What America Wants...

[p_p_man]

Thought you might like to see just two letters in one of today's UK newspapers concerning Bush's recent actions. There are thousands more of similar ilk being printed all over Europe.

It's not something you would normally see on the TV news programs...


What America wants

Friday December 14, 2001

The Guardian

Letters to the editor...

Just as terrorism, drugs and transnational crime cannot be tackled on a unilateral basis, nor can the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The sharing of intelligence, coordination of export controls and multilateral treaty constraints comprise the elements of an effective anti-proliferation strategy.
By turning its back on yet another arms control treaty (Leader, December 13), the Bush government puts at risk the chance of building the coalition necessary to implement such a strategy. In pursuit of narrow self-interest now, the US may discover that in the long run it has jeopardised those national interests irreparably.

Dr Stephen Pullinger
London



· Fresh from telling his opponents at home they are unpatriotic if they oppose his attacks on domestic human rights, US attorney general John Ashcroft arrives to tell us to abandon our declaration of human rights so as to permit the US to execute extradited prisoners. I thought this alarming nonsense was what we were fighting against.

Simon Gardner
Bedfordshire

 

[Guest]

BUsh certainly has us in Europe more than worried, the guy is clearly not feeling himself, I might go so far to say as slightly losing it...

We Brits said we would back him up during the war on terror but self interest has no end in such a stance.

Thanks for rasing this p p man as not everyone gets this through the wires..

 

[JazzManJim]

Thought you might like to see just two letters in one of today's UK newspapers concerning Bush's recent actions. There are thousands more of similar ilk being printed all over Europe.

Trust me. We're well aware here in the US that there are quite a few timid ninnies around the world who don't like what the US is doing.

We also don't give a rat's ass. You all wanted the US to lead. We're leading. If you don't like it, you take the lead for a while. All you countries over there have had your chance to be leaders for a while, and each of you have either backed away, whimpering, or gotten your lunch handed to you. Or worse, you've not even bothered.

So don't gripe when the country whose lead you've been following for a hell of a long time decides to go in a direction it believes best for itself. Your answer is simple. Lead in your own direction. Don't wring you hands over the decision.

 

[WriterDom]

Go do something useful like adopting the Euro.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Let's recognize the value of perception, however. The "unilateral" perception is a valid one -- why does the U.S. need to do this now? It's haughty, unilateral, techincally unnescessary (the current treaty permists ground based testing of missle defense systems), and does not bode well for the hopes of future U.S. led lateral coalition efforts. The perception is that the U.S. is acting rashly, and that perception will have a direct effect how easily we're able to protect and forward our interests in the world.

But, abandoning a cold war treaty that no longer really applies to 21st Century aspirations and thinking is not, techincally, a bad thing at all. Bush wants to put missle defense equipment on planes that fly over the sea, which is in violation of the agreement, so he elects to step away from the agreement (which he's allowed to do, by the way -- stepping away is built into the agreement -- in other words, he's not "breaking a treaty" here).

My problem is not that abandoning the treaty is such a bad thing (I don't think it is), but why now?

"Why now?" is an important question. We should never ignore perception. We should enver ignore the effect even a perfect sensible policy will have on our ability to organize and politicize later. Politics, lateral and unilateral, is, after all, the art of the possible.

 

[SINthysist]

It has been in the works from Day one. The visit to see Putin and subsequent follow-ups were laying the groundwork.

I think both leaders are sending a message to China and North Korea.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: What America Wants...

We also don't give a rat's ass. You all wanted the US to lead. We're leading.

Think what you like.

From what I remember of recent events America couldn't do much without outside help. Outside help which Bush at first rejected because he obviously carries with him the same inflated luggage you do about the abilities of your country to hack it in the real world.

When he discovered "Oh dear we do need to interface with these foreigners" he was the first to come running back like a dog with it's tail between its legs whining "Sorry, sorry, sorry"...

You call that leadership?

I call it the height of stupid, psychopathic, xenophobic, isolationist thinking. He's done nothing for your country since he's been in office but you, I suppose, consider him some type of Messiah.

The blinkered vision of some Americans can be likened to the blinkered vision of al Qaida.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You started off well pp, but then you just had to join the "We're number one!" American yahoos in the Land of Nobody Cares What You Think Because You're Rhetoric is so Lame".

Ah well....

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

(double)

 

[SINthysist]

YO p_p_

Toward the End of National Sovereignty
Paul Craig Roberts
Dec. 13, 2001

Tyranny is coming to Europe in the form of a new multicultural empire. Ancient sovereign states, such as England and France, and newer ones, such as Germany and Italy, are to cease to exist, to be folded into a European superstate. National existence is targeted for extinction by about 2006, followed by national consciousness.
Preparing the British for their demise as a people, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote in The Independent on Nov. 22 that "in a world where states and the interests of their citizens are so obviously interdependent, we need to rethink our attitudes to concepts like 'independence' and 'sovereignty'."

Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees. The war against terrorism, he says, has made national sovereignty out of date.

If you think these are weak arguments for giving up the nation-state, you have a point. The basis for successful political life is a common language, history and culture, which create "a people" sufficiently cohesive for democracy or self-rule to arrive at compromises that reconcile conflicts.

When multicultural diversity replaces "a people," cohesion must be provided by coercion.

Coercion is the response to the massive Third World immigration into European nation-states. The erosion of "a people" by diversity has evoked tyrannical laws in an effort to coerce an artificial commonality.

Great Britain, for example, no longer consists of its indigenous peoples: English, Scots and Welsh. Britons are having to make room for large numbers of Africans, Indians, Arabs and Pakistanis. Sheer numbers and victim-group status impede assimilation, which, in turn, both impedes the immigrants' progress and fosters resentment by diluting British culture.

The consequence of non-assimilation is racial inequality. The Labour Party has responded by blaming "racism." On Dec. 6, the government implemented draconian "race equality" laws. Public, private and voluntary organizations are under statutory obligation, policed by the Commission for Racial Equality, to produce racial equality in employment, college admissions, school performance, disciplinary proceedings, pay, benefits, facilities – in short, a thoroughgoing quota system.

Gurbux Singh, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, called the legislation "a powerful lever for change." In effect, British culture has been declared unfair, because immigrants who do not assimilate are disadvantaged.

Europe is as overrun with Third World immigrants as Britain is. Some German Social Democrats favor immigration as a way of diluting the German population, thereby diminishing "the worst characteristics of the nation" – in other words, as a way of de-Germanizing Germany.

Proposals are afoot to give the same state subsidies to Islamic cultural organizations as German ones receive.

Dilution of national cultures by immigration is the basis for the European Union. A weakened sense of nationhood in Britain, France and Germany means no effective opposition to bureaucratic rule by the European Commission in Brussels.

In order to criminalize national patriotism and opposition to immigration, the European Union is pushing forward legislation that makes xenophobia and racism crimes. Once this legislation passes, a European who, for example, criticizes immigration as an anti-diversity measure that is wiping European civilization off the face of the earth can be found guilty of racism and sentenced to two years in prison.

Similarly, persons who oppose EU measures as contrary to British values or French culture can be imprisoned for xenophobia.

Hand in hand with the criminalization of national identity goes the European arrest warrant. Once in effect, an Englishman could be extradited to Greece and put on trial for offenses that are not crimes in England.

No finer recipe for oppression could be devised. The oppression will be felt most keenly by the British, for it is the liberties protected by their unique legal system that will be lost. Oppression leads to civil war, not European unity.

The United States, of course, is on the same path. In fact, it began here with coerced racial integration by judicial decree, a "civil rights act" that destroyed freedom of conscience and substituted coercion for persuasion, and unconstitutional racial quotas that destroyed equality in law.

In the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia, white governments are responding to the postwar propaganda about "racist white hegemonic culture" by disadvantaging the white populations and diluting the "hegemonic culture." In the United States, the melting pot has been evicted by the slogan "Assimilation is racism."

If the melting pot is dismissed as racist, it must also be racist to question immigration. In the United States, only one side of the immigration debate is permitted – the side that calls for more immigrants. In Europe, there will soon be no debate at all.

As the United States and European governments are committed to national and cultural suicide, what is the point of defense budgets? Shouldn't the money be used instead for payments to make amens for having once had a hegemonic national identity?


Dr. Roberts' latest book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions," has just been released by Prima Publishers.

Copyright 2001 Creators Syndicate Inc.