>Fortunately over the years I've > gotten better at recognizing what is worth responding to and what is a > mere waste of time and energy. I do find that other nationalities are > much more gracious in discussing criticism of their countries. I'm > merely comparing what happens now to what previously happened in > history.
But, you compare without contrasting. Therein lies the difference. For example; I assume you are not a perfect mother. Nothing insulting here; I'm not a perfect father....just ask any of my kids. I bet, if we reviewed your actions with respect to your son, we'd find a number of instances where you did things that were not fully in his best interest...where your limitations and your bad decisions have harmed Tom. Again, nothing insulting is meant by this; because you can switch your name with mine in that sentence, and it would still be a true statement. Its a general statement of Parents Anonymous and other groups that deal with abuse that we all are abusive to some extent; the difference is in magnitude. Yet, if I were to regularly compare your actions with those of well publicized cases of horrid child abuse...say the case of the people who locked their kids in a closet without feeding them, without making any acknowledgement of the importance of the differences...and repeatedly lumped you with those folks, I think you would have a right to be upset. I have a proposal for you. Lets put together a contrast/compare between the actions of the United States and those of Nazi Germany. For extra credit, we can have a contrast/compare between the relationship between the Arabs/Palestinians and Israel and that between the Jewish citizens of Germany and the majority of Aryans supporting the Nazi government. >Because of this I get labeled a Nazi without fail everytime. Not a Nazi, an apologist. There is a difference. > This already makes me wonder why I am not entitled to comment on actions > of the USes current or past behavior in light of historical precedents, > that were (granted) a big order of magnitude up the scale of bad and > evil. But that doesn't make the current problems as excusable or > insignificant as some listees want to make it seem. Actually, that was never the point. A careful reading of the posts would show that it was usually a matter of asking what the other options were. Let me try to provide a perspective. The Netherlands (as well as the rest of Europe) has decided to rely on the US to provide its defense for almost 60 years now. The US protected Amsterdam during the Cold War by saying New York and Moscow would go if Amsterdam was to go. There was no other way to do it. I think that relying on the forbearance of a government that killed tens of millions of its own citizens for one's own freedom is imprudent; to put it mildly. For a number of reasons, which can be discussed in another thread, the US and Europe agreed that the US was to shoulder the overwhelming burden of both defending Western Europe from the USSR and keeping the peace within Western Europe. The US also had a Pacific defensive sphere; including Japan and South Korea. One outcome of this was the successful end of the Cold War. Another was a divergence of perspective, based on the different rolls that each had taken. This started to cause problems after the Cold War ended. Europe had grown so used to the US being the military power, that it found itself unable to take the leadership in coping with the Balkans crisis. It wanted to go through the UN, which would not act at all against the Serbs because a veto power (Russia) was supporting the Serbs. The results were as expected: Dutch troops, operating under the UN, stepped aside and let the Serbs massacre the people the Dutch promised to protect. I would not fault those troops if one or two or five or even twenty people under their protection were killed. Perfection is hard to come by. But, >10,000 were killed in on attack. The Dutchbat report had plenty of blame to go around. What was interesting is the blame they assigned to the US. Basically, Clinton was faulted for working with Europe as an equal, instead of telling them what to do. At the time, I thought that the Balkans crisis was an opportunity for Europe to take the lead. Surely the Serbs were not a match for European NATO. The US would pitch in, but take a back seat, letting European countries solve a European problem. Instead, the solution only came when Clinton finally forced a solution on Europe; and NATO clearly violated international law in order to stop genocide. >From what you've written, it appears to me that you regularly use strong words to criticize the US for its actions; of which this is probably the most successful example. The way the US has done it is not the only way. But, an argument for working within international law and through the UN as an alternative, should acknowledge the cost of doing this; as well as the benefit. It would require regularly stepping aside to allow genocide, as the Dutch troops were forced to. Valuing human life as you do; that can't be very appealing. Neither is bombing, attacks with tanks, etc., as the US has done. But, these seem to be the real choices. Comparing the actions of the US with an unreachable ideal is not reasonable. > It is a flawed conclusion, since the premise is flawed. I recognize the > difference in magnitudes, but I differ in judgment of the actions in > question. They might be different in magnitude but they are evil and > should be punished severely non the less. As such I judge them equally > harsh. Why? And do you judge Europe, the Netherlands, and yourself by the same standards you judge us? Since I am an American citizen, I accept responsibility for the actions of the US government. It doesn't always follow my wishes, but I share responsibility for determining the government with my fellow citizens. I would hope you would hold the same responsibility for the Netherlands. Thus, you share in the responsibility for Dutch troops stepping aside to permit genocide, just as I share in the responsibility for the lives lost in Iraq. >And that is not because it's the US or the Germans, current or > past or whatever else gets slung at me. It's because HUMANS, and > defenseless humans at that got hurt _intentionally_ and _premeditatedly_ > and the ones doing it would like to deharmefy these incidents into > insignificance. _That_ is what I take issue with. The abuse at AG does not have to be insignificant in order for there to be significant differences between that abuse and the Holocaust. The individual acts and the direct perpetrators need to be addressed by the legal system; and appropriate punishments for the individual acts should be, and should have been, handed down. But, in both cases, the more important question is the systematic. An SS trooper who killed 3 Jews in isolation is not the same thing as that same trooper doing it as part of a top down driven plan. A few bad apples abusing the prisoners in secret is far different from a systematic pattern of abuse ordered by Bush. (While what actually happened in AG is more than worthy of a thread of its own, let me briefly give bounds on the systematic nature of the abuse. I have no doubt that the pictures of sexual abuse were shocking to Rummy; he did not order it. At the same time, I have no doubt that the problems represent more than a few bad apples. So, taking umbrage at a comparison to the Holocaust does not mean that the abuse should be swept under the rug. Indeed, IMHO, the direct harm caused by the abuse, as bad as it was, will be seen to only be a small fraction of the total harm. Lives will be lost for years as a result of what happened.) > >For example, a contrast and compare between the magnitude of AG and the > >Holocaust would be helpful. Either data that refutes the documented claim > >that the Holocaust was common knowledge in Germany, or acceptance of that > >would also be helpful. > > > > > I think there is a difference between common knowledge and irrefutable > proof substantiated by pictures. The human mind can easily dismiss the > former when the knowledge becomes inconvenient, while it is nearly > impossible to ignore the latter. More than half of the Arab world believes that Israel was behind 9-11. For the determined, photos are fake, etc. And, how in the world can you not know that all the Jews in town were rounded up? >For me the thought experiments don't > serve as an excuse for what happened but are an attempt at understanding > how situations can get that badly out of hand real fast. It wasn't really fast. It was a slow build up. Look at the writings of Marx and Nietzsche that I have quoted, and realize that these viewpoints were _moderate_ by the standards of the time. Anti-Semitism had many centuries of development in Europe. The rejection of the individual as important; with emphasis placed on class or nationality (not in the terms of citizenship, but more akin to race) set the groundwork. >As such this > understanding will always be somewhat flawed since I'll never be able to > recreate in my mind the exact conditions people live or lived under. > However to me understanding how things can get so badly out of hand, > lets me weapon myself against becoming a tool in promoting those > abominations of the human behavioral scale as mere minor evil. But, I see no examination of how things get out of hand. If you would wish to explore that; it would be another worthy thread. > I wasn't taught any of it in school, I have first hand accounts of what > it was like in WWII and what happened afterwards. >From Jews or Aryans? > Nope, not really. Basically it's lacking the overall picture of a state > of mind where credence is given to what it was like living in an > impoverished, defeated state where all of the outside world was > considered to be 'the enemy'. The situation in Germany was not especially desperate for a defeated people. Almost no war reparation was paid...so that couldn't have broken them....well after hyperinflation they might have paid it to get it off the books, but that doesn't really count. They didn't have to live with an occupying power, taking what they will, abusing the citizens on a daily basis. They were not treated by the Allies in any way shape or form as they treated the peoples they conquered. There are many folks living in much more desperate conditions who were who never committed that type of atrocity. They had the pride of hosting the 1936 Olympics, for goodness sakes. Hitler was named man of the year by Time Magazine in 1938. Have you read "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Spear? I read it 35 or so years ago, and it gave no indication of that type of desperation. >And > bitter as it may be, the world, and not only and exclusively Germany or > even Europe, but the world, was readily willing to pay that price. Just > as we now are willing to sacrifice other nations/convictions/believe > systems and ultimately moral values. Sure we are. We are willing to sacrifice the convictions of the Arab government in Sudan that blacks are expendable. I consider that moral value wrong; and I will actively fight it. I also am opposed to the Arab idea that the Jews have no right to a state, and that any action is acceptable if it results in kicking the Jews out. Why is this wrong? >So my world view is even more > cynical and darker then you try to hold me accountable for. And it is > even less forgiving at that. I'd simply love to see all crimes against > humanity/humans out in the open, fully acknowledged and eventually > punished up to the very top of the pecking order. Yea, well how? You realize that any attempt to punish will result in the death of innocent people, right? Therein lies the rub. In order to stop the Serbs, the US had not only bomb the heck out of Serbia, but threaten to send in the US armed forces on foot to take it over. After Desert Storm, that threat was considered credible, and the Serbs surrendered. Without that credible threat, why would Serbia give up after fighting successfully for years? >Instead it seems those > crimes are being weighed according to severity and then discussed into > insignificance in light of a much bigger evil. *That's* what we *should* > have learned from what happened. If you haven't, all deaths during the > holocaust truly were meaningless. OK, lets go back to the previous paragraph. You stated that you wanted every crime against humans punished. Would this include jail? Would the standard for conviction be "beyond reasonable doubt" or "without a doubt." If it is the former, I will guarantee that innocent people will be locked up for decades and abused by the guards and the other prisoners. If it is the latter; most perps will get off. There are no easy choices. In conclusion, I think that ranking wrong actions, and considering systems has its uses. The implementation of your suggestion for punishing those guilty of harming other humans will make you responsible for harming humans. If you support it, and humans are harmed as a result, then you share the responsibility. This isn't to fault you, I also support that. But, I do so with my eyes open, knowing that I can only defend my actions by the limits to the choices that I have. If we have no punishment, then more innocent people will be harmed. Thus, I make a hard choice between bad and worse. This is the argument you are hearing from folks like Gautam. While one may debate what is the better choice, I cannot see how an ideal outcome is one of our real choices. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
