J Edgar Hoover would be proud (cynical spam acceptable in moderation)

[Thomas77]

[QUOTE=Silur]...accepting to impose close to martial law on our own citizens, the terrorists have achieved what they wanted[/QUOTE]

Who has done that?!

[Magrus]

Well, I should hope they're successful in restoring a sort of balance, and soon.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Thomas77]Who has done that?![/QUOTE]

Oh, I dont know...

Being held indefinitely without trial and without being informed of what you are accused of. Government agencies have permission to go through your records without informing you and without a court order, including such diverse things as what books you borrow at the library, student records, your financial records, etc. Those disclosing the information are required, under threat of severe punishment, to keep the disclosure secret. Extended rights for wiretapping and intercepting electronic communications. Limiting freedom of speech and right to public protest. The list goes on.

To me, that is pretty close to martial law. The only thing really missing is curfew.

[Magrus]

This is what led to those chills when I first heard of this bill being considered some time ago. Most people simply didn't want to believe it was possible, or didn't care.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Magrus]Well, I should hope they're successful in restoring a sort of balance, and soon. [/QUOTE]

*shiver* Berluscone and Jirac with more power... sounds disasterous.

[Magrus]

Don't you just envy apes sometimes? They have their mates, trees, children, and food. Yeah, they have to deal with bugs and the weather. The only true problems they have? Humans. The same could be said for just about any living thing on this planet though. Things would be A-OK without that one wrench thrown into nature's works huh?

Does this not somewhat remind anyone of past regimes where a group seizes power, blames another group to distract the masses and does whatever they want to get what they want? Like say...Hitler and his group as a more recent example? History repeats itself in slight variation's. I'm wondering, which direction will things lead to next? Another huge war? The collapse of a 'great society' with a civil war?

[Sytze]

[QUOTE=Silur]*shiver* Berluscone and Jirac with more power... sounds disasterous.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that will happen, or if that is even possible. EU countries are forced to obey a whole scale of different rules than the US. Unlike the US, who hasn't signed a lot of international laws, the EU has. ECHM being one of them. Should France or Italy decide to force some sort of martial law, they would first have to arrange that on European level. This means laws have to be adjusted and more countries than the two just mentioned have to agree on them. Even then, the European Court of Justice can rule that the actions being taken are in conflict with European Law.

Moreover, Chirac and Berlusconi are under an increasing amount of pressure in their own country. They wouldn’t be in control long enough to force a martial law upon their country.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Sytze]I don't think that will happen, or if that is even possible. EU countries are forced to obey a whole scale of different rules than the US. Unlike the US, who hasn't signed a lot of international laws, the EU has. ECHM being one of them. Should France or Italy decide to force some sort of martial law, they would first have to arrange that on European level. This means laws have to be adjusted and more countries than the two just mentioned have to agree on them. Even then, the European Court of Justice can rule that the actions being taken are in conflict with European Law.[/QUOTE]

Well, the US has signed a number of them and then ignores them. What is to say that a federated EU doesn't do the same? In fact, there have been a number of examples where European countries break international laws and the only consequence was some minor articles in the newspapers. Sweden, for instance, is notorious for burrying people alive in governmental bureaucracy and violating visitation rights for divorced parents, violations against immigrants, etc.

The laws being passed in the US are at the federal level, that is, the equivalent of the EU parliament. So although I may agree that the EU *might* provide some means of limiting the member countries in passing similar laws, I would not bet my life on it. Due process in the EU is very slow and so full of compromises, that if a nation wishes to impose restrictive laws on its own populace it might be able to do so by trading such a law for accepting some or other EU directive.

[QUOTE=Sytze]Moreover, Chirac and Berlusconi are under an increasing amount of pressure in their own country. They wouldn’t be in control long enough to force a martial law upon their country. [/QUOTE]

I wasn't worried about their counties... they're already pretty messed up. The natural progression for a top politician is to strive upwards. I think that we will see many national politicians move into the EU politics as soon as the EU amasses some more authority. I hope our own moronic prime minister implodes before that happens.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Silur]*shiver* Berluscone and Jirac with more power... sounds disasterous.[/QUOTE]

It isn't Berluscone or Chirac that's the problem, but the existence of a position that would allow them any extension of power. As long as the position exists, it would draw the greedy and power-mad who, by definition, comprise the considerable majority of national politicians. (I might even go so far as to say 99% of them.) Anyone who seeks national political post is, by my definition of the term, inadequate to fill the role.

The 9/11 thing was simply a conveniant catalyst that happened to make those in power now to set into motions plans that were idle for years. Horrible and tragic yes, but that event made them kick that plan into motion and they've now gotten the reason to act in the ways they've wanted to because of it. I mean look at Iraq alone, they lied to get the UN to go in their with them, then formally said "oops, no weapons there".

Exactly. There are far too many instances on record where the Bush administration had no good answer to provide for the invasion, and saw no need, after the invasion, to justify what they'd already accomplished by force majore. The PNAC Manifesto laid out in advance that to succeed in bringing the "American Century" into existence, it was necessary to control the bulk of the world's resources, which would otherwise (of course) fall into the hands of rogue states, or possibly Mainland China. The importance of controlling the MidEastern oil fields is laid out in that manifesto, several years before 9/11. If Bush has done bin Ladan enormous recruitment service since then, it has to be said that bin Ladan had already helped the Bush administration by providing a wonderful excuse to invade a cowed and relatively helpless nation.

[Sytze]

[QUOTE=Silur]Well, the US has signed a number of them and then ignores them. What is to say that a federated EU doesn't do the same? In fact, there have been a number of examples where European countries break international laws and the only consequence was some minor articles in the newspapers. Sweden, for instance, is notorious for burrying people alive in governmental bureaucracy and violating visitation rights for divorced parents, violations against immigrants, etc.[/QUOTE]
The US often starts an initiative for a law or arrangement, but backs down when the treaty needs to be ratified. Afraid as it is to lose sovereignty. There are a lot of human right laws, which the US hasn't signed either, unlike the EU (child rights and capital punishment come to mind). Furthermore, the US seems to disregard international laws when it conflicts with its own policy. Because the US is a hegemony, and therefore acts like it wants without caring too much about other countries' interests, it is easier to change your own laws. Especially if you can form the government, and perhaps even the justice system, to your own flavour like Bush is doing now. The difference with EU here, is that an EU member either needs to make exceptions when a treaty needs to be ratified in the beginning, or you shouldn't ratify a treaty at all. Still, it is very difficult to make such exceptions as a country. Sweden probably did so from the start, just like Sweden and Denmark made some exceptions (so called opt-outs) when the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 needed to be signed. I’m guessing the Netherlands and France may make a few opt-outs for the European Constitution now as well, since they rejected it. However, this is just an example and I don’t mean to open that can of worms.

Like I mentioned in my former post, if any country in the EU wants to enforce a martial law, it needs to back down from a signed treaty. Unlike the US, this would mean backing down from a treaty which a country signed in the first place, consequently losing respect in the EU and, more importantly, it will receive sanctions. For the US it is simply much easier to either withdraw from a treaty, or change its own laws, since it is not bound to many international laws. EU countries are, which makes changing or dismissing current laws way more difficult.

[fable]

Because the US is a hegemony, and therefore acts like it wants without caring too much about other countries' interests,

Please. Hegemony under Bush. I don't recall anybody ever alleging it was acting as an hegemony under Clinton, or the elder Bush.

Besides, any nation, when a world power, acts the same way. This is not a justfication for the US, but a corrective to the idea that somehow, the US is the sole bully on the world block. I think you'll find that, however bad the US is, China is far, far worse, and Russia is right up there batting for baddest of the bad. France? England? Germany? Even Belgium, when it had colonial interests, played the tyrant and engaged in acts of horrific barbarism without regard to the opinions of others. And this, I suspect, is because though the names of nations may differ, the megalomania that leads people to desire rule never does.

[Sytze]

The US acted, or tried to act, like a hegemony ever since WW II. Since Bush Jr. it has acted probably more unilateral, though not that much more than under Reagan or Bush Sr.

I'm not saying that any other hegemony would act different, fable. We're just talking about the US and the EU here and now, at this time. For my part it would've been Australia and Brazil. That, however, is simply not how things are right now. The US is, ever since the end of the Cold War in 1990, the only hegemony, although China is on its way to challenge the US for that position. Further more, we're making the comparison US-EU here, because the US is the only hegemony with a democracy (although you could say that depends on how you look at it). Russia and China never were and I was talking about France, Germany, even Belgium in EU context. Things have changed for Belgium since it last ruled Congo and Rwanda, or had supervision over it anyway.

In the past almost every country found itself guilty off barbarism. My own country as well. But I'm talking about the here and now. The US is the only hegemony right now and, since it has not signed as many international laws as the EU countries, and is the only hegemony, it is easier to back down from a treaty than an EU member. Retaliations, sanctions, etc. are not so severe for the US as for the EU.

This is not intended as a 'kick the US thread', but this is just how the situation is right now. There's no need to involve colonial history, fable.

[Chanak]

Don't you just envy apes sometimes?

Not really. I'd rather remain a relatively hairless, numero uno sort of ape (which is what we be). Eating filet mignon is preferable in my mind to munching on termites I slurp off of a stick.

Does this not somewhat remind anyone of past regimes where a group seizes power, blames another group to distract the masses and does whatever they want to get what they want? Like say...Hitler and his group as a more recent example? History repeats itself in slight variation's. I'm wondering, which direction will things lead to next? Another huge war? The collapse of a 'great society' with a civil war?

History repeats itself, and is doomed to do so until the pupils of planet earth learn something. Actually, I am reminded of the Roman Republic in its decline. The Roman governmental machine had become lethargic, corrupt, and complacent. Bribery, class favoritism (or in their case, family name favoritism, such as the Scipios, Claudi, etc.), and horrific inefficiency were the rule of the day when the First Triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar were at the helm circa 50 BC or so. Through manuevering each sought to get rid of the other two. Pompey thought he'd hang out in Rome and obtain the favors of the Senate, which he did. Crassus flung himself and an army on an ambituous military campaign, and got himself killed in the process. Caesar, however, was an accomplished military commander, and had the loyalty and support of the legions. While Crassus got obliterated and Pompey schemed in Rome, he went out and conquered most of Gaul. When he returned from his successful campaign to Rome, Pompey had secured a senatorial order requiring him to relinquish command. Caesar, however, kept on going, crossing the Rubicon and squaring off against his remaining rival and his Senate-endorsed army. The rest is history. The empire was about to be born, though it wouldn't be until later that Octavian, one of the Second Triumvirate, changed his name to Augustus and became the first Roman emperor.

I see some parallels between ancient history and the present day.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Chanak]Actually, I am reminded of the Roman Republic in its decline.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, everyone seems to ignore the fact the country has been degenerating in area's across the board. The economy has gone downhill, the government is corrupt and not fixing the problems and is instead headed by people who are doing what they want, not what's good for the country and it's people. We've overstepped our bounds with other countries, began an aggressive campaign that is doomed to end up in a bloody failure.

People ignore all of the sign's, babbling about American pride and patriotism, how great the country is. No, the country could be great, but it's sliding down hill and no matter how many times you say it's great, or how many people believe it doesn't make it so. Complacency will kill this civilization, just like the one you mentioned.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Magrus]People ignore all of the sign's, babbling about American pride and patriotism, how great the country is. No, the country could be great, but it's sliding down hill and no matter how many times you say it's great, or how many people believe it doesn't make it so. Complacency will kill this civilization, just like the one you mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so I *am* turning into a grumpy old windbag...

<irony on>
Such statements are Un-<insert suitable nationalistic nationality>(tm) and Unpatriotic(c). It is obvious that inferior persons such as those holding the above views are unable to grasp the subtleties of our empero... sorry, our nations leader's, intentions and motives, and therefore should stay away and shut the .... up. If they don't like it, they can always move somewhere else and stop polluting my great country with their presence. In fact, the reason the state of the nation is so bad is probably their fault, those lazy commie-loving, pinko sissies that drain our nations resources with demands for healthcare and free school... in my days, you had to work to get stuff - these delinquents want it all served on a silver platter. I guess we might have to do something about that...
<irony off>

This is my ironic interpretation of something I read quite recently...

I also read something similar in history at school.

Guantanamo bay isn't going to be close to big enough...

[CM]

And what is more pathetic is that there are americans who support such actions in their blind faith in the US govt and Bush. I can't say anymore i am disgusted.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Sytze]I'm not saying that any other hegemony would act different, fable. We're just talking about the US and the EU here and now, at this time. For my part it would've been Australia and Brazil. That, however, is simply not how things are right now. The US is, ever since the end of the Cold War in 1990, the only hegemony, although China is on its way to challenge the US for that position.[/quote]

It sounds as though you consider an hegemony as a title to which only one nation may aspire. An hegemony is simply the imposition of a dominant culture's rules and norms upon another culture, whether by physical force or any other means. For example, Greece had a cultural hegemony on the Roman Empire that lasted for centuries. Though politically and militarily a mess, the Greek isles controlled Roman plays, novels, religion, speech, clothing, art, music, etc. So there are many hegemonies around today. The US is the most pervasive, but that doesn't make it the only one.

Further more, we're making the comparison US-EU here, because the US is the only hegemony with a democracy (although you could say that depends on how you look at it).

And would say that, yes. I don't consider the US a democracy. Aside from some very small communities in the 17th and 18th centuries in the MidAtlantic and NorthEastern states, the US has effectively functioned as a plutocratic dictatorship, "elected" by a tyranny of the majority. This is also the system in some EU nations; the system was imported from Great Britain.

In the past almost every country found itself guilty off barbarism. My own country as well. But I'm talking about the here and now. The US is the only hegemony right now and,

I think this is where we disagree. If you add the context of "between the US and the EU," fine; but if you make that blanket statement, then you leave out China, which is crushing out Tibetan culture horrifically, and Russia, which has shown its great willingness to treat Chechnya like a lawless playground for its armies. Neither would happen if the dominant power wasn't an hegemony.

And even within the EU, there has been the formation of a strong bloc of nations who are openly fighting what they call the hegemony of France and Germany.

...since it has not signed as many international laws as the EU countries, and is the only hegemony, it is easier to back down from a treaty than an EU member. Retaliations, sanctions, etc. are not so severe for the US as for the EU.

Have you checked the UN to compare how many international laws were signed by the US, and how many by, say, France? Or Poland? Slovakia? Italy? Because I think you might be surprised. The US has signed up to as many international treaties as the the UK or Germany. However, during this latest administration, it has abrogated more international treaties than all previous administrations combined. This bears thinking about.

This is not intended as a 'kick the US thread', but this is just how the situation is right now. There's no need to involve colonial history, fable.

But by definition, an hegemony is the enforcement by a dominant power of its own norms in a subordinated region. That certainly applies to every colonial power I can think of; and in the case of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia, the US, and the Ottoman Empire, certainly applied throughout much of the 17th through 19th centuries on a massive scale. Hegemonies are thus the working out of colonial history, even in numerous instances decades, centuries after the military might has been withdrawn.

[CM]

It sounds as though you consider an hegemony as a title to which only one nation may aspire. An hegemony is simply the imposition of a dominant culture's rules and norms upon another culture, whether by physical force or any other means. For example, Greece had a cultural hegemony on the Roman Empire that lasted for centuries. Though politically and militarily a mess, the Greek isles controlled Roman plays, novels, religion, speech, clothing, art, music, etc.

I am sorry Fable but under Bush, he has made sure that society does not resemble western ideals. He is trying to ensure they resemble American ideals. The whole Economy for democracy scheme or whatever it is called. It links specific policies of the middle east with the US aims and then rewards these countries with FTAs and PTAs. That is what has happened with Morocco and Jordan.

I think this is where we disagree. If you add the context of "between the US and the EU," fine; but if you make that blanket statement, then you leave out China, which is crushing out Tibetan culture horrifically, and Russia, which has shown its great willingness to treat Chechnya like a lawless playground for its armies. Neither would happen if the dominant power wasn't an hegemony.

Fable that doesn't make it right or even tolerable. The issue from what i see is the US resembles 1984 day by day and basically it is wrong and the representive bodies are doing nothing to stop this. Rather they are the problem and the US people are just sitting there and taking it.

Have you checked the UN to compare how many international laws were signed by the US, and how many by, say, France? Or Poland? Or Italy? Because I think you might be surprised. The US has signed up to as many international treaties as the the UK or Germany. However, during this latest administration, it has abrogated more international treaties than all previous administrations combined. This bears thinking about.

Honestly Styze is right in this. The US has not signed (forget ratified) the ILO convention on the rights of the child. There are many more the US has not signed that places like Somalia and given their consent to.

But by definition, an hegemony is the enforcement by a dominant power of its own norms in a subordinated region. That certainly applies to every colonial power I can think of; and in the case of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia, the US, and the Ottoman Empire, certainly applied throughout much of the 17th through 19th centuries on a massive scale. Hegemonies are thus the working out of colonial history, even in numerous instances decades, centuries after the military might has been withdrawn.

Fable look at american history. The US has attacked more independent nations and territories in 50 years than most colonial powers. Regardless after world war 2 it was accepted you can not attack another country yet the US did so every 4 years on a regular basis. Korea, bay of Pigs, vietnam, grenada, panama. The US has been for 50 years a hegemonic power and it is brough to light in this current administration. Before it was the Red Scare. Now it is the Islamic scare.

[fable]

[QUOTE=CM]I am sorry Fable but under Bush, he has made sure that society does not resemble western ideals. He is trying to ensure they resemble American ideals. The whole Economy for democracy scheme or whatever it is called. It links specific policies of the middle east with the US aims and then rewards these countries with FTAs and PTAs. That is what has happened with Morocco and Jordan.[/quote]

Fas, with the greatest of respect (and I mean that), I don't understand the paragraph, above. Are you saying Bush is trying to make non-US nations resemble US ideals? I disagree. I think he wants nice little economic satellites that will sit still while his PNAC pals push forward the "Century of America." So what? I've been saying this for 6 years. The fact that the US is an hegemony doesn't mean any other nation isn't, or that, as I remarked above, because you're the biggest bully on the block, there aren't any others.

Honestly Styze is right in this. The US has not signed (forget ratified) the ILO convention on the rights of the child. There are many more the US has not signed that places like Somalia and given their consent to.

What did I write, above? "Have you checked the UN to compare how many international laws were signed by the US, and how many by, say, France? Or Poland? Or Italy? Because I think you might be surprised. The US has signed up to as many international treaties as the the UK or Germany. However, during this latest administration, it has abrogated more international treaties than all previous administrations combined. This bears thinking about."

So don't judge the US by the actions of the last administration. In fact, if you're going to bring up international treaties, you have to look at the entire record, and the US in right up there is the top ten for such signatures. It hasn't signed some high profile ones and that fact frankly amaze me, but the same applies to a number of other high profile countries; and it has also signed other international treaties that many nations haven't.

Fable look at american history. The US has attacked more independent nations and territories in 50 years than most colonial powers.

But does quantity of nations attacked determine who has an hegemony, and who hasn't? Because if it does, the Soviet Union has the US beat hands-down. Or is it quality that we're looking at? Chechnya is far worse than Iraq, a horror of such proportions that Russia threw out the UN and every private monitoriing watchdog group after the terrifying pattern of stories began to emerge. Than for sheer insidiousness, I think the way the Chinese have been literally tearing apart Tibetan culture, piece by piece, in fact, resettling the nation with Chinese, has to win an award. Or are we looking at any 50 year period, rather than the last 50 years? Because if so, Great Britain's record during the 19th century in Southern Asia and Africa is hard to beat in recent times: more than 150 separate nations either destroyed or turned into puppet regimes. That's pretty impressive. (Modern India and Pakistan were made out of several dozen nations, and Africa out of far more. The current nationscape of Africa is just an arbitrary map of hundreds of independent tribes, either driven to extinction or forced into living under the arbitrary sovreignty of others.)

You already know my feelings about the US, so you know I'm not exactly waving a flag, here. But I also don't like knee-jerk "dump on the US" reactions, oh, they're the only hegemony that has ever been, the great evil of all time, etc. And if you think the US is bad now, with the largest economy the world and a bunch of power-mad ideologues at its helm, just think what China will be like when it's economy overtakes the US--and what would happen if their equivalent of ideologues took control.

We haven't reached the bottom of the malestrom, yet, my friend. Get prepared for a bumpy ride.

[Chanak]

@fable: I couldn't agree more - the US is not a democracy. For that matter, it's not even a republic. You could say it's evolving into a form of corporate dictatorship, since business corporations and government are moving ever closer into a union of sorts.

@CM: I think it's important to consider why many Americans, such as myself, are sickened by the present state of affairs. First, the obvious: the actions of the Bush Administration. Most of the precedents for this administration's behavior were established during the Cold War period of the last century. Justifications, propaganda, the "role" of the US in the world, etc, etc, all find their root there, when the Soviet Union was the evil empire numero uno.

Fable points out some things to keep in mind when you consider the current situation with the US. Throughout *most* of its history, the US was a vast frontier. Americans by their nature were an independent lot who would rather live and let live than worry about other places on the globe. This held true until the era of Theodore Roosevelt, when the federal government began to energetically formulate plans for involvement abroad (in this case, the southern Americas). Moral issues nonwithstanding, this signalled the entry of the US into the world scene, catapulted from a backwater to an industrial powerhouse.

While the activities of the Cold War were certainly odious, they were however no more odious (if this can actually be measured) than what other world powers were up to at the time, and previously were up to in history. In fact, I would look at the past *25* years of US history (beginning with Reagan) and the emergence of the neo-con powerbase as the greatest concern. Even Reagan, though, possessed more subtlety and restraint than the son of his VP has.

People have their reasons for discontent. While I'm far from being a conspiracy theory proponent, my own unhappiness with government has to do with alot more than the Bush administration's actions. It has to do with the death throes of an America that existed before the Cold War. Perhaps that sounds somewhat romantic...but I feel that the 18th-century warnings of men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin started falling on deaf ears with the advent of World War II.