|
LadyEllen -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/30/2007 4:23:09 AM)
|
This thread is amazing.
Individual citizens of at least three countries are here blasting away at one another in an argument over the policies of governments, which are widely acknowledged elsewhere on these boards, by the very same people in many cases, to be beyond the influence of individual citizens and to be enacted to fulfil the aims of big business, not to further the interests of the individual citizens.
How it is that John Smith of Cheshire, Pete Jones of North Carolina or indeed Jan Pedersen of Malmo are responsible personally for the actions of their governments and should therefore not only face criticism for those actions but even seek to defend those actions as if they were each personally responsible, is beyond me in such circumstances.
The US government - alike with every other national government, derives a foreign policy according to "national interests" - albeit that according to threads on these boards, these national interests are so aligned with the interests of big business residing within the nation, that they are impossible to separate. If Pete Jones of NC wishes of his own volition to be identified as responsible for the foreign policy decisions of the US government in such circumstances, then he really ought to ask himself first, what personal benefit he derives from the Halliburton Coporation (as an example), in order to justify his possible liability as a responsible party, before undertaking any justification for the furtherance of such interests. The same goes for all of us here, regardless of where we are from or are presently living.
The way things are playing out on this thread, amounts to the same sort of line of reasoning that says that I personally am responsible for the West African slave trade, and that since the British government promoted it, that I must further defend it as a policy - regardless of the fact that neither I nor my ancestors derived any benefit whatever from it, or apologise for it - regardless of the fact that neither I nor my ancestors were involved.
Yes, perhaps the US has lost some standing in the world, because of the actions of its government over the last few years. But that is not a personal liability on every US citizen, and neither is it a requirement of every US citizen to defend or apologise for those actions, just as it is not fitting for the citizens of other countries to hold them responsible personally. The UK has also lost standing in the world, for the same reasons in the same time frame, and not being a member of the government which made those decisions, in fact being against those decisions for the most part, it should have no relevance whatever amongst ourselves in the west, that I am British, and it is not for me to undertake a defence or apology for events beyond my control.
The problem though remains, that the perceptions of "the enemy" are that we are all of the same cloth, and it matters not to a suicide bomber, what one's own views happen to be, or even if one lives in a neutral western country. Our only means of changing this, is to provide a common front which protects relative national interests, does not make us either weak or the aggressor and takes back some level of morality into account. This we can only accomplish by way of our votes, in electing governments which take such a stance.
We cannot do it by any government, whether acting alone or in concert with one or a few others, acting in the way that the US government has in recent times. Nor can we do it by way of kow towing to people whom we may have wronged but who have now committed enough wrong on their own account. Nor can we do it by way of the wild west approach of recent times, and nor can we do it if we throw out those values which we claim to espouse and wish to evangelise. It is the errors of the current US government in pursuing such policies, in concert with the UK government and others, which have divided the west and weakened us all, and lost all of us standing, not just the US and UK, in the eyes of "the enemy" and the world.
E
|
|
|
|
