Nero3 -
I have some large differences with your assessment of the order that would have occurred in the world in the past 60 years without an American deterrent. And even some big differences in your assessment of the role of guns as discussed here. I actually suspect we have some quite large dfferences of opinion on this entire question. But for all the rest - the self righteous American accusations of cowardice of Norway in WWII, the suggestions that those who make arguments such as you do, must "lack a stiff spine" or some such nonsense, I wish to dissociate myself from those comments. However I am not a subscriber to the inherent realism of a unilateralist pacifist approach, and frankly never have been.
Take the analogy to an international level, where you can see this principle in actual practice in history. Such vacuums when one power retreats in a Wilsonian idealism that this will foster a new era of peace - this sort of idealism has been at the root of some of the world's biggest disasters. The idea you mention about "blowback" where if the US did not meddle elsewhere we would have no troubles in the world, is to this reader a bit of popularism without much basis in historic fact. Large retreats from geopolitical power have always been met by a very willing new strongman who will gladly step in to take over the oppressions of the former - with long and bloody periods of alliances disintegrating in between.
In Europe, you have had many such lessons through history of geopolitical struggles and devastating wars between the larger European nations, so it is clear that a collective "trauma" after 500 years of such wars has settled into European awareness and they tend to believe that the rest of the world shares their own idealism for establishing a new "international" wherein no country will see preeminence. It is important for Europeans with perhaps the viewpoint you express here, to not fall too deeply into the impression that the island of stability and peacetime which they have enjoyed for the past 60 years has been entirely of their own devising.
This long and profoundly transformative period of peacetime and multi-nation unification which has occurred in Europe has only materialized because it has been ensured by a "balance of power" wherein their own interests were part of a larger deterrent whole, and the US whom you may see as somewhat of a rogue elephant has actually played a central role in guaranteeing the peace in Europe long enough for the European Union to become a reality. Of course you are outside the EU, but still, you must take my point, that it's stability and evolution to it's new civilized and peaceful identity has been purchased on the back of American guarantees. If you don't agree with this insight about the last 60 years, our views are miles apart.
The peace and security of nations has many interesting parallels with the peace and security of the individual in each society. The US today is however most certainly one of the industrialised nations with the largest problems to do with violence. Seems like a lot of the Americans posting indignantly about gun rights here don't readily (or willingly) grasp how it can be that "less armed" societies elsewhere actually get along fine without the bristling proliferation of weapons without losing huge freedoms, and the entire issue is "stood down" in these societies to become much less a problem than it is here. An inflamed issue can make the rights of the individual look terribly threatened by being deprived of too easy access to guns, with merely a few misleading sentences. So Americans may refuse to acknowledge this interesting fact - that lack of guns elsewhere is not necessarily accompanied by peoples enslaved to a "socialist nightmare".
Further, if in such countries, people become prosperous and contented, and each generation reaches higher than the previous in education and security, then all this blathering on about "inalienable natural freedoms won by owning a gun" which we are doing over here begins to look like merely smoke obscuring the fact we are not building a better country for our children.
Americans who are passionate about gun rights as synonyms for freedom conclude others must be less "free" as a consequence - which is a questionable assumption. Conversely, citizens of countries from Norway to Switzerland, to Singapore, to Japan (all the very well ordered ones), look at the US in bewilderment, at the mass delusion we all have over here that by arming ourselves we become enfranchised and win our "security". There is a very good argument to be made that the more this idea takes hold, the more America's citizenry will arm itself to the teeth and become an object of growing perplexity to the rest of the world. Frankly in our present condition I think we already are. Arming each peace loving American family with weapons in the house to defend it's peace and freedom, is an exercise in growing societal dysfunction. It is indicative of something which is not peace and freedom at all.
Originally posted by nero3
View Post
. Worst is that he might think he represents common sense, while in reality live in a very narrow bubble. Reminds me of the Simpson episode Homer joined some weapon organization. They sure knew how to put it
Leave a comment: