get out of China?

Posted by doubled at July 12, 2006 01:50 PM

Once again, you state that you know the Iraqi mindset as a whole....meaning that you've fallen for the propaganda generated against the United States efforts.

I told you where I get my information: from pro-American Iraqi blogs. Go to Iraq the Model, or Healing Iraq, and you can read for yourself that Baghdad is going from bad to worse.

Or I should say, confirmation. It's only consistent with what a lot of other sources say, including, for example, Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States embassador to Iraq. Or rather, Khalilzad admitted that Baghdad was going from bad to worse in an internal memo that was leaked to the Washington Post. He was explaining that the morale of the Iraqi staff at the embassy was falling through the floor.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 02:46 PM

That's odd... I've spent my entire life in the south (y'all) and I've *never* heard that disgusting rhyme.

Yeah, it's one of these "never happens here" things, just like when Trent Lott got knocked down a peg for supporting Strom Thurmond as a segregationist Dixiecrat.

But anyway, I'll meet you folks halfway. There are Southerners who will always speak their mind to anyone, even to the National Guard. A lot of Arabs are like that as well. But there are also many Southerners, and many Arabs, who don't care to be honest with suspect strangers, not because they won't take a stand, but more as an act of contempt. And there are some Southerners, and some Arabs, who are just plain kiss-ups to rich and powerful interlopers. I understand that plain-spokenness is valued in the South, just as it is in Arab countries, but still Southerners and Arabs come in all types.

I also know that most Southerners wouldn't want to be compared to Arabs. It's just the truth that they have a few things in common, the ideal of hospitality being one of them.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 03:00 PM

Little Birdie says: "...an internal memo that was leaked to the Washington Post."

How many leaked memos does it take to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes? Did Dan Rather leak it?

You have quoted sources, which is good, and viable. However, there have been sources that have reported that things are getting better. The issue has two complete sides depending entirely on perception and what's to be gained. If you look at what life was like during Saddam's rule, from numerous sources, you will realize that today's life is (if not a whole bunch) at least better than it was. There is hope now for a better future, unlike during Saddam's reign.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2006 03:09 PM

Would they welcome them with open arms, to be left to their Islamic customs and mores? If you think so , you are delusional beyond my belief. Feel free to slam the U.S. and build up China all you want. Tell me though, do you believe that more people die trying to get into America or trying to get out of China?

I'm not a fan of China and I like many things about the United States. But I do not like the American superiority complex and my impression is that China has it even worse. China makes its immigrants speak Chinese and I'm sure that it doesn't smile kindly on Islam. America ought to remember this negative example in the discussion about "illegal immigrants", but that is a topic for another day.

Naturally if Europeans are polled about the United States and China, they are going to think more about their foreign policies than their internal business. That brings the discussion back to the whole question of Western values. The White House and its supporters in the war on terrorism have exactly the same mentality as Vladimir Putin does in Chechnya. Recall that Putin is a Brezhnev-era KGB man. And Guantanamo Bay is a KGB-like installation where kidnapped men are held without trial. (Note that I am not making any comparison to Stalin; the Soviet secret police was reorganized as the KGB after he died.) By now the government wants to put them on trial, but the problem is that it has no good case against a lot of them -- so they eventually they let those guys go -- while some of the really nasty ones have been tortured and can't be put on trial for that reason. That is exactly the failure of Western values that Britons and Germans have in mind.

Whatever China does to its own people, it doesn't do this, in 2006, to foreigners. Maybe it would do worse if it were as powerful as the United States, but in any case it isn't and doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 03:24 PM

"while some of the really nasty ones have been tortured and can't be put on trial for that reason. That is exactly the failure of Western values that Britons and Germans have in mind."

And I suppose we have to take your word for it that we tortured the nasty ones. Or are you going to cite some moonbat source?

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 03:39 PM

I'm not just saying that I can find an Iraqi blogger who says that life is hell in Baghdad. I'm saying that you can't find an Iraqi blogger living in Baghdad today who says otherwise."

And life in Baghdad has not been hell...when?

Granted, if you were the kind of scum willing to suck on the Ba'athist teat (whose milk was kept flowing by the oppression of 80% of the population), life could be pretty good...

...until Saddam suddenly decided that he didn't like you, and ordered you shot out of hand. When Herod "the Great" executed his sons, Augustus quipped, "I had rather be Herod's pig than his son". Much the same could be said about Saddam and his sons-in-law, save that most people aren't as callous as Augustus.

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at July 12, 2006 04:38 PM

Or are you going to cite some moonbat source?

That is exactly right, I am going to cite a moonbat source known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When FBI agents visited Guantanamo in 2003, they were pissed not only because they witnessed torture, but also because DOD interrogators had impersonated the FBI while torturing prisoners. This is recounted in a memo posted at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_3977.pdf

Meanwhile an account of torture at Guantanamo is posted at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5053.pdf
If they lock a detainee overnight in an unventilated, 100+ degree room overnight and he pulls his hair out from heat shock, that is torture in the sense of felony assault according to American criminal law. As the other memo explains, when interrogators do this to detainees at Guantanamo (and elsewhere), it destroys any chance of prosecuting them in any credible legal system. For one reason, it would incriminate the torturers.

Since people have expressed suspicion of certain memos, these particular memos were not leaked, classified, or fabricated. They were obtained openly with FOIA requests.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 05:22 PM

> I'm not a fan of China and I like many things about the United States.

Sure couldn't tell that from your posts. All I see is venom. What are these things you like about the United States?

The fact that you can smear the men and women of the US military who put their lives on the line so you can sleep safe, secure, and smug in your nest?

It's no act of bravery to "speak your mind" to the National Guard knowing that you can do so in complete safety.

The men and women you insult get no such guarantees from the scum they deal with so you don't have to.

Posted by Barn Owl at July 12, 2006 05:30 PM

Little Birdie wrote: "I do not like the American superiority complex..." "The White House and its supporters in the war on terrorism have exactly the same mentality as Vladimir Putin does in Chechnya."

Does Little Birdie have the same attitude as this guy?

"We would not say anything if the U.S.A. were aware of its intellectual and moral defects and was trying to grow up. But it is too much when it behaves in an impudent manner toward a part of the earth with a few thousands years of glorious history behind it, attempting to teach it moral and intellectual lessons, whether out of innocence or a complete lack of genuine culture and learning. We can forgive the mistakes of youth, but this degree of arrogance gets on one's nerves."

Joseph Goebbels, 1943

Posted by Jim C. at July 12, 2006 05:37 PM

The issue has two complete sides depending entirely on perception and what's to be gained.

That is exactly right, Mac, there are two sides: a right side and a wrong side. As I said, Iraqi bloggers in Baghdad are unanimous that a civil war is tearing apart their city. That is also what journalists in Baghdad say, and it is also what Ambassador Khalilzad says, in private memos. On the other side you have partisans who, as you say, have a lot to gain from toeing the Republican Party line.

Now you question this memo from Khalilzad on the grounds that it was leaked. Just because it was leaked, that doesn't mean that it isn't true. No one classified this memo and no one denied it either. You should just read it for yourself at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf .

And life in Baghdad has not been hell...when?

Like the other comment that there is hope now", this is moving the goalposts up the field and into the locker room. The White House claim, which Cecil Trotter repeated, is that Iraq has been liberated. The claim is not that it's hell now but was even worse before, nor that there is merely hope that Iraqis will one day be liberated.

Go ask a Kurd how they feel about the country compared to 15 years ago.

This one is an interesting twist, but one that I already discussed. Kurds feel pretty good about their country now, which they call it Kurdistan, not Iraq. They can feel good exactly to the extent that they are not Iraqis. Again, the White House claim is that they liberated Iraqis from tyranny, not that they liberated Kurds from Iraq.
Michael Totten has extensively documented the truth on this.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 05:37 PM

What are these things you like about the United States?

In no particular order: peace at home, prosperity, the rule of law, the beauty of nature, Silicon Valley, scientific institutions, Hispanic spice, and basic plain-spokenness. Those are some of the many things that I like about America.

The fact that you can smear the men and women of the US military who put their lives on the line so you can sleep safe, secure, and smug in your nest?

I respect the men and women of the US military who put their lives on the line. I disagree with many of them, but I see that they are loyal and decent Americans who deserve a fair shake.

But I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to other men and women of the US military who don't put their lives on the line, but who instead perpetrate state-sanctioned torture from the safety of guarded bases. Not just the military, but also the CIA. They are fairly accused, as are the superiors who condone their crimes.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 05:49 PM

The Khalilzad memo is simply a collection of anecdotes confirming what Col. Bay, Jim Dunnigan and others reported starting weeks ago. The insurgents are engaged in a concerted effort to make Baghdad their "project." They aim to carve out little suzerainties for themselves in urban neighborhoods where everyone doesn't necessarily know everyone else and they can melt into the (comparative) anonymity of big-city life.

The reason for this is that they have failed to make a lasting haven for themselves anywhere else in Iraq. Initially, they did roughly the same things in Baghdad they are trying to re-do now. When they were chased out, they adopted a secondary city strategy, attempting to make a "Fortress Fallujah," etc. When they were chased out of most of the secondary cities, they tried a "Boondocks Strategy" of attempting to establish themselves in the rural hinterlands of Al Anbar province near the Syrian border. That also came a cropper. Seems that wherever they go, crude threats, murder and holier-than-thou religious policing as a governing style unaccountably turns the locals against them. Imagine that.

The enforced dress codes and the rest of the petty (and not so petty) lifestyle restrictions are straight out of the Al Quaeda In Iraq playbook from 2003 Baghdad, 2004 Fallujah and 2005 Tal Afar. It's a thin playbook, but it's the only one they have and they will play it out to the final bell.

What's different this time is that these guys have adopted this policy out of lack of any realistic alternative. They have literally worn out their welcome everywhere else in the country. It's now Bag Baghdad or Be Dead. With much of the native insurgency now dickering seriously over the terms under which they will be allowed to surrender and live, this is likely the end game for the foreign fighters and the war criminal Baathist dead-enders who are behind these urban intimidation games. The new Iraqi government knows the score and, with its army currently adding 8 - 10 fully trained battalions a month to its ranks, it has both time and the manpower tide on its side. The current insurgent renaissance in Baghdad will not stand.

Finally, a wee question for the Little Birdie. Why, if you are so certain of what Iraqis think or would do, given some hypothetical choice, don't you simply ask them the questions? A lot of those Iraqi bloggers you claim to read do their thing in English as well as (or instead of) Arabic. Post your queries. Link the answers. Why bloviate when you can authenticate?

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 12, 2006 06:33 PM

OK, Birdman. I'm getting a little tired of this (particularly, as is so often the case, coming from an anonymous coward). You seem to be defending the viewpoints of the majority of the Germans and British.

You claim to be an American. To get back to the original point of the post, do you, or do you not agree that China is a more admirable nation than the US?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 06:51 PM

You claim to be an American. To get back to the original point of the post, do you, or do you not agree that China is a more admirable nation than the US?

No, I don't agree with that. (Although I would like to see the original poll question, since it has now been paraphrased twice by word of mouth.)

What I do think is that this opinion of the Britons and Germans is a statement of protest, because our Western values have been undermined, not theirs.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 07:00 PM

No, I don't agree with that.

Well, I don't either, and that was the point of the post. Since you don't actually seem to be disagreeing with the point of the post, I can only conclude that you decided to use it as an opportunity to bash your own country (anonymously) in an off-topic manner on my blog. Are you proud of yourself, all these posts later?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 07:09 PM

The Khalilzad memo is simply a collection of anecdotes confirming what Col. Bay, Jim Dunnigan and others reported starting weeks ago.

Bay and Dunnigan are classic armchair quarterbacks who can admit the facts to then brush them aside rather than face up to them. In this case, they have adopted the jargon of the "last throe" in order to describe a plain loss of territory to Islamic fundamentalist militias of both sects.

If the United States cannot even secure a three mile by two mile rectangle between Baghdad International Airport and the Green Zone, both of them major US strongholds, what can it secure? Certainly if you look at last month's casualty lists (at http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=6-2006 ), it is just not true that the insurgency has retreated to Baghdad. They hit the US in Baghdad, and they hit the US elsewhere too. That now is part of a triangular civil war with Shiites as well.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 07:14 PM

Since you don't actually seem to be disagreeing with the point of the post, I can only conclude that you decided to use it as an opportunity to bash your own country (anonymously) in an off-topic manner on my blog.

That was not the point, it was only one point. You also offered an alternative between their ignorance and their loss of Western values, and that was what I actually addressed. They aren't ignorant and they didn't lose their Western values. Rather, they are annoyed because we have undermined our Western values.

I don't say this to "bash" America as a whole. America is vast country; it is many different things at the same time. I am no more bashing America than you do when you bash "moonbats" who are, after all, American citizens. Haven't you heard the libertarian phrase "I love my country; I fear my government"? I would say "suspect" rather than "fear", but otherwise it is as wise as ever.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 07:25 PM

"They aren't ignorant and they didn't lose their Western values. Rather, they are annoyed because we have undermined our Western values."

Considering how little value in blood and treasury that some Eurpoeans place on their western values, I would say that they don't get them.

What Would Churchill Do? Bet he would side with the current US administration and not those who appease the killers of innocents like the Spanish did after Madrid.

The problem, Little Bird, is your map (what you think western values are) does not match your shorleine (the reality of what Western Values actually are) and you are claimint the shore is in error and not your map.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 08:47 PM

That was not the point, it was only one point. You also offered an alternative between their ignorance and their loss of Western values, and that was what I actually addressed. They aren't ignorant and they didn't lose their Western values. Rather, they are annoyed because we have undermined our Western values.

Then why aren't you equally annoyed, since you seem to agree with them? I'm annoyed with many things about this country, but I'm not so dim as to think that this makes it worse than China.

Sorry, but you seem to be incoherent. First you say that they're justified in their beliefs, then you say you don't believe they hold them, then you say you don't agree with them, but they're reasonable. The only common thread here is criticism of our policies, not of their beliefs.

Sorry, but my theory that they're ignorant of both the US and China (based on abundant reading of the one-sided propaganda spewed daily by BBC and Der Spiegel) seems much more compelling to me, particularly since you can't even seem to figure out what you're arguing about.

And you continue to anonymously hijack this post to broadcast your incoherence. Why are you so afraid to attach your name to this nonsense? I know why I would be (because it's nonsense) but I wonder why you are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 09:45 PM

LB: I think the dismissive phrase you were searching for was "swivel chair hussar" rather than "armchair quarterback," but perhaps the game analogy better fits your notion of what is under discussion here. In neither case does the barb puncture Col. Bay whose "chair," of whatever type, has been situated in, among other places, Iraq as recently as 2004. That pointy metal thing on the back, by the way is not the seat height adjuster, it's the Bronze Star he collected along the way. As for Mr. Dunnigan, well, the Col. thinks enough of his "armchair" expertise to write books with him.

Now to particulars. The June casualty numbers you point to don't support your thesis. Of the 59 killed by hostile fire, half (29) were in al Anbar province, 8 of those in the insurgency's Second City Ramadi. Another quarter (15) were in Baghdad or close by. The remaining quarter were split among a handful of places with no one of them accounting for more than 3 dead each. A look at the list for a year previous (6/2005) shows a lot more place names and less concentrated coalition body counts with a lot higher mode per location. I don't know how you interpet these numbers, but I see a serious loss of effective range by the insurgency over the past year. They are getting squeezed into smaller and smaller places and will, before long, surrender or be ground into powder. I think the "Classic" insurgency will be mostly over by year's end.

Nice rhetorical hand pass there too, asserting territorial gains by - insurgents? - no, by "fundamentalist militias." As Butch used to ask Sundance, "Who are those guys?" If you intend this weasel phrase to indicate the classic insurgency (Sunni foreign jihadis plus native Sunni Iraqi Baathist irredentists) then, as just noted, you're all wet.

If, on the other hand, your intent was to shift attention to the Badr or Mahdi Army types (all Shia), well, nice try. These guys have been making more trouble lately, but not for Coalition troopies and not in any places they haven't been situated all along. So if your "triangular civil war" assumes the Coalition as one of the sides, it doesn't "figure." There are no new sides.

It's just that, now that the Coalition and the new Iraqi Army have kicked shit out of the classic insurgency, the Shia revengers can get in some non-trivial slaughter among the Sunni civilian population without having to worry so much about, you know - payback. Once the top predators are done feeding, the jackals and scavengers always appear. The new Iraqi government has to clean the bad actors out of its own ranks and then settle the hash of the ones left who simply won't behave. I figure they'll make significant progress on both fronts by Fall and have things down to, oh, maybe Saturday night in Compton levels by Spring.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 12, 2006 09:51 PM

Then why aren't you equally annoyed, since you seem to agree with them?

I am equally annoyed at the moral degradation in Washington. I might even be more annoyed, in a way, because it's my country. I just don't like to express my irritation with a wild exaggeration, like saying that it makes the United States worse than China. I might say that some of these policies resemble those of China, or more precisely, the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. But even that is a narrow statement that does not by any stretch apply to the United States as a whole.

I can lay it out in a perfectly coherent fashion. First, I don't know the actual statement of the poll question. But let's say that you and the Red News Channel did not distort it too much. If so, then second, I don't literally agree with the poll results: I don't think that America is as morally deficient as China. But, third, I think the poll result is a conscious exaggeration. I think that their complaint is valid, namely that the war on terrorism has degraded American moral values, even though the literal response is exaggerated.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 10:26 PM

In neither case does the barb puncture Col. Bay whose "chair," of whatever type, has been situated in, among other places, Iraq as recently as 2004.

There is no question that Bay is knowledgeable and loyal. He also seems like a just plain nice guy. But unlike Zalmay Khalilzad, Austin Bay won't lose his job if he's strategically wrong about Iraq. I think that he is simply taken by his loyalties, like many valorous soldiers are. After all, how can you go to the front lines and get shot at, if you don't believe in the cause? Anyway, I'm simply more convinced by certain other distinguished military leaders, for example General Anthony Zinni and General Colin Powell. I think that their perspective is broader, and their judgment is deeper, than that of Austin Bay.

Jim Dunnigan, as far as I can tell, just likes to hear himself talk. I'm glad that he and Bay are friends and can work together, but that is just their business.

I don't know how you interpet these numbers, but I see a serious loss of effective range by the insurgency over the past year.

There has been a lot of confusion in this discussion, not only here but everywhere, between area and people. The Baghdad metropolitan area has about a fourth of the population of the entire country. Even if it is just a few dozen square miles, it is strategically much more important than the expansive Anbar province.

Another important phenomenon here is that the United States doesn't suffer casualties in this or that city when it simply chooses not to fight the insurgents there. It doesn't necessarily mean victory.

This is a perfect example of the previous point. The United States has assumed a truce with the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army. But that does not mean that these fearsome militias are no trouble for the United States. On the contrary, they are a cancer on the entire strategic goal of "liberating" Iraq. The truce illustrates that this cancer is inoperable. It has metastasized to the very Iraqi government that we are there to defend and nurture. This is explained pretty well, if only briefly, in a recent post at Iraq the Model.

Since the original post was about Western values, the point again is that honesty is an important such value. The White House and the Pentagon won't win in Iraq by fibbing their way out of a debacle.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 12, 2006 10:50 PM

Okay, I've re-read everything posted here and let's nutshell this...you believe that the West (US) has declining moral values and the EU's are concerned about it. You believe that a small portion (Iraqi bloggers) are the sole source of information about the general attitude of the people over the war. And you believe EVERY memo you've ever seen, just not the memos thatsay everything's going according to plan. Let's see...carry the one...

Iraqis are the victim, its not your fault (just the governments), Moral breakdown in American values, this country isn't better than any other, we need to be more responsible when we liberate people, we don't liberate...we occupy and apply our moral decay to other countries....and you like Silicon valley........There's a classic Liberal painting there.

You have facts, yes. However, you choose only to mention those that make the whole situation seem like a depraved meglomaniacal attempt to control the oil region. You ignore facts that don't support your doom and gloom outlook, yet you claim to love America. Do you work in the Media?

France and Germany (part of the EU you elevate to holy levels) both had deals with Saddam that included weapons. Surprised that they didn't want us to go in?

As I said before there are two sides to the story, but unlike your clever "right and wrong side", the truth is that some are not liking the situation and some are happier and feel better off and more secure. Your posts seem to think that the military should be able to come in and quench an entire country of violence in a day and then be home for lunch. It takes time to instill self-determination to those that have never had it. Be happy you live in a country that allows you the freedoms to say what you do. That's the way America is, and always will be. Bringing Democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples is what we've done for a long time and the success ratio is far higher than the spread of European ideas of freedom.

I'm happy though that you are wiling to engage in debate, because that is far more than most liberals would do. It is the free exchange of ideas that make this country great. But what makes us exceptional is the ability to adapt to diverse views into a viable whole.

Posted by Mac at July 13, 2006 06:56 AM

you believe that the West (US) has declining moral values and the EU's are concerned about it.

Yes. American foreign policy, that is, exhibits declining moral values. I would describe domestic policy a little differently.

You believe that a small portion (Iraqi bloggers) are the sole source of information about the general attitude of the people over the war.

No, not by any means. There is a wide range of personal attitudes about the war in Iraq and the bloggers provide only a sliver. However, they are one reliable source on the factual question of whether security in Baghdad is good or bad. Their answer, that it's gone to hell, is consistent with many other sources.

Iraqis are the victim

They certainly are a victim, of circumstance. Another victim is American interests.

its not your fault (just the governments)

Sure.

this country isn't better than any other,

No, America is better than many other countries. It just isn't morally superior to all others.

we need to be more responsible when we liberate people

Yes, we do.

we don't liberate

No, sometimes we do that. However, this time we have screwed the pooch.

and you like Silicon valley........There's a classic Liberal painting there.

Actually, I think of Silicon Valley as a monument of capitalism.

However, you choose only to mention those that make the whole situation seem like a depraved meglomaniacal attempt to control the oil region.

I didn't say anything about either oil or megalomania. I would call it an arrogant misinterpretation of manifest destiny. Instead of only recognizing a duty to promote democracy, they concluded that it was our inevitable destiny to win everything.

France and Germany (part of the EU you elevate to holy levels) both had deals with Saddam that included weapons.

I didn't say anything about France and I don't think that the EU is holy. The poll was in Britain and Germany, and all I said is that they have a valid complaint.

You ignore facts that don't support your doom and gloom outlook, yet you claim to love America.

As I keep saying, there are many, many sides to America other than the debacle in Iraq and the sin in Guantanamo. It would be no contradiction for me to love my grandmother, and yet admit that she has a stomach ulcer.

Your posts seem to think that the military should be able to come in and quench an entire country of violence in a day and then be home for lunch.

Three years and $300 billion cannot be called "in a day". After all, how many insurgents were there ever supposed to be? The Pentagon has never claimed that there are more than 20,000. It is not natural to spend this much money on such a small enemy. The price tag is another indication of failure, entirely apart from the question of how we will pay for it.

It takes time to instill self-determination to those that have never had it.

We are instilling a kind of self-determination that is completely against our interests. The list of political parties in Iraq reads like a mosque sermon: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Islamic Call, the Vice and Virtue Party, etc. Civil war in Iraq is breeding religious fundamentalism, just as the American Civil War did in the South.

Be happy you live in a country that allows you the freedoms to say what you do.

Sure, I'm thankful for that. I'm also thankful that we have vaccines and clean drinking water. And lots of other things. It's all well and good to be thankful, but eventually you have to move on to other thoughts.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 07:40 AM

> It just isn't morally superior to all others.

Okay - name three better.

We're going to grade them on what they actually do. For example, there's no shortage of opportunities to do good in the world, so if they're talking and not doing....

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 13, 2006 08:32 AM

Okay - name three better.

First of all, you're subscribing to an insecure model of morality, that either A is morally superior to B, or B is morally superior to A. The real question is whether we have moral things to learn from other countries. We certainly do.

First, there is Canada. Canada has a balanced budget, it has nearly twice as much immigration per capita as the United States, and it has sent troops to Afghanistan but not to Iraq. Canada has avoided the main American policy errors of the past five years. I won't call Canada morally superior because I don't believe in all-or-nothing morality, but yes, we have a lot to learn from this example.

Second, there is Norway. Norway simply does not have enough troops to win wars on the scale that the United States can. Instead it contributes to world security by brokering peace, in places like Sri Lanka and Burma. I won't say that this is the way to solve all of the world's problems, but even the Bush Administration has acknowledged that brokering peace is the most that it can try in some regions. The truth is that tiny Norway is lately better at it, per capita, than the United States.

Third, there is the European Union. You can divide the world's countries into two classes, those that have legal capital punishment, and use it for ordinary street crimes, and those that do not. On one side, you have Islamic countries, Communist countries, culturally collectivist East Asian countries, and the United States. On the other side you have just about every other country that shares Western values (and some that do not). Capital punishment is morally degrading. The European Union has convinced many other countries to abandon it. The United States cannot even convince itself.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 09:00 AM

So LittleBird, did you buy Apache's 1993 album, or are you just a big fan of his music?

Posted by Leland at July 13, 2006 09:43 AM

"No, America is better than many other countries. It just isn't morally superior to all others."

Like those involved in the "Oil for Food" Scandal like Germany and France no doubt.

"
Third, there is the European Union. You can divide the world's countries into two classes, those that have legal capital punishment, and use it for ordinary street crimes, and those that do not. On one side, you have Islamic countries, Communist countries, culturally collectivist East Asian countries, and the United States. On the other side you have just about every other country that shares Western values (and some that do not). Capital punishment is morally degrading. The European Union has convinced many other countries to abandon it. The United States cannot even convince itself."

Capital Punishment is an historic Western Cultural Value that he EU is eschewing. I see our implementation as upholding a noble western tradition.

You see it as a moral negative, I see it as a moral positive. And you are lumping the use of it for extreme criminal acts with the Communists who ues it for political ends and the Islamicists who use it for religous ones.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 13, 2006 09:58 AM

"Capital punishment is morally degrading."

And just what is the crime (murder) that most often leads to capital punishment, morally uplifting?

Capital punishment is the ONLY fitting punishment for someone who knowingly, willingly and purposefully takes another life. Period.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 13, 2006 10:04 AM

Little Birdie says: We are instilling a kind of self-determination that is completely against our interests.

Ah, but the only interest served us by this conflict is to carry the battle to the terrorists...which is working since the number of terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11 is...how many?

This is more about liberating a people from a ruler that supported and funded terrorist actions. We promised a democratic government that the people asked for, and we are providing them the guidelines to implement it. If providing freedom to humans is a bad thing, then I can't understand. Isn't it a hallmark of conservative values to count money all the time as a measure of success, except this time its a liberal screaming about spent money? At what price freedom??? The human heart longs to be free and I for one think that freedom should be a right afforded to everyone on Earth.

You also again state that the Iraqi bloggers are "one reliable source" yet your basing so much on that one small source. You would think that any hypothesis should have as much collectible data before proof or disproof can occur.

Mac

Posted by Mac at July 13, 2006 10:56 AM

Rand,
Considering above, it is not just ignorance, but I wouldn't discount that being the root problem.

Posted by Leland at July 13, 2006 11:37 AM

Like those involved in the "Oil for Food" Scandal like Germany and France no doubt.

This is just convenient scandal-mongering. The United States was also involved in the "Oil for Food" scandal. The war in Iraq is also creating a lot of similar scandals. Scandal-mongering is what people do when they aren't content to argue plans and ideas. In any case, the poll that started this post was Britain and Germany, not France.

Capital Punishment is an historic Western Cultural Value that he EU is eschewing.

Capital punishment is a tradition rather than a "value". I agree that it is a historical Western tradition, but it isn't uniquely Western any more than rape and torture are uniquely Western. The smallest aboriginal tribes in the jungle have capital punishment. For that matter, of all of the American-style institutions that Iraq has always lacked, it has never been short on executions.

What is original to the West is the abolition of capital punishment, along with other limits on government and an appreciation of the human condition. Capital punishment is also not consistent with the doctrine of Christian redemption -- it's redemption truncated by a deadline. It was only in the 20th century that Christian societies began to see the contradiction.

Capital punishment is the ONLY fitting punishment for someone who knowingly, willingly and purposefully takes another life. Period.

As I've been saying, your position is a rejection of Western values. But I agree that wanton murder by a sane adult should be punished by at least 5 or 10 years in prison. Which brings the discussion full circle. For example Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer murdered General Abed Mowhoush in Iraq in 2003, but he was only sentenced to 60 days of barrack confinement and a $6,000 fine. The technical conviction was negligent manslaughter, but if it had happened on American soil, it would have been first-degree murder. Welshofer tortured Mowhoush to death. He kept turning the screws to extract a confession until Mowhoush died.

This is an example of the moral degradation that has come with the war on terrorism. I'm not saying here that the war on terrorism is needless and fundamentally evil, only that it is a morally difficult war and that the United States is fighting it in entirely the wrong way. Welshofer may be a murderer, but he is also a hero fighting for the homeland. He is much like a KGB man of the 1970s, like Vladimir Putin.

And it also illustrates one of the problems with capital punishment. There is a tendency to swing between extremes, to let good guys kill bad guys with impunity, rather than to apply a consistent standard of justice.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 12:34 PM

The United States was also involved in the "Oil for Food" scandal.

Nowhere near to the same degree, and we didn't cynically allow it to serve as a bribe to keep Saddam in power, and his people under his thumb.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2006 12:40 PM

"Capital punishment is also not consistent with the doctrine of Christian redemption -- it's redemption truncated by a deadline. It was only in the 20th century that Christian societies began to see the contradiction."

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars

"I agree that it is a historical Western tradition, but it isn't uniquely Western any more than rape and torture are uniquely Western."

I suppose now you will argue hyperbole and strawman arguments are a western tradition as well?

Rape has no socially redeeming uses. Capital Punishment at least removes the offender as a burden upon Civilized society.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 13, 2006 01:15 PM

Nowhere near to the same degree, and we didn't cynically allow it to serve as a bribe to keep Saddam in power, and his people under his thumb.

The factual claim only works for France, not Germany. Except for insinuations on the Red News Channel, German companies were only involved to about the same degree as American companies.

As for what influenced anyone's decisions, the German government, like the Turkish government, was above all swayed by popular opposition to President Bush's ideas of war. It turns out that they were right, too. Politicians can take positions for a mixture of good and bad reasons. As I said, scandal-mongering is what people do when they are not content to debate ideas and plans. Actually I think that it is important to air scandals, just not as a diversion from a debate over plans.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars

When Jesus said that, he was referring to money, not lives. After all, Jesus himself suffered the death penalty "unto Caesar". While he took it with dignity, he wasn't saying that it was a good thing!

As I said, there is nothing Christian about redemption with a deadline.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 02:09 PM

Ummmmm...are you really saying that Europeans prefer China to the US because they oppose the death penalty?

Your incoherence (at least with regard to the original point of the post) continues. Or are you just trolling now?

And you continue to do it anonymously, and refuse to explain why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2006 02:22 PM

"And when Jesus was talking redemption, he was referring to the spirit and not the flesh."

Show me one passage where Jesus condemns capital punishmnet for murder.

"When Jesus said that, he was referring to money, not lives."

He was talking about far, far, far more than money. Money was simply the vehicle at hand for the metaphor. Your preception of that passage is quite two dimensional.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 13, 2006 02:22 PM

Please ignore the quotes around the first passage in the above post, it was a typo on my part.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 13, 2006 02:29 PM

Ummmmm...are you really saying that Europeans prefer China to the US because they oppose the death penalty?

You're losing track of details, Rand, or pretending to. First, I said that they don't actually prefer China to the US; it's an exaggeration in protest. Second, the death penalty is only one strand of many. Obviously it's not reason enough to put China over the US since China also has capital punishment. What the Europeans have in mind above all, in their chagrin, is the war in Iraq, the KGB-style prison in Guantanamo, and intimations from Washington that it might bring on more in that vein. That may not quite match what China does to its own people, but again, what chagrins the Europeans is American treatment of foreigners.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 03:37 PM

Second, the death penalty is only one strand of many. Obviously it's not reason enough to put China over the US since China also has capital punishment.

It's not only not reason enough, it's no reason at all. Unless you're nutty, or ignorant enough to think that China has a better record in this regard than the US.

Which simply makes my point once again, unless you'll confess that you're simply throwing up anti-American chaff as part of your trolling.

Which you continue to do anonymously. And without explaining yourself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2006 03:47 PM

He was talking about far, far, far more than money. Money was simply the vehicle at hand for the metaphor.

What Jesus was saying in general was that his followers should to give to wordly authorities the worldy tribute that they rightfully owe. For example, taxes. This could mean, following his own example, that if you are sentenced, you should submit to your punishment. It is not any kind of imperative or even sanction for the authorities to demand mortal tribute. It may be your duty to accept execution, but that does not mean that the execution is not a sin.

Show me one passage where Jesus condemns capital punishment for murder.

I am not saying that Jesus or the Bible explicitly bans capital punishment. But he certainly didn't have in mind that you should only live to the letter of his teachings. What I said was that it is not Christian to set a deadline on redemption. It just isn't. You cannot love thine enemy by saying, "Repent and be saved, but you've only got until midnight tomorrow, when we kill you."

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 03:51 PM

It's not only not reason enough, it's no reason at all. Unless you're nutty, or ignorant enough to think that China has a better record in this regard than the US.

No, "not reason enough" is what you are actually arguing. Since the United States also has the death penalty, it at least slides in the direction of China on that score. It could in theory slide past China if it were added to other moral failings. In reality, I don't think that that the US does slide below China. As I keep saying, that's an exaggeration, but an exaggeration with a valid complaint behind it.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 13, 2006 03:56 PM

The issues wasn't whether the US was "sliding toward" China, but whether it was worse. But keep playing your little anonymous word games. At least until I close comments, which probably won't be long from now, since you continue to insist on dragging this post so far off topic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2006 04:02 PM

"What I said was that it is not Christian to set a deadline on redemption. It just isn't. You cannot love thine enemy by saying, "Repent and be saved, but you've only got until midnight tomorrow, when we kill you."

Sure you can.

Travis loved Old Yeller but he still shot him for the good of society because he saw it as a unplesant necessity.

I also view capital punishme as a necessity. Unpleasant but still necessary.

Why should society be liable to support a thug murderer for life while he consumes resources.

The only way I would even contemplate not preferring capital punishment would be life in prison at very, very, slave grade hard labor where the phrase "paying your debt to society" was made painfully real.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 13, 2006 05:25 PM

> First of all, you're subscribing to an insecure model of morality, that either A is morally superior to B, or B is morally superior to A.

Actually, no. I'm merely asking if there are "more moral" countries.

I note that the list is littered with strawmen. The US has never said that diplomacy never works. It has merely said that talk alone doesn't solve some problems. The US is quite willing to talk, in fact, it is willing to talk beyond the point where talk has proven itself pointless. The difference is that the US is willing to act.

BTW - Burma isn't a solved problem. It's still a mess.

> [Canada] has sent troops to Afghanistan but not to Iraq.

Not to belittle the virtues of Canada's troops, but Springfield, MO has sent more troops to Afghanistan than Canada.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 13, 2006 05:52 PM

Little Birdie says: It may be your duty to accept execution, but that does not mean that the execution is not a sin.

It was stated that the governments of man would be the ones to impose punishment. Following those statements in the book it seems then that execution as a punishment is not a sin.

Little Birdie says: But he certainly didn't have in mind that you should only live to the letter of his teachings.

Little Birdie also says: When Jesus said that, he was referring to money, not lives.

Well now, that seems awfully close to a literal translation to me. Literal translation leads to living the letter of the teachings.

As for the original debate this is again, simple. Europe (England and Germany) no longer share the same Western values as the US. This is quite logical considering that the EU not moved forward as the US has. The EU is rooted in an older version of value and can see no reason to evolve further. The US, on the other hand, continues to develop and evolve faster than the EU can even contemplate. That is true, but it doesn't make our values and vision wrong, worse, or even bad...it just makes us different. The perfect example (though outdated I'm sure) is the Revolutionary War. We as a nation were sick of oppression and wanted to rule ourselves. We had a new way of doing things (evolving) that Europe couldn't even consider. We won our independence and continued to evolve our values and way of life......and then Europe adopted a representative form of government too, when they were able and willing to contemplate the benefits. Europe has always been nose up at our values and they always will be, because were dynamic and they are static. Neither side is wrong or worse than the other, just different.

Posted by Mac at July 14, 2006 11:10 AM

Um, that's we're (we are) dynamic....Fridays...sigh

Posted by Mac at July 14, 2006 11:11 AM

The issues wasn't whether the US was "sliding toward" China, but whether it was worse. But keep playing your little anonymous word games. At least until I close comments, which probably won't be long from now, since you continue to insist on dragging this post so far off topic.

I am perfectly happy to make a self-contained, on-topic statement of the situation, since you feel distracted by these side arguments (raised by other commenters).

----

If Britons and Germans placed the United States morally below China, it was largely a conscious exaggeration that expresses a valid complaint. Their complaint is that the war on terrorism, in particular the debacle in Iraq and the sin in Guantanamo, has degraded American moral values.

----

There it is, the whole explanation from beginning to end. But let me add that nothing in that statement, nor anything else that I have had to say, is "anti-American", any more than Mothers Against Drunk Driving are "anti-car". The issue is a small part of everything that America does, unfortunately a few very prominent activities that make the whole country look bad.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 14, 2006 12:19 PM

I am perfectly happy to make a self-contained, on-topic statement of the situation, since you feel distracted by these side arguments (raised by other commenters).

----

Posted by Little Birdie at July 14, 2006 12:20 PM

Mac, to add to your thought: One can easily imagine that Europe, in the mid 1700s, thought that colonists were less civilized or moral.

Posted by Leland at July 14, 2006 12:21 PM

The US, on the other hand, continues to develop and evolve faster than the EU can even contemplate.

What you are saying is not far from the truth, Mac. We live in times of moral revisionism in America, and that is exactly what bothers the poll respondents in England and Germany. But I have faith in America, that the truth will catch up with Washington. I have hold guarded optimism that eventually Guantanamo interrogators will be charged with torture, and that eventually the Pentagon and the White House will stop trying to lie their way out of faiure in Iraq. If and when those things happen, we will regain some of the lost respect of other free peoples.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 14, 2006 12:31 PM

I'm merely asking if there are "more moral" countries.

Then we are talking at cross purposes, which is good to clarify because Rand has expressed impatience with these side discussions.

All I said was that the United States is not moraly superior to all other countries. It is not morally superior to Canada. That is not a statement that Canada is "more moral" as you ask, only that some of its ways are more moral. Canada's immigration policy is more moral -- it is less hostile to foreigners. Canada's fiscal policy is also more moral -- it is not beset by a greedy doctrine of spending without taxes. But there may be other ways in which the United States is more moral than Canada.

Posted by Little Birdie at July 14, 2006 12:39 PM

Little Birdie, there are a multitude of ways that the USA is more moral than Canada (and I lived in Canada for 36 years, I know whereof I speak). The US is the most moral nation on the planet, period. And these people in the EU who would prefer China are exactly what Lenin was talking about in the phrase "useful idiots".

Posted by Ed Minchau at July 14, 2006 03:37 PM

Post a comment