PeterDavid.net

I think there's a "not" missing in there.

I've always agreed that "flag burning should continue to be legal."

I've also always believed that "displaying the flag upside-down, as a sign of distress, is far more useful and moving a commentary, than the actual burning of it is" (at least to me).

Bravo.

Of course they don't have a problem with the flag they burn, the flag is a meaningless piece of cloth, it's what the flag represents.

Besides, they have to burn the flag because it's illegal to burn Bush, CHeney, and Ashcroft themselves....

^^^
Don't forget Rove.

In Germany it's forbidden to hiss a german flag in your garden at all. So be lucky. ;)

You mean as in "Boo! Hisss!" ?

Knew there was a reason I hated Germany....

Why do you hate Germany? Why can anyone HATE any country? "Hate" is a very strong word, don't you think? I don't get it.

"To this day, I still think people should burn flags in protest."

Not to be picky but I'm thinking PAD meant to write "I still think people should be allowed to burn flags in protest" since the rest of his statement explains why he DOESN'T think that they should.

Me, I'm all for it, for the very reasons PAD states--it turns off the very people they are trying to bring around. I always want my opponents to be as nutty sounding as possible, even if it means they imply a desire to, you know, BURN people or something.

Re German--some git just got arrested for teaching his dog to give the Seig Heil to people. THIS is what happens when you don't have a first amendment. Next they'll come after those of us who have cats that act like nazis, which is too say, all cat owners.

PAD said:

"When we're in the midst of fighting a war, it gives Memorial Day that much more resonance. Let's hope as many people come home safely as possible."

Amen to that.

Oh get off your high-horse Mulligan, they've got the first ammendment in the USA and they'll send the security services out to invesitgate kids who make inquiries about the layouts of their college.

Memorial day is on the 30th. Memorial Day Observed is the 31.

Actually, Memorial day is observed on the Final Monday of May, regardless of the actual date....

Bladestar is right..and it used to be called Decoration Day and was first meant to only observe the deaths of those who fought for the Union in the Civil War.

Me, I always thought that flag burning was one of the more sacred rights you have in America. If you can destroy the the symbol of all that your nation stands for and not be arrested, then you are living in a society that takes what the flag stands for seriously. I wouldn't burn a flag myself, but I think our founding fathers, who were known to burn down custom houses and other objects of their ire, would not be against it in any way.

As far as the First Amendment goes, America is one of the few nations that actually has a freedom of speech and press strictly guaranteed by its Constitution. Most European nations have freedom of speech and the press, of course, but I don't think they have any concrete guarantees of freedom from government censorship or interference. This doesn't mean we in America can feel smug and superior, however, since it is only through the eternal vigilence of advocates that the First Amendment remains what it is.

Of course, the real problem with the First Amendment is that the only times it ever seems the only people who ever fight for it in court are the less dignified free speech advocates, like Larry Flint or the guy who put elephant poop on the Virgin Mary. Ah, well, none are free unless all are free.

And a moment of reflection. My grandfather, who served in the Navy as a cook during WWII, died last Monday of a stroke. He joins my other grandfather, who served with distinction in WWII and Korea. They are both greatly missed. God rest you Pop-Pop.

Ben Hunt

Memorial Day was designated a U.S. national holiday, and aso designated officially as the final Monday in May, by Congress in 1971:

http://www1.va.gov/pubaff/Memorial_Day/memdaybackgrd.htm#hist

Of course they don't have a problem with the flag they burn, the flag is a meaningless piece of cloth, it's what the flag represents.

Besides, they have to burn the flag because it's illegal to burn Bush, CHeney, and Ashcroft themselves....

So you think the flag represents Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft?

So you burn it because burning them would be illegal?

So what you saying is you'd really like to kill them if you could?

How does that make YOU a better person than you think they are?

I usually just lurk, but I'm feeling a growing need to get pro-active these days (Look - up in the sky - it's Pro-Active Man!).

Bill Mulligan said:

"Re German--some git just got arrested for teaching his dog to give the Seig Heil to people. THIS is what happens when you don't have a first amendment. Next they'll come after those of us who have cats that act like nazis, which is too say, all cat owners."

Sorry, but thats just not true.

Germany DOES have freedom of speech. It's in article 5 of their constitution (From that page you can also find the original German text, for those of you that read German):

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

They do however have strick laws prohibiting anything that even appears even slightly related to the Nazi's. The Swastika-flag is forbidden by law, which to my knowledge is not the case in the States.

I don't know the specifics regarding their flags, but I think Pascal is right - they do have pretty strict laws there as well.

Why? Well, my explanation (and we're moving into pet theory country here, so this is just my opinion etc...) is that the German public is still suffering from the collective trauma, that was WWII. The past 50 years or so the Germans have been working very hard to distance themselveles from the mistakes of the past.

They have banned the Nazi's and anything related to them. This is also the reason for the laws regarding when they can use their national flag. They want to avoid any appearence of nationalism, which is what got them into trouble in the first place.

And while we're in pet theory country, this is also one of the primary reasons why they did not want to go to Iraq (whether that's right or wrong is another debate). They do not want to look like the agressor ever again. In the span of 40 or 50 years they lost two wars big enough to be called World Wars, so they're not about to start fighting again. Because, you know, it didn't go so well for them the last couple of times.

Sorry about the rant... Oh, yeah. On topic:

Should you burn flags (any flags)?: NO

Should you be allowed to?: YES

OK, I'll just go back to lurking now

"When we're in the midst of fighting a war, it gives Memorial Day that much more resonance. Let's hope as many people come home safely as possible."

Amen.

Ditto.

Ben Hunt: Of course, the real problem with the First Amendment is that the only times it ever seems the only people who ever fight for it in court are the less dignified free speech advocates, like Larry Flint or the guy who put elephant poop on the Virgin Mary
Luigi Novi: What is undignified about Chris Ofili? He didn't create the "Sensation" exhibit, or the "The Holy Virgin Mary" piece in particular in order to offend people. Ofili is himself a church-going Catholic, and has a history of creating works that use organic materials, including a shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde, a bust of a man made from his own frozen blood and a folded-over mattress with a water bucket, melons and a cucumber standing between a pair of oranges. Although his work had raised eyebrows before the “Sensation” exhibit, that was the first time he was so singled out for it. He frequently uses elephant dung as a signature element in his work because it is in large part a cultural reference to his African heritage. It isn’t considered an offensive material to him as it is in our culture, and being a Britisher, I would imagine that he was not even used to the level of controversey that accompanied the New York exhibit, given that the U.S. is so much more religious than any other country

"I wouldn't burn a flag myself, but I think our founding fathers, who were known to burn down custom houses and other objects of their ire, would not be against it in any way."

I'm not against it from a legal point of view, but rather a practical point of view. To my mind, there should be more to registering a public protest than just saying, "This pisses me off." The subtext is, or should be, "This pisses me off, and you should be pissed off about it as well." Incumbent in public protest should be that you're trying to convince others of the rightness of your cause; otherwise it's no different, and no more productive, than standing in your living room and screaming at CNN. But in choosing such an (no pun intended) inflammatory means of grabbing attention, you will very likely alienate the very people you're trying to sway to your side without them actually listening to whatever points you're trying to make.

"Why do you hate Germany? Why can anyone HATE any country? "Hate" is a very strong word, don't you think? I don't get it."

Because people don't think of a country as individuals, but rather as an entity. Pretty much all enmity stems from not thinking of people as individuals...and, by extension, humans. Every atrocity in history has its basis, I think, in "dehumanizing" others, from the Holocaust to Iraqi prisons and every genocide you can name. That said, I personally don't hate Germany. Last time I was there, at a convention in 2002, everyone treated me very well...although, candidly, going to a "Western" bar and watching a roomful of Germans line-dancing to "Islands in the Stream" remains one of the most surreal events I've ever witnessed.

"Of course, the real problem with the First Amendment is that the only times it ever seems the only people who ever fight for it in court are the less dignified free speech advocates, like Larry Flint or the guy who put elephant poop on the Virgin Mary. Ah, well, none are free unless all are free."

I'm curious, Ben: Have you actually *seen* that painting? In person, standing three, four feet away from it? Because I have. And I thought it was one of the most transcendently beautiful pieces I've ever seen. I thought it was a breathtaking tribute to the Virgin Mary, and that's coming from a Jew. I know it's hard to believe that artwork which features such diverse elements as a small lump of (not, as it has been falsely reported, "smeared with") dried dung to images of female genitalia can be brought together into a masterpiece of tribute to Catholicism...but then again, that's why it's called "art."

If anyone ever, EVER have the chance to see it in person and judge this glittering mosaic of a piece for yourself, rather than having journalists or shortsighted politicians do so on your behalf, I highly advise it.

PAD

Well, for one thing Clarkles, I'm not sending American soldiers to die for no good reason in Iraq while I siit safe and well protected by secret servicemen in the US...

Fletch, back from the humorectomy, says

"Oh get off your high-horse Mulligan, they've got the first ammendment in the USA and they'll send the security services out to invesitgate kids who make inquiries about the layouts of their college."

Actually I was making a joke about cats, not our always good natured German friends. As for the kids in question--since we are told that it was some major failure of intelligence that didn't see how obvious it was that middle easterners learning to fly were clearly intending to do a Tom Clancy into the twin Towers it may be understandable that some are taking a more proactive CYA approach now. At any rate, were the kids arrested? Rotting in Guantanamo? Had their file sharing privilages revoked?

Equus says:

"Germany DOES have freedom of speech...

They do however have strick laws prohibiting anything that even appears even slightly related to the Nazi's. The Swastika-flag is forbidden by law, which to my knowledge is not the case in the States."

So....they have freedom of speech except as it pertains to certain political beliefs. Ooooookay. Sounds to me like they are afraid of their own people. While freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere--try saying racial epithets in class and see how long it takes to get fired--I feel pretty confident that I can write cranky letters to the local paper espousing nazis, communists, Al Gore, whatever, and not get tossed in the pokey.

Fletch, back from the humorectomy, says

"Oh get off your high-horse Mulligan, they've got the first ammendment in the USA and they'll send the security services out to invesitgate kids who make inquiries about the layouts of their college."

Actually I was making a joke about cats, not our always good natured German friends. As for the kids in question--since we are told that it was some major failure of intelligence that didn't see how obvious it was that middle easterners learning to fly were clearly intending to do a Tom Clancy into the twin Towers it may be understandable that some are taking a more proactive CYA approach now. At any rate, were the kids arrested? Rotting in Guantanamo? Had their file sharing privilages revoked?

Equus says:

"Germany DOES have freedom of speech...

They do however have strick laws prohibiting anything that even appears even slightly related to the Nazi's. The Swastika-flag is forbidden by law, which to my knowledge is not the case in the States."

So....they have freedom of speech except as it pertains to certain political beliefs. Ooooookay. Sounds to me like they are afraid of their own people. While freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere--try saying racial epithets in class and see how long it takes to get fired--I feel pretty confident that I can write cranky letters to the local paper espousing nazis, communists, Al Gore, whatever, and not get tossed in the pokey.

Aaak! Sorry about the double post--I got a message saying error, can't find directory, something like that but I guess everything is ok.

Thanks Equus, you're right about the reasons Germany has no tolerance against racism and nationalism that could lead to it. "No tolerance against Intolerance" - that summes it up.

I think someone mentioned that writing about Nazis or related things is banned in Germany. That's NOT the case. Instead the country does a lot to remind people of the mistakes of the past, there's not a single year in school when Nazi-Germany and the failed "democracy" of the Weimar Republic are not discussed or talked about, usually from all sides and view points, not just the one from the own country (which you can't really say for american schools, just from what I heard from friends in the US).

Every country's politics are heavily influenced by its history. American history differs very much from the german experiences.

Is it true that Mein Kamf can't be legally published or purchased in Germany? I should think that Hitler's prewar rants would be essential reading for anyone wanting a full understnding of his madness.

Are Leni Riefenstahl's films allowed to be played?

I wonder if the prohibition against nazi symbols makes them any more popular among misguided youth. I know that around here, if you announced that all confederate flags were prohibited you'd have lots of kids wearing them just to be annoying (even some Black kids, amazingly enough).

PAD,
Very, very beutiful and powerful sentiments. Thank you.

"Mein Kampf" can't be legally purchased in book shops. But it's no problem to read excerpts in history books or full analysis and exams on it. I don't know about Leni Riefenstahl's movies, but I haven't seen one of them, except in documentaries, but I don't think they aren't allowed to be played. TV channels probably wouldn't touch them anyway and there is no demand.

BillMulligan said:
"Is it true that Mein Kamf can't be legally published or purchased in Germany? I should think that Hitler's prewar rants would be essential reading for anyone wanting a full understnding of his madness."

A quick search at amazon.de showed several editions, even some audiobooks. I have to admit I never really looked at the laws, but I think you are not allowed to print or sell an uncommented edition.

"Are Leni Riefenstahl's films allowed to be played?"

Definitely, we watched "Triumph des Willens" in university as part of a lecture on war and the media, and the band Rammstein used some Riefenstahl material for a video clip some years ago (called "stripped"). They took a lot of heat for it which I think is quite funny considering that as a band they are pretty unpolitical and their band members are rather left wing. They chose the footage mainly for aesthetical reasons (ok, probably also to get some controversy going, they are not stupid)

"I wonder if the prohibition against nazi symbols makes them any more popular among misguided youth. I know that around here, if you announced that all confederate flags were prohibited you'd have lots of kids wearing them just to be annoying (even some Black kids, amazingly enough)."

Again, what I'm saying now is my understanding of the law without doing any research and mainly from the things I read a few years ago, but I think the nazi symbols are only prohibited if you use them in a non-historic context or a context that propagates national socialism (which can't be exactly right; the Indiana Jones movies for example run the same way in Germany as they do in the US. On the other hand, there was an issue of the Amalgam comics, "Super Soldier", which had to be recalled because the german publisher in retouching all swastikas in to squares with a cross inside had overlooked one tiny swastika. I own this issue, and after hearing about this I went looking, if I hadn't had the page number, I never would have found it, it definetely was to small to be seen by just reading the book. Makes you wonder what kind of time some people have on their hands. And I think it's time to close these parentheses)

Benjamin Gaede

Well, for one thing Clarkles, I'm not sending American soldiers to die for no good reason in Iraq while I siit safe and well protected by secret servicemen in the US...

But you'd do it for a REALLY GOOD reason while you sat safe and protected by secret servicemen in the US?

Benjamin,

I also own the Super Soldier book that you mentioned, and thought this whole incident was rather stupid.

"Maus" was also forbidden (for a month or so), because of the portrayel of Jews as mice and the swastika on the cover - until a judge stated that there's no danger in the book, because it shows in an intelligent story the bad side of WWII, it doesn't glorify racism, the holocaust, etc.

Too bad Bush still hasn't produced a "REALLY GOOD" reason for invading Iraq....

Benjamin and Pascal--thanks for the info.

I still think it's a potentailly dangerous situation for the government to have the ability to control thought expressions. A quick glance through google has a few sites claiming that it is now illegal in germany and france to express any doubts as to the facts about the Holocaust.

While Holocaust deniers should rank high on anyone's list of scum it seems to me that all it takes is a change of government or the prevalent public mood to next go after others who express doubts about what most of us see as facts--the Chomski crowd, alternative medicine fans, whatever. I know it's awfully hard to get worked up over the sad plight of idiots but it's the right thing to do

I agree that Germany's anti-Nazi propaganda laws do go too far in restricting freedom of speech. Given their history, though, it may be understandable why they would feel the need to clamp down on it.

I don't agree with the reasoning. Even bastards and morons have the right to have their say, but I can understand it.

Benjamin, I can assure you that Rammstein is far from the only band to have run into trouble with European critics for silly reasons.

On Type O Negative's third album, "October Rust", they included an instrumental track entitled "The Glorious Liberation of the People's Technocratic Republic of Vinnland By the Combined Forces of the United Tribes of Europa". Aside from the long title, it seems pretty innocuous - save that at one point, you can hear marching feet, and a voice counting to four in German, repeatedly. That was enough to get the band labeled neo-Nazi in several European publications! (And, of course, the whole thing served to inspire the song "We Hate Everyone", on their next album, "Bloody Kisses":

Right-wing Commies,
Leftist Nazis,
Point the finger,
Rumors linger...

...Branded sexist,
Labelled racist,
Want it clearer?
Check a mirror...)

Too bad Bush still hasn't produced a "REALLY GOOD" reason for invading Iraq....

Sez you. In my opinion the reasons he gave were all valid, but frankly, not needed. We should have finished the job the first time around, but we were too busy appeasing the rest of the world. I would have gone back in the first time they shot at one of our planes patroling the "No-Fly Zone". But that's just me. I thought Clinton would do it once, but all he did was stomp his foot and wag his finger at Saddam.

In my opinion the reasons he gave were all valid, but frankly, not needed.

And I keep asking when we're going to invade every other country with these supposedly same "valid" reasons, yet I get called a warmonger.

Go figure.

Simple Craig, because those other nations CAN fight back, where as Iraq couldn't until after the formal military was effectively scattered and reduced to their current tactics, nullifying America's technological superiority...

Yeah, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in public in Germany. Just for a better understanding: The chances that Germans (government and/or the people) go after people with minority opinions (like you listed, Bill) is non-existent in this case, because in this rare case the anti-Nazi laws were created in 1949 with the help of the USA and can't be changed by anyone. In fact, it's based on your constitution, it just tries to be not as full of holes as in the Weimar republic. And a change in govenment wouldn't be as dramatic here as in the US. ;)

Benjamin Gaede wrote:

- BillMulligan said:
- "Is it true that Mein Kamf can't be legally
- published or purchased in Germany? I should
- think that Hitler's prewar rants would be
- essential reading for anyone wanting a full
- understnding of his madness."

- A quick search at amazon.de showed several
- editions, even some audiobooks. I have to admit
- I never really looked at the laws, but I think
- you are not allowed to print or sell an
- uncommented edition.

If I remember correctly, you are not allowed to publish "Mein Kampf" in Germany, although technically part of the reason for that is that the copyright for Hitler's published works belongs to the state of Bavaria (presumably because his private residence was in Munich) after his private effects they were impounded at the end of the war. And the Bavarian state government has no intention of publishing a new edition of the book AFAIK. Also AFAIK it is not forbidden to buy second-hand copies.

German school textbooks on 20th-century history generally feature a few quotes from "Mein Kampf", which for most people probably is quite enough ("Mein Kampf" is "famous" for not having been read by most of its pre-1945 owners because apparently only the most dedicated readers had enough enthusiasm not to lay it aside after a few pages). And fairly recently there was an actor who toured the (Federal) Republic doing recitals from "Mein Kampf" in theaters.

"Are Leni Riefenstahl's films allowed to be played?"

- Definitely, we watched "Triumph des Willens" in
- university as part of a lecture on war and the
- media, and the band Rammstein used some
- Riefenstahl material for a video clip some
- years ago (called "stripped").

I too saw performance of "Triumph" at university, but IIRC in my case the performance was organized by the Allgemeine Studentenausschuss (our equivalent of the Students' Union?). I also saw her two films about the 1936 Olympics on a commercial German TV channel.

"I wonder if the prohibition against nazi symbols makes them any more popular among misguided youth. I know that around here, if you announced that all confederate flags were prohibited you'd have lots of kids wearing them just to be annoying (even some Black kids, amazingly enough)."

Well, I'm not sure if an outright prohibition would be necessary for this effect. Don't you have people reacting that way in the U.S. even though Nazi symbols and Confederate flags aren't actually prohibited, just protested against?

- Again, what I'm saying now is my understanding
- of the law without doing any research and
- mainly from the things I read a few years ago,
- but I think the nazi symbols are only
- prohibited if you use them in a non-historic
- context or a context that propagates national
- socialism (which can't be exactly right; the
- Indiana Jones movies for example run the same
- way in Germany as they do in the US. On the
- other hand, there was an issue of the Amalgam
- comics, "Super Soldier", which had to be
- recalled because the german publisher in
- retouching all swastikas in to squares with a
- cross inside had overlooked one tiny swastika.
- I own this issue, and after hearing about this
- I went looking, if I hadn't had the page
- number, I never would have found it, it
- definetely was to small to be seen by just
- reading the book. Makes you wonder what kind of
- time some people have on their hands. And I
- think it's time to close these parentheses)

Well, the problem is in part that the various censorship/self-censorship bodies that enter into this do not always seem to be using the same standards (not even one body). And some of these people seem to have a hair-trigger reaction whenever there is a swastika or a picture of Hitler on the cover, tend to err on the side of caution (as I recall, shipments of some issues of The Fantastic Four and Wonder Woman were held up by customs for that reason). But then you often get a more extreme reaction when entertainment for children and minors is involved, although some material which really is more objectionable slips under the radar by avoiding blatant use of Nazi symbols.

Tilman

Menshevik - I work at a Customs office but it isn't usual to "held up" comic books or any art/literature just because it depicts nazi symbols or anything. We have an almost endless list (sadly) of pubications that aren't allowed in Germany, most of it are underground fanzines and books anyway. But Wonder Woman, etc? I can only think of checking the book out to see if anything in it is against the german constitution. And a swastika alone isn't usually enough. :)

Pascal says

Yeah, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in public in Germany. Just for a better understanding: The chances that Germans (government and/or the people) go after people with minority opinions (like you listed, Bill) is non-existent in this case, because in this rare case the anti-Nazi laws were created in 1949 with the help of the USA and can't be changed by anyone. In fact, it's based on your constitution, it just tries to be not as full of holes as in the Weimar republic. And a change in govenment wouldn't be as dramatic here as in the US. ;)"

I find this fascinating! But how can it be that the laws "can't be changed by anyone"? Is the entire constitution immutable or just certain sections?

But even if your are right that the laws only pertain to nazis, my point is still that once you establish that certain thoughts are criminal you open the potential for serious abuses. I can understand why the Allies and doubtlessly many Germans supported the laws being enacted and support them still but unless one thinks that germans are somehow genetically predisposed to totalitarianism it seems to me that it's time any and all intellectual shackles be thrown off. Keeping these laws gives one the impression that left to their own devices today's Germans would go right back to the old regime.

Well, all I know is that a fairly recent issue of Wonder Woman was unavailable at my local comic store and they told me it had been held up at the border. It was during John Byrne's run on that title, and as far as I remember it was set either in World War 2 or in a world where the Axis powers had won World War 2. And something rather like that had happened in the early 1980s, involving an issue of Fantastic Four (also by Byrne, I think), a time-travel story involving Nick Fury and featuring a scene where IIRC Nick was about to shoot Hitler and the others were shouting at him not to do it (in order not to disrupt the space-time continuum or some explanation like that).

Tilman

The human rights and the rights of an individual are held up above everything in the constitution. We have a so called "Grundgesetz" ("main law") and Article 20 and 79 of it state that most of this new version of the constitution is unchangeable. 79 lists a few ways to change some articles, but that would take an almost impossible agreement in politics and most of the human rights really are immutable. Keep in mind, that a weak constitution is what Hitler used to get to his power (among other things).

As to your other point: No, Germany is one of the last countries that would go back to "the old regime" if there'd be no "fail safe". Racism and anti-semitism is very low compared to the rest of europe. But isn't it understandable that the Government doesn't want people to think that we've forgotten about the past? That's one of the reasons denial of the holocaust is illegal. From your view point it's very different. You don't have to prove you're on the side of the good guys (well, until recently ;) ). You don't have a problem with being "patriotic". But I don't want to count the many times some German showed that he was proud of being german and a loud outcry and red alert started. And not from the own government, but from the rest of the world. Isn't it sad that when I go to England there are many places I have to keep my mouth shut about being german? I was called "Hitler" and "nazi" in the rest of Europe, just because of my nationality. Even if Germany would cease to remind itself of the sins of the past, others wouldn't let go of it that easily. Hopefully, you'll understand this side of the coin better now. :)

Bill Mulligan:

Well, obviously declaring certain thoughts (or to be more precise, expressing and/or propagating such thoughts) criminal could be open to various abuses, but you have such laws in every society, including the United States (partly e.g. thanks to laws against libel, treason, using the "shouting Fire! in a crowded theater" rationale). (A lot of the laws limiting free speech were imposed on State and Territory level, by the way, for instance I recently read up a little on the American Civil War again and noticed that in the 1850s the pro-slavery Kansas legislature made a law that anyone denying the legality of slave ownership in the Territory should get five years in prison.)

The (fairly recent) German law against Holocaust denial can probably be best compared to libel laws, because its main purpose is to safeguard Holocaust survivors and relatives of Holocaust victims from the anguish caused by declaring that their own or their family's sufferings are a lie without having to go through and pay for an expensive lawsuit themselves.

Pascal,

I'm not surprised that there are places in Europe where you still get crap. But I doubt that legislating against thought crimes will convince them. The best thing would be to allow some idiot to run on a ultra nationalist platform and let him get fewer votes than his French counterparts.

I mean, what percentage of the current German population was even ALIVE when the atrocities occurred? At some point you need to look these feeps in the eye and when they start bitching about stuff that happened before you were born tell them that they are obviously looking for a much older gentleman. (unless one actually believes in the "sins of the father" type mysticism).

Menshevik,

I understand the idea behind the laws and, really, I can't get TOO worked up over a few nazis getting jailed and/or fined. But...I probably ought to.

"We should have finished the job the first time around, but we were too busy appeasing the rest of the world."

(In best angry Homer Simpson voice) Stupid rest of the world!

PAD

But people do believe in the 'sins of the father type mysticism' (as you say it) in many parts of the world. The view of the US isn't the view held by many other places around the globe. And before you tell me its stupid, and unfair, and irrational and all that (I must say on a personal and indeed, cultural level I have been brought up to reject the idea in my own affairs) it is a philosophy that is both open to abuse and capable of excellent things.

For some (extremely limited, as this is not my anthro speciality) examples:

Abuse - German people getting abuse for being part of a country that once had dominant Nazi ideaology and all that came after

Good stuff - certain groups in Central Africa where how your ancestors behave is tied irrevocably to your own actions. Where you, and your line before and after you are viewed as extensions of the same organism and therefore are going to be accountable for the behaviour and activities of the others. From this sprouts a responibility which ensures civility and carefulness, for concern of their children's futures and what will be said of their ancestors. Don't put a step wrong now, because what YOU do, will forever live on in THEM.

Perhaps not in so precise a form, but in spirit, this idea lives in the new kin bonds of nationalism. Belonging to a nation is a badge, but depending on who sees it, it can be an aspect of your individuality, or of your inextricable link with the past, present and future of your nation.

It's all so much more complicated than the 'mysticism' label you cheerfully and erroniously apply to the situation.

Craig and Bladestar,
You know, of all the arguments made on this board, the "if we're invading Iraq, then why not country X" is by far the weakest.
A.) If you feel the invasion is wrong, then it's wrong and you should be able to debunk the justifications on their merits. I mean, if we WERE invading North Korea, Iran, Syria, and oh, Zimbabwe right now for the same reasons we are in Iraq, would you be happy then?
B.) Who's to say we WON'T take care of these other countries in due time? I wouldn't bet against it, especially with the constant talk of Saddam sending his WMD to Syria, with North Korea rattling its saber, and with it pretty much established that Iran and Syria have been sending terrorists/troops across the border to Iraq, well, I wouldn't rule it out.
I guess you'll both be happier then.
And Bladestar, can you ever NOT write like an angry hothead? The whole point of this thread was PAD stating that although we all have the RIGHT to burn the flag, doing so is pretty ugly, does nothing but draw attention to the person doing it, and totally perverts the issue the burner supposedly wants raised. It produces heat instead of light, if you will. And the first thing you do is state, "They have to burn the flag" because it's illegal to burn Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc.
Do you know how many people were actually cited for burning an American flag last year? About three, i believe. So obviously, millions of people don't HAVE to and are invoking other forms of protest. And as for the rest of your post, it's obvious your usual single-mindedness caused you to miss the point, which again is a shame since PAD's initial statements were so heartfelt and eloquent, but then again that's par for the course on your part.

"It's all so much more complicated than the 'mysticism' label you cheerfully and erroneously apply to the situation."

I'd better switch to decaf or something 'cause I seem to be unintentionally pissing people off.

I didn't say it was stupid. I said it was mysticism. I'm a follower of science--hell, I even worked as a scientist. this sort of thing has no more reality to me than horoscopes but I'm not saying that anyone who follows horoscopes is an idiot or anything (although, to me, there are few bigger wastes of time. Unless there is some scientific mechanism I'm not seeing I don't see why the term "mysticism" is so erroneous.

The problem with seeing your ancestors behavior being tied irrevocably to your own actions is that (besides, to me, having no logical basis in reality) it leads to inevitable unfairness. A good kid from a criminal family is no more deserving of special condemnation than a bad kid from a good family is deserving praise.

I do understand that most of the world does not follow western culture and ideas. However reality, to paraphrase Phillip K Dick, is still there whether you believe in it or not. Germ theory is probably a distant second to the belief that disease is caused by curses and the trespasses of our ancestors but all available evidence indicates that such a view, while popular, is untrue.

Sorry if this comes off as arrogant or whatever. I don't think that non-western cultures have nothing to offer but I also think that there is a reason why it is the West that has assumed so dominant a place in the world and it sure ain't the genetic superiority of the people in it.

I have agreed with almost everything PAD has said in a political thread. So much for the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative. The only thing I haven't agreed with is his discussion of the merits of some inflammatory artwork. I haven't seen the pieces so I haven't an opinion (a little embarrassing, because I think I was living in NY at the time and I was too lazy to shlep over to see them).

I do disagree with the comparison (by Menshevik) between Germany's Holocaust denial laws and the common-law countries' libel laws. Libel law is designed to protect individual people from having their reputations besmirched by false claims. It doesn't apply to groups. The Klan probably denigrates racial minorities on a regular basis, but they're not civilly liable for libel.

There are a couple of reasons why our system is better than the Continental model. The primary one is that German laws about holocaust denial are political in nature. They are designed to eliminate the ability to advance certain viewpoints. A similar law in France led to a successful lawsuit requiring Yahoo! Auctions to stop sales of Nazi and Klan relics. That would certainly not be permissible here. That's a Good Thing. As Ben Hunt put it earlier, if we're not all free, nobody's free.

From that perspective, the Continental laws are hugely problematic. A website (http://www.selfregulation.info/iapcoda/rxio-background-020923.htm) operated by two Oxford professors has some helpful links. As I read the "Framework Proposal," the EU has quite literally proposed thought crime legistlation to its member States.

To paraphrase the most infuriating unfunny (lately) Dennis Miller:

"Countries with freedom of Speech, get folks like David Duke. Those who don't get Hitler"

Very paraphrased, but the sentiment is the same.

My 2 cents.

Travis

Actually Travis, he said that back in the old days, when he was still funny. Early-to-mid HBO Show wun time frame if memory serves. In in one of his "The Rants" books too...

I've never liked flag-burning, but I do think people should have the right to do it.

However, if someone is stupid enough to do it, then once the vets are done pummeling them, they should be charged with inciting a riot. :)

Not really sure if any of our German friends actually watch Enterprise, or if they even get it in that country, but the conversation of Nazi symblos being banned brings to mind the last episode of Enterprise for the season (last seen, most remembered). SPOILERS!!! At the end of the episode there appears to be a time travel blurb, or something equivalent, and it gives the appearance that the Axis had won WWII and there are Germans wearing uniforms of the era, etc. Is an episode like that, or any of the other Star Trek episodes that dealt with something similar, allowable on TV? Does it cause bad feelings? Is there a desire to see that in SciFi/Fantasy? Just curious. Danka.

Actually, the ones doing the pummeling should be charged with assualt.

They are responsible for their actions. Burning the flag does no harm to them, so they committed a violent action inresponse to someone else's free speech?

Wow, bet they're proud of themselves for protecting this country's Freedoms....

A.) If you feel the invasion is wrong, then it's wrong and you should be able to debunk the justifications on their merits.

And where the hell have you been when we HAVE debunked this stupid @#$^ing war in Iraq?

Pulling daisies out of the ground?

would you be happy then?

*sarcasm* Of course I'm happy seeing our troops come home in body bags. Aren't you? */sarcasm*

Standard conservative response in the face of criticism as to why the reasons we went to war in Iraq are suddenly not valid in going to war with some other countries.

Too bad it doesn't fly.

Who's to say we WON'T take care of these other countries in due time? I wouldn't bet against it

You're not much of a betting man then are you?

Bush picked the "soft target" in the hopes of getting his sorry ass reelected.

God knows what he'll do with another four years in office.

With Cheney's hand shoved up Bush's arse, Bush would probably nuke the moon if he felt it would somehow get him a third term.

And I'm still wondering why every blasted conservative, when shown how their own logic for this war can be used against them, presumes to turn it into a "You're a warmonger, you want dead troops" argument.

Yet, we're the ones that invaded Iraq, USING THOSE SMEGGING REASONS.

It's bloody @#$%ing pathetic.

While still on the subject of Memorial Day, just two things:

1.) Many of us, conservative and liberal alike, spend a good deal of time on this board talking about how patriotic we are and how we support the troops. Well, there is NOTHING you can do that could do more good for our past soldiers than to visit them at Veterans Hospitals. Most of these are underfunded, which is criminal, and if anyone wants to call their local Congressperson about THAT situation, well, go ahead.
But the really sad situation is that so many of these individuals who gave so much get so few visitors or in some cases no visitors at all. We are losing hundreds of World War II Veterans every day and even our Vietnam Veterans are at or near Social Security eligibility. As these brave men (and women) get older their contemporaries disappear, and many family members do what they can while still trying to maintain their own lives.
These people have so much history to share, so many stories to tell, and in many cases they have no one to talk to. Physical pain is one thing, but nothing can make a life seem so empty than loneliness.
So, please, try to make a commitment to yourselves to visit one veteran you don't know. Chances are you will get more out of it than they will. I mean, why read about Captain America battling the nazis when these men actually DID it? If you're a writer, what bettere resource of stories can there be? If you're a teacher, what better way to learn something new?
Again, so many of these people simply want a pair of ears to listen to them, someone to converse with.
Some may tell you a funny story. This one World War II Vet told me about how when he was a young hothead on a ship, he told the chef, who was really slow, to "Hurry up and give me my food, mother-----r!" Little did he know that in the chef's culture, that term is taken literally, meaning he thought he was actually being accused of having...uh, intimate relations with his own mother! In response, the chef threw a cleaver at him. This vet noted he had calmed down quite a bit both as a result of the incident and of getting older. But I will always remember his laughter as he told it.
Sometimes a visit can be touching. Maybe it was because he didn't know me well, but this one Vietnam Vet told me about an awful experience he had on the battlefield. It was something he never told his wife, sister or psychologist about, but he told me. He cried and said it felt good to finally tell someone something he had kept quiet about for so long. He never wanted to burden anyone else he knew with his problems or experiences. in some cases, he had been afraid they might change some people's opinions of him. But he told me, and when i told him he had done nothing to be ashamed about, he said "Thank you". I'll never forget that either.
Not all veterans will want to relive war stories, of course. Some will want to talk about how the Yankees are doing, or about "I Love Lucy" or Marilyn Monroe any number of things. Heck, the World War II Vets, in particular, may appreciate the gift of a comic book, since so many read them while they served.
The important thing is, they will have someone new to talk to. If you're lucky, you may even make a friend. And you will do someone - a true American hero - a world of good.
Please try.
Thank you.

Craig,

You're letting your anger get in the way of your logic. When you say stuff like "And I'm still wondering why every blasted conservative blah blah blah" it's just plain old venting. The level of discourse here is usually above that.

Daremo, I'm involved with a forum discussing Enterprise-related matters at length, and the conclusion we've reached is that the events you describe must be taking place around 1943 or so (what year was the P-51 introduced, anyway?), and that therefore, the - er - unexpected character at the end is either another time-traveler (how many factions does the Temporal Cold War have, anyway?), or a plant, intended to either aid or destabilize the Nazi regime. (One of the hypotheses is that WWII is a tipping point between the histories leading to the Federation or the Terran Empire of mirror-universe fame, and perhaps our unusual friend is from the mirror world, trying to prevent the founding of the Empire.)

I hope I successfully avoided spoilers... :)

The level of discourse here is usually above that.

Too bad the level of logic isn't.

Anger has nothing to do with it.

Daremo - Yes, Enterprise and most other popular american TV shows are aired in Germany. There was an episode in the 60s that the german channel didn't air, I think it was called "patterns of Force" or something like that. All I know is that it dealt with Nazis and the TV station wasn't comfortable showing this. I think they showed it for the first time in the 80s in one of the many reruns. As for Enterprise or other TV shows (I know that americans like their evil nazis), it's absolutly no problem. We're not living in the 60s anymore and if the station wouldn't show this episode, they would get a lot of angry letters and emails by fans.

I believe, Pascal, that you are the first person I have ever seen call Entercrap a "popular American TV show."

Sure, it's an American show, but popular?

Sorry, Bill, I'm with Craig on this one. While his phrasing was perhaps somewhat less than diplomatic, I think his point is legitimate: all of the arguments used to justify Iraq can be applied at least as well to several other countries. Thus, since we've invaded X for a given list of reasons and not invaded Y despite the fact that the same reasons apply, there must be something incorrect or incomplete about the list of reasons.

The typical response he's gotten is to be accused of bloodthirstiness and warmongering. That response, to me, reeks of someone who can't address the logical argument.

TWL

"The typical response he's gotten is to be accused of bloodthirstiness and warmongering. That response, to me, reeks of someone who can't address the logical argument."

Well, what else can we expect from a bloodthirsty warmonger?

(Sorry, couldn't resist!) :)

I can't do it here at work - it'd take too much time, and be too obvious - but when I get home, I keep meaning to link to an editorial column published yesterday, which discusses a college student's honors thesis (listing a total of 23 reasons given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq). Fascinating reading...

"I think his point is legitimate: all of the arguments used to justify Iraq can be applied at least as well to several other countries. Thus, since we've invaded X for a given list of reasons and not invaded Y despite the fact that the same reasons apply, there must be something incorrect or incomplete about the list of reasons."

Well I haven't accused him of anything of the kind, don't know who has but that would certainly be a bad argument. I can recall a few folks saying that one reason for not invading North Korea as opposed to Iraq is that we can BEAT Iraq with relatively low cost of lives, which cannot be said for North Korea, even if they don't yet have any working nukes (and I think that they may.

That doesn't accuse him of bloodthirstiness and it is a logical response so what's the problem?

Craig, God knows I don't want to just set you off or anything but just who were the folks who called you a bloodthirsty warmonger? I've gone over a few back posts and can't find them. Must have been quite a few to so convince you that it's the standard conservative position.

And I keep asking when we're going to invade every other country with these supposedly same "valid" reasons, yet I get called a warmonger.

Well, we waited twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions before we finally went back to Iraq. If you're really trying to be comparable then twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions from now, we'll invade North Korea, assuming they haven't come around or we're still a superpower. Frankly, I doubt we will be by then. Too many people are trying to thwart that from within.

Bill,

No one's made that accusation against Craig this time around (though Jerome's sort of hinted at it). I think Craig's response is really aimed at all the times this has come up before -- you'd have to dig through previous threads, but I distinctly remember multiple occasions where someone heavily for the Iraq invasion rebutted Craig by saying he was clearly for even more wars and more dead troops.

You're also not really addressing Craig's primary point here: if the reasons Congress and the public were given for the war apply equally well to North Korea, doesn't that mean we either (a) should be invading them as well, or (b) shouldn't have used those reasons to justify Iraq?

Adding in the criterion "well, we can BEAT Iraq" makes us look like bullies, in my view: we like to stand on principle, but only get into "principled" fights if we have overwhelming military superiority?

It may be a logical response, but I think it tends to beg the question. Why wasn't it given as a reason at the time, for one thing?

TWL

If you're really trying to be comparable then twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions from now, we'll invade North Korea, assuming they haven't come around or we're still a superpower. Frankly, I doubt we will be by then. Too many people are trying to thwart that from within.

While I'm sure you intend that last sentence to be damning, I'll go on record as saying that I'd be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower. I'd prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society -- and right now, it's looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.

(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is "just wait 12 years", then is it also your position that we shouldn't have gone to Baghdad in '91? I believe you've said differently in the past...)

TWL

And I'm still wondering why every blasted conservative, when shown how their own logic for this war can be used against them, presumes to turn it into a "You're a warmonger, you want dead troops" argument.

When has this "blasted conservative" EVER called you a 'warmonger'?

Neither do you use "my own logic" against me. Something always changes. In most cases, the "Why don't we attack North Korea or one of these other countries?" scenario usually leaves out that we've fought them before WITH UN blessing, we stopped BECAUSE of the UN, we waited through dozens of UN resolutions that did nothing, the offending country violated terms of the cease-fire several times, any one of which would have been justifiable reason to go back in, and we had sanctions in place, for which we were being called murderers. as well.

Do any of the other countries you say we're too afraid to invade meet all of these critieria? If so, then you have a point. If not, then you don't.

While I'm sure you intend that last sentence to be damning, I'll go on record as saying that I'd be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower.

Amazingly, I' m neither surprised or shocked.

I'd prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society -- and right now, it's looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.

In what ways?

(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is "just wait 12 years", then is it also your position that we shouldn't have gone to Baghdad in '91? I believe you've said differently in the past...)

We went into Kuwait at the behest of that country's government and the UN. We fought Saddam back over the border and back into Iraq. We NEVER WENT INTO BAGHDAD twelve years ago. We stopped, again at the behest of the UN, and other Arab countries which threatened to pull out of the coalition if we did. I've said that we should have and finished the job we started twelve years ago.

If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.

When has this "blasted conservative" EVER called you a 'warmonger'?

See Tim's comments on the matter. He summed it up rather well.

Do any of the other countries you say we're too afraid to invade meet all of these critieria? If so, then you have a point. If not, then you don't.

We were going to invade Iraq with or without UN suppport. It turned out to be the latter. So I don't see what UN resolutions or anything else have to do with this discussion.

If Bush decides tomorrow that Iran is the next target, he's not going to wait for the UN's say so.

And I don't believe I've said we're too afraid. If anything, I'm scared to death that Bush will spend the next 4 years bombing the crap out of these countries using the same justification he used on Iraq.
Sure, in some cases, like N. Korea, he'd have more justification.

But then, after the bs in Iraq, we're not likely to get support for what could be a far more justifiable war.

We've shot ourselves in the foot over Iraq, and when we go after the next, legitimate target, we'll be going in alone. And you can blame Bush for that.

If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.

You're making no sense whatsoever.

Having nukes is ok, but only go to war when they invade somebody else?

Yet it's a good idea to invade Iraq now to make up for a perceived mistake 12 years ago?

Man, let's just invade N. Korea again on the fact that they invaded S. Korea 50 years.

While I'm sure you intend that last sentence to be damning, I'll go on record as saying that I'd be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower.

Amazingly, I' m neither surprised or shocked.

I don't doubt it. Based on your previous phrasing, however, I suspect you think it marks me as some sort of semi-traitorous Fifth Column type (though presumably not to that degree). I'm not. I agree pretty strongly with the statement made in 2000 that we should be a humble nation and a respected one. Who said that again? George someone or other...

I'd prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society -- and right now, it's looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.

In what ways?

In the way that anyone who questions Bush's Holy Policy is called unpatriotic, up to and including sitting senators who lost three limbs in Vietnam.

In the way that the Patriot Act has made librarians accomplices to crimes if they don't give over information to Ashcroft when asked.

In the way that a disturbingly large fraction of this country holds the attitude that we shouldn't give a rusty damn what anyone else thinks of us (up to and including the statement that it's our nation's "calling" to spread Americanism everywhere by force), and then get all shocked when others wind up thinking we're arrogant and acting accordingly.

And, of course, in the way that we're moving ever closer to reinstating the draft and bringing forced conscription for our Dear Leader's war.

That's the quick list.

(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is "just wait 12 years", then is it also your position that we shouldn't have gone to Baghdad in '91? I believe you've said differently in the past...)

We went into Kuwait at the behest of that country's government and the UN. We fought Saddam back over the border and back into Iraq. We NEVER WENT INTO BAGHDAD twelve years ago.

I'm aware of that, though my phrasing may have been unclear -- apologies for the imprecision. Since your statement now is "just wait 12 years", that suggests you think a wait of "12 years and lots of UN resolutions" is fine. You are now saying, as you have in the past, that we should have gone into Iraq THEN -- which means your argument for waiting 12 years with respect to the other countries is spurious.

If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.

Of course not. It doesn't fit the lovely PNAC agenda for remaking the Middle East, and Kim Jong Il doesn't have a neat pistol Bush can show off to guests.

TWL

Adding in the criterion "well, we can BEAT Iraq" makes us look like bullies, in my view: we like to stand on principle, but only get into "principled" fights if we have overwhelming military superiority?

Short answer--yes. Long answer--it make no sense to take actions that have no chance to make things better whatsoever. Attacking North Korea to try to make the area safer is illogical since there is NO scenario that does not result in the destruction of a good part of South Korea and possibly Japan (probably taiwan as well since the Chinese would have little to lose and our forces would be greatly reduced). It would be a monstrously DUMB thing to do (ok, there's the easy setup for you Bushbashers).

It's a good thing to want people to be free from tyranny and while it may not be idealistically pure to note that we CAN possibly achieve this in Sudan with relatively little risk while we CAN'T expect to do the same in China, I don't think that this is a very good argument against trying to help the Sudanese.

Long answer--it make no sense to take actions that have no chance to make things better whatsoever.

I agree with that, which I hope isn't a surprise. The fact that we're given all these ideological reasons as absolute reasons why we MUST wage this war NOW, however, means that the justification really falls down when we don't apply those reasons evenhandedly.

I'm not pushing for a war with North Korea (or Syria or Iran, two other countries that get mentioned a lot in this vein). I'm saying that the ideological reasons ("wanting to spread freedom", whatever that means; wanting to remake the MIddle East; etc. etc.) are by and large a terribly bad justification for war under ANY circumstances. Self-defense, yes; defense of allies against a common enemy, yes; dealing with a threat that is clearly imminent, yes; acting as if we've the divine obligation to "save" everyone else, absolutely not.

And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post -- while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.

TWL

Tim says:

"And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post -- while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.'

Understood and appreciated. But it begs the question--at what point (if any) does one admit that the cost of "other means" is too high? Much as I hate to see Hitler dragged into EVERY war argument, suppose just for the argument that we COULD have brought down Germany through some embargoes or other non-war means but it would have required Hitler to have more or less free rein for 10 years. Fewer lives lost overall than the war.

Is it moral to allow evil--real capital E Evil--to occur as long as one is confident that it will eventually collapse on its own? Obviously the Sudanese genocide cannot continue forever, if only because the supply of victims is not endless. A combination of carrot (bribe the killers to stop killing) and stick (well, I don't know exactly what non-military stick we could use...maybe just evacuate the ones being killed out and let them live here) might work eventually in the Sudan. But I think that a few nicely planned strikes might inflict enough pain on the oppressors to move the process along.

I don't pretend to know with utter certainty what the "right" move is in this circumstance (and if one has as a fundamental rule no invasion/attacks against any country not actively threatening ones own, then the "right" move will obviously be different.).

(I just noticed the word "unilateral" in your last sentence. Would a "multilateral" invasion be ok? And if so what is the number one must achieve to be truly multi?)

I'm not busting your chops here (or deliberately trying to take you away from grading your student's tests, though, that's probably the result).

Me:
And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post -- while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.

Bill:
Understood and appreciated. But it begs the question--at what point (if any) does one admit that the cost of "other means" is too high? Much as I hate to see Hitler dragged into EVERY war argument, suppose just for the argument that we COULD have brought down Germany through some embargoes or other non-war means but it would have required Hitler to have more or less free rein for 10 years. Fewer lives lost overall than the war.

A legitimate (and interesting) question, though I'm not sure the historical parallel is all that great.

For one thing, we didn't go after Hitler because of his campaigns against the Jews, as moral a stand as that would have been. Europe declared war on Hitler after he started invading other countries, and the U.S. only helped out surreptitiously until we were attacked.

For that matter, as I understand it not that much was KNOWN about the Holocaust until it was well after the fact to do any good.

Leaving that aside for a moment, though -- I think regimes in general will collapse under their own weight and don't need us muscling in and knocking them over. If some aspect of military force is needed to stop "real capital E evil" from occurring and victimizing huge numbers of people, then I think that's probably justified more often than not ... but it's also the sort of thing that would need to be examined case by case.

But I think that a few nicely planned strikes might inflict enough pain on the oppressors to move the process along.

Agreed -- but "a few nicely planned strikes" are precisely the sort of thing a lot of people came down on Clinton for when it came to Iraq. I'd be much more willing to support a few strikes intended to make a "hands off" message clear than I would a wholesale invasion, be it Sudan or Newfoundland.

I don't know exactly what the "right" move is either -- shades of grey always make such things difficult. In part, several of the huge issues for me would be transparency, openness, and honesty. We need to be up front with ourselves and with other nations (both allies and not) about what we're doing and why. That's one of the fundamental tests Iraq has utterly failed with me.

(I just noticed the word "unilateral" in your last sentence. Would a "multilateral" invasion be ok? And if so what is the number one must achieve to be truly multi?)

Obviously it depends on the situation, but as I've said in past threads, I'm a pretty committed internationalist. I've yet to think of a scenario where I'd opt for a unilateral move over a multilateral one if both were possible. When it comes to using military power, that distinction is even more crucial: if it's just one country it looks like an imposition of will, while a true coalition of forces makes it more feasible for us to claim some higher purpose.

There's no magic number that makes something "okay" rather than not, but I think I can sum it up this way: if we want to wage war on the grounds of morality or ideology, the moral goals and benefits of the action should be so obvious and so self-evident that countries will be fighting for the honor of working at our side.

Again, Iraq fails that test -- there's not a single leader in that "coalition" who seems to have allied themselves with us for anything faintly resembling a good reason. Zapatero was the first to leave office; I'm quite confident there will be others in the relatively near future, Bush and Blair hopefully included.

And now, back to the last of my students' exams. :-)

TWL

It would be a monstrously DUMB thing to do (ok, there's the easy setup for you Bushbashers).

Yeah, you set yourself up on that one. ;)

So, now Bush is comparing the War on Terrorism to WWII.

Can I start crying now?

Everyone,
Sorry for interrupting the fun debate again. But I'm pretty sure I can address many of the claims in some of these posts in the near future on another thread.
Before it fades into memory, I just wanted to try and pull the conversation, however briefly, back to Memorial Day into PAD's original point, which was a "small-town feel" and how he feels even though we have the RIGHT to burn the flag, how none of us should, because it gives off more heat than light.
Many mock the conventions of "small-town America" and consider the flag to be a "worthless piece of cloth". In response, I can muster some anger but mostly sadness.
I really wish the posters here on both sides of the aisle had taken the time and inclination, for this one thread at least, to talk about how proud you are of the men and women who have are, and will continue to serve. Or what you feel America at it's idealistic best represents. Or, like PAD, talk about a time that made you feel pretty good to be here.SOMETHING other than another Bush and Iraq War is Right/ Bush and Iraq War is Wrong argument thread.
I mean, I enjoy a good bare-knuckled argument as much as anybody. But sometimes you need to stop, take a deep breath and smell the roses before you start arguing again about why what we're doing is right or how we can do things differently.
That's all.

One more Memorial Day note:
Dave Cockrum, the often-overlooked father of the modern X-Men, is currently lying in a hospital seriously illand unsure of his release.
Cockrum, 60, brethed life into such beloved X-Men characters as Nightcrawler, Colossus and Storm. Now, today, as they have become big-screen sensations and generate millions of dollars world wide, he struggles to breathe from an oxygen tank affixed to his wheelchair, unable to afford any medical treatment beyond what little the government grants him as a Vietnam War veteran.
If you would like to help this man who served his country and gave us characters responsible for hours of entertainment, his medical expenses can be defrayed by sending checks to :
Dave Cockrum Fund
c/o Wizard Entertainment
151 Wells Ave.
Congers, NY 10920

I don't doubt it. Based on your previous phrasing, however, I suspect you think it marks me as some sort of semi-traitorous Fifth Column type (though presumably not to that degree). I'm not. I agree pretty strongly with the statement made in 2000 that we should be a humble nation and a respected one.

It means what it means. I'm not shocked or surprised that that you express such sentiments based your responses in our previous debates. Despite my rather vociferous disagreements with PAD about the LIMITS of free speech, I have no problems with the CONCEPT of free speech. Short of anyone here threatening to physically or mentally harm me or any of my friends, family or acquaintences, I have no problems with you or your views, nor do I assign any label to anyone more extreme than far left liberal or far right conservative. Unless you want to count the word that Peter uses a lot and that's growing on me, as well, "git". I've yet to find anyone appropriate enough to saddle with it, but there are some rather promising candidates online here and there.

In the way that anyone who questions Bush's Holy Policy is called unpatriotic, up to and including sitting senators who lost three limbs in Vietnam.

First, that's a bunch of crap. Even Bush's own father has questioned his son's wisdom in fighting Iraq, as has Colin Powell, as has Rush Limbaugh, as has Bill Krystol.

There's a difference though between questioning someone's plans and just down right saying that we're all wrong to do something at all. I might question whether or not Bush had enough soldiers in Iraq, I don't publicly question that we should BE in Iraq.

If your girlfriend, wife, boyfriend or partner went around telling your deepest darkest fears to everyone (s)he met and publicly questioning your sanity how inclined would you be toward trusting them anymore?

In the way that the Patriot Act has made librarians accomplices to crimes if they don't give over information to Ashcroft when asked.

It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place. And the Patriot Act only expands the scope of his jurisdiction. He STILL has to go before a judge to get permission.

Ken Starr had to go before a judge to get a subpoena for Monica Lewinsky's reading list as well, (which he got without the Patriot Act) so making it about Ashcroft may make you feel better, but has little bearing on fact.

Jerome,
your above statements were very thoughtful & correct. Bravo, Dude, Bravo.

I live in small town, USA & i tell you the truth, I wouldn't live anywhere else. God Bless The USA, now & forever, AMEN!

Well said Mr. David. While I don't agree with your politics, I always respect your opinion. I agree with you this time, by the way. =o)

I come from England,as differenciated (pardon spelling) from Gt Britain.

Now we have a flag,not the union jack all you Americans know, but a red cross on a white back ground the"St Georges cross". It's been hijacked by racist groups (TheBNP, neo nazi idiots) a lot
these days I see MY national flag and kinda,CRINGE with shame

burning a symbol you are proud of like a petulant child is dumb.
But worse things can happen to symbols.

DJK

It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place.

Well, the obvious answer is, like book stores, knowing what has been coming and going can help determine in the future what they need to keep in stock, and what new stuff they should pick up.

Although, whether they need to keep a full record of everything is another matter, compared to, say, keeping what you've taken in the last month, and the rest is dumped into a general listing that doesn't include the names of those who borrowed what.

It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place.

Librarians have to keep an eye out for people who wish to use L-Space incorrectly. Or summon annoying dragons. Or steal their bananas...

Oook!
Travis

Does the Librarian still thump people who try to make off with his bananas, or does he just send them to talk with the folks in the High-Energy Magic building?

Yeah, yeah.

It's good we can burn the flag if we want to. How dare anyone suggest I can not burn a flag? On the other hand, the whole thing is totally unimportant as it can be, eh? The same number of turnips will be buttered per capita whether we can light up a flag or not. This is a silly sideshow the Right-wing runs to shore up it's base.

I can't believe they are still pushing this mostly meaningless amendment. I thought they'd given it up. They could care less about this, this is just a feel-good nonissue that makes them look patriotic when they are really cynically playing with the First Amendment.

I'll tell you one thing, I've never wanted to burn a flag but if they pass this amendment I'm going to be toasting up plenty of them.

Burn flaggy, burn. Burn flaggy, Burn!