Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well, I guess he *is* an expert...

Posted by Glenn (NotReynolds) at May 19, 2007 12:54 PM

I doubt his sanity.

Still, he is a useful idiot for the Democrats. Just not so good for these United States.

Posted by MG at May 19, 2007 01:28 PM

Pot, kettle, black.

There's a good argument to be made that our Iranian problem traces its roots back to Pres. Carter.

Posted by Fred K at May 19, 2007 01:47 PM

"Pot, kettle, black."

And the kettle isn't even a kettle...

Posted by MG at May 19, 2007 02:34 PM

Now for some good news.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/fred_thompson_m.html

Thompson may jump in the race early next month.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 19, 2007 02:39 PM

Former President Carter says
President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations...

That's not quite the same as saying Bush is "the worst president in history."

Not to defend Pres. Crater but even a hole like he should be quoted correctly.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 19, 2007 03:32 PM

The whole "takes one to know one" bit and all...

Posted by Leland at May 19, 2007 03:33 PM

I think the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Administration is the posthumous repuations of James Buchanan and Warren Harding

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 19, 2007 05:25 PM

It was the CIA in the 1980's under Reagan that started
arming islamic extremists.

Posted by anonymous at May 19, 2007 07:30 PM

Very low unemployment, extremely low interest rates, a booming economy and he's worse than who? If he was a Dem, he would be hailed by the press as one of the best. I'm no fan of Alberto Gonzales but two words; Janet Reno. Where were the calls in the press for her head? Why wasn't Clinton castigated by the NYTimes about her? Iraq is not a "loss" in spite of the press and the Dem "leadership", if you can call those two leaders.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 19, 2007 08:33 PM

That's funny, Jane, because I was just defending Carter over at QandO as not being as bad as Buchanan. In hindsight, a hundred years out, I'm betting on Carter being in the Buchanan league, Clinton being in the Grant league, and Bush being in the Coolidge league.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at May 19, 2007 09:49 PM

I thought anonymous moron was banned?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 20, 2007 05:26 AM

Hey, Bill, I notice you carefully forgot the balance of payments deficit.

Very low unemployment, sure, but largely in the retail industry, which is mostly at minimum wage and selling goods imported from China.

Anyone, or any nation, can live high for a while on borrowed money - but sooner or later the creditors will call the debts due.

And the main creditor, China, has an army much bigger than yours and has five thousand years of experience in defeating invaders - by simply ignoring them until they either go away or get assimilated. So you can't use your military to exact tribute, either.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 20, 2007 06:28 AM

Hey Fletcher,

You don't know whether I was careful or not. When you hang out your mind reading sign, let me know. So we're going to invade China because we aren't going to pay them what we owe?

Posted by Bill Maron at May 20, 2007 07:59 AM

Don't worry Jimmah, your reputation as "First at being Worst" is fully intact. As a president, you were awful. As a commander in chief, you sucked eggs (I was in the military during his God-awful administration). As an ex-president in the last 15 years, you're even worse. Somehow, you've managed to find bottom and keep sinking lower.

Posted by Larry J at May 20, 2007 02:42 PM

Bill, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that option had been seriously considered. Of course, you'd have some excuse, just like Bush had for invading Iraq at the cost of 750,000 lives and a trillion dollars to improve his oil and construction industry buddies' profits and his party's re-election chances.

It is easily arguable that Saudi Arabia would have been a better target for the invasion; easier, more profitable and more justifiable, given that a member of Saudi's royal family was the chief culpit for 9/11.

Actually, the American administration between the wars (from your point of view) was probably the worst, from the British and European point of view. Yes, you gave us some equipment with which to fight your battles for you - and bled us white doing it, and took almost all our overseas bases in exchange. Not a bad trade for some 20-year-old ships due, otherwise, for the scrapheap.

So maybe next time it will be military action to preserve Wal-Mart's profits. You've got form.

it would be poetic justice if the perpetrators of the first bit of nuclear terrorism chose Wall Street as Ground Zero. It would also be the least damaging to the real economy. These days, shuffling money beats making things as a money-maker, hands down. And you don't have to get your hands dirty - apart from all the blood, of course.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 20, 2007 02:43 PM

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"

If that's what Carter said, it's hard not to agree.

Time will tell, but my personal opinion is that Carter is right.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 20, 2007 03:23 PM

"you gave us some equipment with which to fight your battles for you - and bled us white doing it, and took almost all our overseas bases in exchange."

Mr. "Christian",

Are you being a bit overly personalized in this comment?

Is this a reference to Lend-Lease?

If so, are you capable of examining Lend-Lease from the Great Depression era American point of view?

Or, more bluntly, if Chamberlain hadn't nixed bitch-slapping Hitler over the dismantlement of Czechoslovakia, would Lend Lease have even been necessary?

If you are in fact English / British, mind your own #*(&# knitting.

Posted by MG at May 20, 2007 05:19 PM

It's a cryin' shame to see a former President slowly sink into dementia (although some might say the slide started 31 years ago). At least Reagan had Nancy to mind his rantings. Rosalyn apparently doesn't have Nancy's caregiver skills.

Where DO old presidents go when they've lost their minds?

Oh, of course: CNN! D'oh!

Posted by Dave G at May 20, 2007 06:51 PM

Come on now, the first deal to secure funding from the Saudis came through Zbig Brizinki; the
players at the General Intelligence Directorate;
Turki, Khalil, Adeeb, & the Pakistani ISI; (Yousef, Gul, et al) chose the most radical factions as the recipients; Hekmatyar, Raisul
Sayyaf, Khalis. Bin Laden cobbled together AQ
from the first two factions; the Taliban rose
from the 3rd faction; with Mullah Omar being the
key player. Men like Cannistraro, prevented any
oversight of jihadisrt permeation of the arms
pipeline

Does anyone think that invading Saudi Arabia,
would have been any easier; than the Iraq campaign
We would have been accused of waging a war on Islam; since that's where Islam arises; forget the fact, that the seat of the Caliphate has
shifted from Damascus to Baghdad to Cairo and
Ankara. That the Hashemites were the original guardians of the shrines, not the Wahhabis. we'd have the problems with fighting from the mosques, no good targets, and the whole Wahhabi wurlitzer
doing its thing. Is it coincidence that sons and
brothers of old Ilkwan families like the Al Ghamdi; which made 9/11 bombers, fighters in Chechnya, bombers in Mosul & Baghdad. Al Quahtani,
family of the Grand Mosque siege of '79, 20th hijacker, bombings in Baghdad & Fallujah, Al Utaibi; Gitmo detainees, Al Queda chiefs (villains
in a Tom Cruise produced Christopher Reich spy
novel) have drifted into Iraq. We would likely face the same Shia insurgent problems in the oil
rich Hasa provinces in the east of the country;
backed by Iranian support

Posted by narciso at May 20, 2007 11:55 PM

Not to defend Pres. Crater but even a hole like he should be quoted correctly.

Do remember that Rand used to be a Fox News reporter.

Posted by Adrasteia at May 21, 2007 12:53 AM

"Do remember that Rand used to be a Fox News reporter."

And the relevance is...?

Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 01:41 AM

Do remember that Rand used to be a Fox News reporter.

Didn't know that. Web or TV?

Posted by D Anghelone at May 21, 2007 02:47 AM

Didn't know that. Web or TV?

You didn't know it because it's untrue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 21, 2007 05:15 AM

But Rand, people "know" a lot of things that aren't true.

Posted by Gunga at May 21, 2007 07:06 AM

Adrasteia,

Care to rebut Rand, or answer my question?

It is a fun game, eh? To wit...

"Do remember that Adrasteia used to be a CPUSA officer, until the cash from the Soviet Union ran out."

Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 09:48 AM

Care to rebut Rand, or answer my question?

I guess I should also note that ad hominem arguments are generally unconvincing (or at least ought to be) particularly when there's nothing wrong with being a Fox reporter. Certainly if I had been, I wouldn't be ashamed of it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 21, 2007 09:57 AM

Actually, the American administration between the wars (from your point of view) was probably the worst, from the British and European point of view.

Well, there's a point of view we need to ponder. As for the British, what was all that angst over a bunch of islands in South America? As for Europeans, France....nuff said.

Posted by Mac at May 21, 2007 10:31 AM

And of course, Prince Harry doesn't have to go to Iraq, even though he was ready to do so. Can't even let your men be men.

So maybe next time it will be military action to preserve Wal-Mart's profits. You've got form.

You've got form too....(sarcastic cat-call)

Posted by Mac at May 21, 2007 10:34 AM

As a follow-up to Mr. "Christian":

The British naval bases we accepted as payment for Lend-Lease, if that is how it occurred, would have had the following effect:

1. Move military facilities from the possession of a belligerent to a neutral, thereby eliminating the possibility of them falling into the hands of the Third Reich.

2. Improved the ability of the US to secure the oceans near these bases.

3. Make further near-violations of US neutrality in 1940 / 1941 possible.

Part of the American isolationism resulted from the British and French betrayal of American war aims, and then their failure to manage effectively the consequences.

The "never again" phrase, for all its illusory claims, could also apply to an American reaction to the prospect of fighting in another European war.

In short, Mr. "Christian", once bought, you ought to stay bought. It is not like the American yoke is terribly burdensome. Especially compared with, say, the EU and the Labor Party.

mmmrrrrowwwrrr. *hiss*

Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 12:17 PM

MG:

If Britain had "bitch-slapped" (typically crude American term) Hitler over Czechoslovakia, what would have happened?

The Allies would have lost. Britain was not ready, in spite of the efforts of Churchill - who was derided as being a warmonger. Sources I've read seem to indicate that Chamberlain was treated extremely unfairly - he bought time to rearm, and maybe deliberately.

The Allies and Britain would have lost, and the probable chain of events would have meant that your kids would now be being taught in German - or maybe Japanese. Why? Because the German Army was better trained, equipped and led than any other military of the time (and certainly better led and trained than the then or current American Army) - and they would have had the resources of the whole of Europe, including European Russia, to call upon.

Not to mention the loss of most of the Pacific Fleet to imcompetence and complacency. But for the happy chance of your carriers being away at sea, western Americans would be speaking Japanese now.

Last: The American yoke light? Hmmm... let's see. So far, you have given us junk food, junk "entertainment", lots more foul language in public, the legal compensation culture which is shutting down harmless local celebrations all over Britain, and many other things of that sort.

In return for those gifts the American Imperium takes a quarter of all the irreplaceable resources mined and pumped every year and turns them into garbage and smoke, because Americans believe in nothing if not conspicuous waste.

Oh, and your wonderfully competent diplomacy has led not only to the death of 3000 people one fine day in New York, but also to death and mayhem all over the world, including Britain. And to a gradually encroaching police state here, in reaction to that. The fact that the police state is encroaching on America as well is your problem - caused entirely by electing an idiot, ignorant billionaire (inherited) to the highest of offices.

Mac: The simple fact was that Prince Harry was not sent to Iraq because it would have unfairly exposed his men to even more danger than they were already going to be. He wanted to go, and said so several times.

You may not remember, but the Queen's second son served in the Falklands, in the not very safe task of decoying Exocet missiles in a helicopter. I wonder if in the same circumstances the son of your President-Emperor would have done the same? Or been allowed to?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 21, 2007 04:25 PM

Wow Fletcher, I'm seeing quite a new side of you. Anyway, not to worry, our President-Emperor has no sons, only two daughters, both of whom have expressed little interest in serving in Iraq. ;-)

Posted by Offside at May 21, 2007 05:00 PM

>Actually, the American administration between the wars (from
>your point of view) was probably the worst, from the British and
>European point of view. Yes, you gave us some equipment with
>which to fight your battles for you - and bled us white doing it,
>and took almost all our overseas bases in exchange.

You're saying World War II was *our* war? I guess that means that the Brits and the other Europeans must have the legal and moral status of incompetants -- children, the insane, and the senile -- if they bear no responsibility for it. OK, I'll go along with that.

>Hmmm... let's see. So far, you have given us junk food, junk
>"entertainment", lots more foul language in public, the legal
>compensation culture which is shutting down harmless local
.celebrations all over Britain, and many other things of that sort.

We've "given" you these things? Forced them upon you? You had no choice but to accept them? Yup, you clowns really aren't competent adults.

>Oh, and your wonderfully competent diplomacy has led not
>only to the death of 3000 people one fine day in New York, but
>also to death and mayhem all over the world, including Britain.

Our responsibility, huh? Now you're saying that it isn't just Europeans who lack the capacity for moral choice, but Middle Easterners as well? You really must revere Americans, if you think that we're the only people with the intellectual and ethical stature to exercise free will.

>And to a gradually encroaching police state here, in reaction to
>that. The fact that the police state is encroaching on America
>as well is your problem - caused entirely by electing an idiot,
>ignorant billionaire (inherited) to the highest of offices.

Wow. We did all that? Hey Felcher -- bow down before your masters, peasant!

Posted by Mike G in Corvallis at May 21, 2007 08:19 PM

Fletcher that is perhaps the most ignorant piece of eurotrash ranting I have ever seen you post.

Sure sure, lets just blame America for all our problems and ridiculously high gas prices. Let's not bother to point out the fact that Britain was a Empire for lord knows how long and has a well documented history of acting unilaterally and heavy handedly.

Didn't Britain pretty much gut out large swathes of pristine forests to feed its highly sophisticate naval ship building industry? The expression that you don't get something for nothing pretty much holds true for the American economy. It takes a lot of energy to propel the most powerful economy that has ever existed on this planet. I would no doubt wager quite a lot on the notion that as the economic prowess of the U.S. has increased so has the well being of a number of other nations all around the planet. If anything it just sounds like you are resentful of this fact because you know it is true. Your country needs us and you hate us for that. To bad we had to kick your countries ass twice for you all to learn that.

Sorry, I had to add that last bit because I know how American bravado just makes yall's skin crawl.

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 21, 2007 08:48 PM

Mr. Christian,

I say this without malice:

If your attitude is dominant in England, then there will no longer be an England.

If your attitude is dominant in Great Britain, then there will no longer be a Great Britain.

If your attitude is dominant in Western Civilization, then there will no longer be a Western Civilization.

Your lack of self-responsibility, expressed penchant for blaming others for self-inflicted wounds, your lack of self-confidence and courage.... If they be all that the land of Fletcher Christian has to offer, then the land will share the fate of your namesake -- an early and violent death.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 09:57 PM

Fletcher, that was just a flat stupid argument.

The Allies would have lost.

France did lose until we bailed them out. We didn't come into the war until later anyway, so the only loser would have been the Brits, until we bailed them out. Either way, you say the allies would have lost, I counter with the opposite, the allies still would have won.

Sources I've read seem to indicate that Chamberlain was treated extremely unfairly - he bought time to rearm, and maybe deliberately.

That may actually be true, but the point is the Chamberlain was an appeaser and that action led to the emboldening of the axis power.

and certainly better led and trained than the then or current American Army

Worse led and worse trained, but still kicked their butts. Patton was a little loony, but he proved Monty was incapable of thinking "outside-the-box"

Not to mention the loss of most of the Pacific Fleet to imcompetence and complacency. But for the happy chance of your carriers being away at sea, western Americans would be speaking Japanese now.

Exactly how do you propose the Japanese would have won? Let's see, they invade! Taking into account the sheer size of the US, versus your wee little island, I find that unlikely. It would have taken longer, but we still would have defeated them. The sleeping giant was NOT a myth.

So far, you have given us junk food, junk "entertainment", lots more foul language in public

Which you have NO choice but to use. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, a supposed hallmark of your civilization? Oh, that's right, it's somebody ELSES fault you're so screwed up.

Oh, and your wonderfully competent diplomacy has led not only to the death of 3000 people one fine day in New York, but also to death and mayhem all over the world, including Britain.

It could have easily been 25000 or more. But that's immaterial. Why didn't your mighty, correct, and competent authority stop any terrorist acts that occurred on or above your soil?

caused entirely by electing an idiot, ignorant billionaire (inherited) to the highest of offices.

If he's so ignorant and bumbling, how come he's able to cause all these problems? Your assertion is more acidic nonsense spewed by liberals the world over.

The simple fact was that Prince Harry was not sent to Iraq because it would have unfairly exposed his men to even more danger than they were already going to be.

Panty waists. You have a democratic process, but still piss yourselves when your outdated, bigoted governmental system coddles one of its own. Its another blindingly clear example of elitism. If your men and women aren't up to the dangerous tasks, don't engage in dangerous tasks. If Harry wants to go, let him, and grant him the opportunity to BE a leader. Let his men have the opportunity to BE lead.

Finally, I agree with Josh...You guys had all the things going for you, until the upstart Americans beat your butts twice and then proceeded to become a world power even larger than your ever was. Your countries' biggest claim to fame now is a children's book series. Ouch.

PS...I would like to note that the Queen is a great lady in my opinion, though her distaste for commoners smells like bigotry to me...and Di was probably one of the greatest losses your country has suffered. May she rest in peace.

Posted by Mac at May 22, 2007 06:12 AM

Beat our butts twice? The Revolution, sure. But when else? And I believe that the main reason why Britain lost America was because at the time you weren't worth the effort - that and an understandable preoccupation with a certain French gentleman - whom we handily defeated, by the way. Admittedly with some help. I believe that America was on the dictator's side in that conflict?

We had everything going for us? Well, maybe. Until we had to fight off the second greatest military power on Earth, and the one certainly with the best trained and led army, essentially on our own, for two years, and with help for another four. All that, after having to do it twenty years earlier.

Nations as well as people get tired, and that we certainly were - many of our best young men dead, the country in ruins, industrial infrastructure smashed and countless billions in debt.

America hasn't had that experience - yet. I wonder how you'd cope?

On the subject of Prince Harry - there is an illustrative anecdote from World War I. The future King George wanted to go to war, stating as an argument that he had four brothers and that the succession was therefore safe. Kitchener's reply was: "The prospect of your death in battle is not of concern to me. What cannot be allowed is your getting captured."

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 23, 2007 02:17 AM

But when else?

1812

And I believe that the main reason why Britain lost America was because at the time you weren't worth the effort

Actually, I think the reason you lost was Cornwallis surrendering. Logistics was huge too. Also, there was a little help from new tactics in war...guerilla warfare.

Until we had to fight off the second greatest military power on Earth, and the one certainly with the best trained and led army, essentially on our own, for two years

Yes, you did well, but as you intimated in your earlier post, you were losing.

and with help for another four.

Yup, damn them Americans for bailing you out.

All that, after having to do it twenty years earlier.

With help from those pesky Americans again.

America hasn't had that experience - yet. I wonder how you'd cope?

Not exactly the same thing, but we came through the Great Depression okay.

The future King George wanted to go to war

Are you a monarchy still?

What cannot be allowed is your getting captured

So, in that case, its okay for British sailors to be captured because they are not the elite? If you're a monarchy, just come right out and say you need to maintain your elitist government by Divine Right and letting Harry gain experience is too dangerous. If you're a version of Democracy, then stop treating the Royals a separate type of people. Yes, the Royal family is a symbol of Great Britain, but they are also human beings and someone wiped their bottoms when they were babies, making them no different from the rest of us. Harry has a responsibility that he wants to meet, yet you won't let him because of outdated bigotry. And you shame the US...

Posted by Mac at May 23, 2007 05:35 AM

The point is, Mac, that getting Harry captured would be a gigantic propaganda coup for the enemy, whatever you or anyone else thinks of how special he is. Getting him killed would be only marginally less of one. And, because of the fact that a huge majority of Britain actually likes having a Royal Family, having him kidnapped might force us to concessions that nobody would like.

Having a constitutional monarchy as a government, with an upper house that can't be dislodged, protects us from the worst excesses of a democracy - who was it that said that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority?

Two further points - Britain is by no means the only such government in the world. In fact, for example, Spain went from a fascist dictatorship to such a government - democratically.

And as another point; Britain has a largely powerless aristocracy based on inheritance. America has an extremely powerful one based on money - and yes, a lot of that money is (wait for it) inherited.

The American system is NOT perfect. No system run for and by humans can be. Neither is ours. And?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 23, 2007 10:45 AM

Well Fletch....go reread your history on the Balfour Declaration and everything to do w/ Palestine after that. GB screwed that entire region but good and the US has been stuck in the middle ever since.

Posted by CJ at May 23, 2007 11:01 AM

So you neuter him. Excellent job.

The American system is NOT perfect.

I'll agree there, but I think its better than anything else out there. Even with the "constitutional" thrown into monarchy, you have someone in government simply because he/she was born. That is not a good idea. At least our idiot will be out after eight years...next idiot you get could be for a generation.

Posted by Mac at May 23, 2007 01:41 PM

And George W. is in because he was born into a rich family and because his dear old daddy was president. And because your system allows an essentially unlimited propaganda budget.

CJ, nothing in the Middle East would be of interest to anyone whatsoever if it wasn't for oil and the trillions of unearned dollars, pounds, shekels, francs... thereby flowing into the region. And who is the largest consumer of said oil?

Regarding the war of 1812; I believe that an attempted invasion that fails is generally regarded as a defeat for the invader - which was managed despite some little local difficulties with a certain Frenchman.

Another thing the Brits were trying to do in that war was to stop Americans systematically slaughtering and pillaging the people who were there first. Unfortunately, in that we failed.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 23, 2007 07:03 PM

And George W. is in because he was born into a rich family and because his dear old daddy was president. And because your system allows an essentially unlimited propaganda budget.

Yes, he's in, but because he was elected. He is rich because his dear old daddy is rich, so what? Yes, we have an essentially unlimited propaganda budget, which the liberals use to their advantage on a regular basis. Again, so what?

Another thing the Brits were trying to do in that war was to stop Americans systematically slaughtering and pillaging the people who were there first. Unfortunately, in that we failed.

Yes, I agree there, the actions against the native americans was atrocious, but vastly different than what Spain carried out in Central America. It was an honorable thought to save the natives, but what took you so long to try? I mean, british colonials land, build, set up shop, and trade rum and tobacco to the natives, poisoning their lifestyles with unnatural crap. Oh wait, it was those Americans that did that.

Posted by Mac at May 24, 2007 05:30 AM

"Another thing the Brits were trying to do in that war was to stop Americans systematically slaughtering and pillaging the people who were there first. "

Excuse me, but this is utter bollocks.

The British Army maintained fortresses in the Ohio river valley, in violation of the terms of the 1783 treaty establishing American independence.

What the British were trying to do was to arm indigenous tribes, in order to thwart the ex-colonials from establishing practical contol over territory the British Crown had legally ceded to them.

In that regard, the British tactic was no different from what it used in the 1756-1763 time period against the French Crown.

"an upper house that can't be dislodged, protects us from the worst excesses of a democracy"

Until, of course, Prime Minister Blair changed it.

"Britain has a largely powerless aristocracy based on inheritance. America has an extremely powerful one based on money"

Oh, and Britain doesn't have a powerful "aristocracy" based on money? Upon what, then, is the power of your political and social elite based? Steak and kidney pie recipes?

Mr. Christian, if you want to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself, throw away the shovel first.

Quit blaming the US for your problems, and quit criticizing us for daring to try to repair the damage British colonial "divide and conquer" policies created. I mean, you have observed that British drawn political boundaries are surveyed, and intentionally ignored local / tribal custom and agreements, don't you?

We Americans don't take kindly to Europeans scapegoating us for their historical actions. And we don't tend to scapegoat Europeans for our historical actions. So beggar off!

PS: Hopefully, I have used the British vernacular suitably -- I would HATE for you to have to comment on "bitch slap" again.

Posted by MG at May 24, 2007 11:15 AM

Calm down MG...he can scapegoat us all he wants. The simple fact that they wouldn't exist after WWII without us sure has to sting a bit. Let him rant.

Posted by Mac at May 24, 2007 12:38 PM

MG:

For your information, the aristocratic system in the UK is based on heredity, and the families are probably those who had lots of money - hundreds of years ago - or who helped some king on a battlefield. Similar to the basis for yours, really.

As a matter of fact, quite a lot of English aristocrats are not particularly well off, often due to ruinous inheritance taxes over the years.

As for the change in the upper house, well; in the last 2-3 years it has blocked badly thought out legislation on a number of occasions. I believe that a bicameral system, including yours, has that as a primary aim.

Hmmm... what took us so long to try to save the American natives? Well, I think you would agree that people born in America were Americans whatever the political situation. I might also remind you that it was the British Navy that was the main instrumentality in stopping slave trading; given that you fought a civil war over that issue (among others) I doubt that America would have done the same given the chance. Indeed, Americans were among the traders' best customers.

Of course, you don't have black slaves now; now, you have Mexican illegals for that.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 24, 2007 05:03 PM

Based on heredity...problem being is that the common people have little effective chance to change that. Previously, they had none. When America was born, and to this day, every citizen has a chance to be a part of government. Yes, money plays a large part, but the underlying system is sound. We all have a voice and if we band ourselves together, we can change things dramatically.

Indeed, Americans were among the traders' best customers.

And Danes were amongst the wealthiest slavers, so what? We changed.

Of course, you don't have black slaves now; now, you have Mexican illegals for that.

Sad that you fell the need to lash out like that. The British Empire has treated numerous peoples and cultures across the world just as badly in their history, but you got through that too. Illegal immigration is a problem we need to fix, that's a given. However, we're not China either.

Posted by Mac at May 25, 2007 05:59 AM

Mac,

I am calm. I am attempting to engage Mr. Christian in a reasoned debate. Unfortunately, he doesn't debate. He asserts, and only contradicts, not rebuts.

Mr. Christian,

You really ought to examine US history a bit more closely. The US Constitution banned the importation of slaves after 1808, or maybe it was 1818.

And, yes, we did fight a war between 1861 and 1865. Slavery was an important element, but there were a few others:

1. Lincoln insisted on "Union". Southern states insisted that they could secede without permission from the other states. This was a Constitutional crisis.

2. Lincoln's insistence upon "Union" recognized that European powers would be quick to insert themselves into the Western hemisphere, should the US split. Example: French 2d Empire in Mexico, 1860's.

3. Slavery was insufficient to compel the "free states" to participate in the war. For example, the Pennsylvania legislature was deadlocked on the issue until 1863, when a "pro-fight" legislator was part of a POW exchange with the Confederates. Probably the most expensive exchange in history.

4. The "Emancipation Proclamation" concerned only slaves in Confederate controlled territories. It was designed to increase the chances of slave revolts, and tie down more Confederate troops away from the front lines.

However, Mr. Christian, don't let your ignorance dissuade you from continuing on your present path. Keep digging. The bottom of that hole has to be around there somewhere...

Posted by MG at May 25, 2007 09:21 AM

MG:

I just looked this up. I don't know about importation of slaves, but slavery in the USA didn't end until 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment. So after passing the law in 1818 slavery still existed in the US for another forty-seven years. I conclude that a wish to end slavery was not the reason for banning importation.

Of course, we all know that until perhaps the 1950s the position of blacks in the Southern states was little better than that of a slave. Indeed, in some places it still is.

Yes, Britain did some pretty awful things. However, to set against that you may want to put the example of India; when we went in it was a collection of petty princedoms with some ghastly customs, and when we left it was the world's largest democracy - I believe their population is now about 1100 million. We did some pretty horrible things there, including setting up a civil service, a railway system, an educational system and a unified system of laws. Horrible!

Has America succeeded in a similar task - anywhere?

"They would make a desolation and call it peace".

As for the UK aristocracy; well, it's very much like the royal family; powerless but respected. The upper house of the UK has very few heriditary members left - life peers are generally those who have done the country some service.

The American aristocracy, however, is anything but powerless - after all, your current President is part of it, and nobody gets elected to high office in America without access to enormous amounts of money. Which has a severe risk of distorting decisions, in order to protect that cash.

Actually, it seems to me that America is more of a plutocracy than an aristocracy. In practical terms, Britain is democratic; that's what the term "constitutional monarchy" means. And as I said earlier we are far from being the only one of those.

Oh, and blacks in the USA were still not full citizens, even in theory, until the Fifteenth Amendment was finally ratified in 1870 - fifty-two years, or two generations, after the importation ban you seem to so proud of.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 27, 2007 04:12 PM

Post a comment