The US for Europeans 101 (spam on topic)

[Chanak]

The latest posts in Religion and politics thread made me think about the unique circumstances and conditions which brought about the existence of the US and how some SYMers from Europe could benefit from insight into this matter. While each nation in Europe is not exactly homogenous (differing factions, political parties, etc), the US is far from being even close to that word. Perhaps thinking of the EU (in concept, anyway) would be the closest a European can get (besides living in the US for a while) to cracking the shell of understanding a country(ies) with a land mass larger than the European mainland.

I included the plural of country there because in essence, the US is comprised of 50 countries and territories. Consider that many states are larger than any European country - for example, Georgia is larger than Germany - and hopefully you will see what I'm saying is true. Since I lived in Europe myself in the past, I can easily see how a European might not make much sense of the US, since they might view the entire collection of 50 states and territories as they might view their own country...

It's a long, long story. Canada's story parallels that of the US in some cases, but while the Canucks were busy laying out their plans to invade the US and produce the likes of William Shatner , the US started out as a union of allied states (after the Revolution, before that is another story) with some issues for the common good in mind. The Constitution you hear about often was accepted after it was drafted by the first states in this Union - the original British colonies. Afterwards came states cut out of territories formerly owned by France, and Spain. The tragic story of how the great Republic of Texas was suckered into joining the Union is a tale for another time. A whole bunch of influences, customs, and ideas (some of them hare-brained) went into a somewhat motley collection that called itself the United States of America. America is the slice of the continent, States are the sovereign countries, and United is the union of the sovereign countries. In principle, anyway, and back in a time long since past, that's what the US really is.

Before I have to go to work, I'll leave you with this. Membership in the EU is supposed to be voluntary, right? A European country can decide to withdraw from involvement if they wish. Well, it used to be that membership in the United States was voluntary as well. Somewhere along the line, though, the people elected from each state to staff the body of the United States entity (henceforth called Washington) decided they knew best how to run things. They were so right in this, in fact, that when some States decided that the Union was not a union at all and said "we're outta here", the people that sat in Washington sent an Army to conquer them all. Now, picture your own European country in this story. Let's say Germany decides to withdraw from the EU. When they vacate their offices in EU headquarters, an Army composed of EU member nations invades Germany. In a nutshell, that's what happened during the American "Civil War."

[Brynn]

Some things are inevitable, it seems. You gotta join to survive... (Apparently that's what Hungary thinks).

I think that the European situation is a bit different, since it involves economical/monetary cooperation only - if you're out, your situation will get worse b/c the members will trust each other more than the "outsiders" (briefly). So, if you use your common sense, you will join. I don't know much about the regulation of the members, but since we have no "President of EU" or such (a leader that's above the countries' own leaders), I don't think there is power that could force any country to join or remain a member. At this state everybody wants to join

[Chanak]

@Brynn: Absolutely, I'm comparing the US and EU loosely here, for a point of reference. States joined together in a union in America for similar reasons. Different circumstances, but similar thinking. A state removing itself from the US would face a dire economic crisis, since many of the functions and programs of a state's governing body is funded either entirely, or in part, by money from Washington.

Not only that, but the late 19th century demonstrated what happens to a State that decides to exercise it's right to remove itself from the Union.

Also worth noting is the fact that a state effectively has no military force of it's own. Gone are the state militias of the 19th century; in it's place is a federalized (controlled by Washington) military force called the National Guard. How this came about is yet another chapter in the sordid tale of how Washington robbed the states of the ability to fend for themselves, creating an unhealthy dependence to its handouts.

[Brynn]

Well, these are good aspects to consider...

Personally, I don't approve of this great unity at all. I'd rather see a government who'd try to keep our national independece on a healthy level (well, EU is just a monetary Union, as above, but still, it may be a good starting for something that involves other fields as well - like military in US, as you mentioned). Who knows.

[C Elegans]

Chanak, if you could comment on this:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...ss10_21_04.pdf

I'd be most thankful. It has bugged me for over a week now. Regardless of whether you plan to vote Republican or Democrat, how can 72% of Bush voters believe that Iraq had WMD:s even after the final Congress report that said Iraq did not have a significant WMD program? Actually, 57% even think the opposite, ie that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. How is this possible?

Also, 63% of Bush supporters believe there is clear evidence found that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. 60% also believe most experts agree on this, and 55% think this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.

It is also important to note that when asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have.

The investigators explain these reality deviating ideas with cognitive dissonace theory. I am well familar with this theory, but I don't think it is enough to explain such misunderstandings as this poll demonstrates. So Chanak and other Americans: how is this possible? You have freedom of speach and free press in the US. How can people avoid to take in the facts when it's even your own congress who state it?

[Chanak]

@CE: You're not the only one who is bothered by this. First, I am not surprised by that report, nor the conclusions it reaches. Many Bush supporters I know personally believe that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, despite none being found by international investigators. It's simple: they believe that Iraq was a step ahead of the investigation teams, moving their WMDs to other locations secretly before the inspectors arrived. They believe in the infallibility of US Intelligence...which they feel "knows everything." They want to believe Dubyah, making support of him a matter of "faith." They were vulnerable, and all too willing to allow him to invade Iraq after the tragedy of 9/11...as well as Afghanistan.

Many of these people believe that Islamic nations share an inherent hatred of America, because they have evil and horrible leaders that are bloodthirsty tyrants. They are all too willing to buy the notion that Saddam Hussein was such a tyrant (tyrant he was, but then we know how secular he was), plotting the destruction of America from Baghdad. They buy this line, but have difficulty reconciling it with the conclusions reached by international observers...so therefore they shut their eyes to that. Obviously, the world is "wrong," and they will stand by Dubyah despite of the facts, many think. I have heard this again and again.

Bush also appeals to a sense of nationalism. This can also explain the blind eyes and deaf ears of his supporters. I have generally avoided airing my opinions of Dubyah in general because of the disgust I felt towards myself at my initial support of activities Bush pursued in the Middle East. I based some of this support on my experiences during Desert Shield/Storm back in 1990, when I worked 7 days a week, 14 hours a day in support of that operation as a soldier. I was privy to information and news that CNN was not allowed to broadcast. I had always suspected that Colin Powell was a slick politician from his days as the Army Chief of Staff, but I never suspected that he would he would go along with something as odious and moronic as the WMD circus the Bush camp cooked up.

It's no secret that I oppose Dubyah, and everything his camp stands for. Yet I am also not enamored with John Kerry. He's a politician, and (rightfully) playing the card that George W. Bush has mislead the American public. He indeed has, no question in my mind. Yet John Kerry doesn't have such a great record of honesty himself. CE, I honestly believe that in the end, John Kerry would commit crimes similar to those Dubyah has committed, though perhaps in a different arena, and in a different way. That has been the story of American politics for many, many years. Campaign slogans might be partisan, but deception unfortunately is very bi-partisan.

What I believe about the tragedy of 9/11 and the imperialism of George W. Bush might anger some of my fellow Americans. But I feel like the homeless guy walking the streets with the sandwich board marquee which reads, "The End of the World is Coming Soon." People just don't care, as Von pointed out in a different thread.