On 16 September 1920, throngs of brokers, clerks, and office workers poured from the buildings lining New York City’s Wall Street as a nearby church bell struck twelve o’clock. The narrow cobblestone street became a river of sputtering automobiles and scurrying pedestrians as the financial district employees set out to make the most of their mid-day break.
Traveling opposite the egressing crowds, an elderly bay horse plodded along Wall Street pulling a nondescript wagon and a driver. The cart came to a stop just around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), across the street from the imposing JP Morgan & Co. bank building. The wagon’s driver cast the reins aside, leaped from his perch, and fled from the street with conspicuous haste. As the lunch-going men and women shuffled past the parked wooden cart and its patiently waiting horse, a timer within the cargo compartment quietly counted off its final few seconds.
The intersection of Wall Street and Broad Street was locally known as “The Corner,” so-named for its collection of influential entities. JP Morgan at that time was the world’s most powerful financial institution, ruling over a significant portion of the global economy; just to the north was the US Assay office, where the purity of precious metals was tested many tons at a time; and around the corner stood the home of the NYSE. A US Sub-Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank also stood nearby, housed within the Federal Hall which had once been the site of the United States’ capitol building.
The mood was generally cheery on the warm Thursday afternoon— the sun was shining and the stock market was up. A celebration was scheduled to take place on Wall Street the following day to honor the 133rd anniversary of the adoption of the US Constitution. It was intended to be a small gathering alongside the statue of George Washington which had been erected at the site of America’s first presidential inauguration.
At approximately one minute after twelve o’clock, the abandoned wagon’s timer reached zero in the pleasant afternoon sun. A bomb consisting of one hundred pounds of dynamite packed with five hundred pounds of cast-iron slugs violently vomited red-hot shrapnel and destruction in every direction. A number of passers-by were instantly vaporized by the extreme heat and pressure. The blast sent a nearby automobile careening through the air as countless jagged iron fragments ripped through the crowd. The nearby structures trembled as the shock wave slammed into their outer walls with tremendous force, shattering windows and turning lobbies into lacerating hailstorms of glass. Many of the cloth awnings which overlooked the street burst into flames. Within a half-mile radius thousands of plate-glass windows burst in the city’s tall buildings, peppering the streets of Lower Manhattan with razor-sharp glass shards.
An Associated Press reporter named George Weston witnessed the blast from the protection of a doorway, and later described the scene:
“[It was] an unexpected, death-dealing bolt, which in a twinkling turned into a shamble the busiest corner of America’s financial center. […] Almost in front of the steps leading up to the Morgan bank was the mutilated body of a man. Other bodies, most of them silent in death, lay nearby. As I gazed horrorstruck at the sight, one of these forms, half-naked and seared with burns, started to rise. It struggled, then toppled and fell lifeless to the gutter.”
One of the Stock Exchange’s messengers, Charles P. Dougherty, described the scene to a reporter for the Sun:
“I saw the explosion, a column of smoke shoot up into the air and then saw people dropping all around me, some of them with their clothing afire.”
The bustling Stock Exchange shook as its large windows burst inwards, however most of the occupants were spared injury due to the massive silk curtains which deflected much of the glass. Running was strictly forbidden on the trading floor, so the president of the Stock Exchange sauntered to the rostrum to sound the gong to halt the day’s trading as a yellow-green mushroom-shaped cloud stretched into the air.
Outside, pandemonium quickly set in. Those who heard blast from the surrounding blocks rushed into the area to see what had happened, trampling over the bodies of the dead and injured. The air was saturated with smoke and dust from the explosion and the ensuing fires. The cobblestone street was scattered with the twisted wreckage of cars, buildings, and humans as the echoes of the explosion slowly faded. A fatally wounded messenger boy pleaded for someone to deliver his securities, and a clerk, having lost his eyes and his feet in the blast, tried to blindly crawl towards safety. A woman’s severed head, still wearing a hat, was stuck to the facade of the JP Morgan building.
Thirty people had died in the first few moments, and ten were mortally wounded. Some 300 other men, women, and children were injured. Many staggered towards the Trinity Church to escape the choking smoke. Another wave of panic rippled through the crowd as word spread that another bomb was set to go off nearby, but the rumor proved untrue. News of the disaster spread quickly, and within thirty minutes the street was filled with hundreds of New York City policemen and Red Cross nurses who had rushed to the scene by horse, car, subway, and on foot. The rescue workers cleared the road for ambulances and lined up the multitude of corpses along the sidewalk. Meanwhile well-armed security officers guarded the US Assay office, where $900 million in gold bars were being stored. Within the hour troops from the 22nd Infantry arrived, marching down Wall Street with rifles and bayonets at the ready.
Little was left of the horse and wagon which brought the destruction upon Wall Street, though the FBI Bureau of Investigation agents found enough fragments to piece together many details. The shoe from a charred, disembodied hoof led the police to the farrier who had shod the offending horse. The blacksmith remembered the customer, and described him as a Sicilian man of 25-30 years old. Additionally, the cast-iron shrapnel slugs that had been packed with the explosives were identified as the weights used on window sashes, but the police were unable to determine their exact source despite visiting hundreds of manufacturers and distributors. The NYPD also gathered up fragments of wagon wheel spokes, leather straps, chunks of canvas, an axle, and a hub cap from the original wagon, and managed to piece together many details with the assistance of veterinarians and wagon builders:
HORSE–Dark bay mare, fifteen and three-quarters hands, fifteen years, about 1,050 pounds, long mane and stubby foretop, clipped a month before, scars on left shoulder and white hairs on forehead.
SHOES–Hind shoes marked JHU and NOA, about half an inch apart. Front shoes had pads, circle in center reading ‘Niagara Hoof Pad Co., BISON, Buffalo, N.Y.’
HARNESS–Single set of heavy wagon harness, old and worn and frequently repaired. Turret rings originally of brass, one broken; the other silver mounted and evidently belonging originally to coach harness.
WAGON–Single top, capacity one and one-half tons, red running gear, striped black with fine white lines. Three-foot wheels on front; four and one-half on back, of Sarvant patent. Body 5 feet 6 inches high, 53 inches wide, about eight feet from ground to top of wagon.
Investigators immediately suspected that the bombing was the work of Galleanist anarchists, a group of mostly Italian-born anti-government radicals who had previously used smaller explosives to draw attention to their cause. Moreover, a pair of Italian-American anarchists had been indicted five days earlier for bank robbery and murder. These suspicions were reinforced by a pile of leaflets found in a mailbox near the blast site, which read:
Remember
We will not tolerate
any longer
Free the political
prisoners or it will be
sure death for all of you
American Anarchist Fighters.
The Washington Post referred to the bombing as an “act of war,” though no one could be certain who the enemy was. The newspaper also wrote, “The bomb outrage in New York emphasizes the extent to which the alien scum from the cesspools and sewers of the Old World has polluted the clear spring of American democracy.” Though the anarchists had not been proven responsible, the US government’s ongoing anti-radical Palmer Raids were increased in intensity as a consequence of the bombing. Immigrants were aggressively targeted, especially Italians, Russians, and Jews. Thousands of citizens were detained in the name of national security, though most of them clearly had nothing to do with the Wall Street terror plot. Ultimately, the orgy of misguided justice resulted in the deportation of about 10,000 such “radicals.”
Investigators also became suspicious of a tennis champion named Edwin Fischer who had apparently predicted the attack with astonishing accuracy. Fischer had been warning his friends of an impending bomb attack on Wall Street, sending them post cards enjoining them to leave the area before 16 September. When interrogated by the police, he claimed to have received the messages “through the air.” He also claimed to be a sparring partner for the world heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey, and he wore two business suits at once over a set of tennis clothes. Investigators decided that Fischer’s warnings were not particularly intriguing once they learned that he had made a regular habit of predicting explosive violence on Wall Street, having previously provided a wide variety of dates. Officials turned him over to the Amityville Asylum, where he was diagnosed as insane but harmless.
In a bid to allay fears of a stock market crash, the New York Stock Exchange reopened the day after the explosion under the guise of business-as-usual. When the workers arrived on Wall Street, the evidence of the previous day’s carnage was draped with cloths, and the somber mood was draped in patriotism. In spite of the attack, the Constitution Day celebration commenced as planned alongside the unscathed statue of George Washington. What had originally been intended as a small gathering grew into one of the largest crowds in Wall Street’s history. The assembled citizens sang The Star-Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful, followed by a rousing speech from World War I hero Brig. Gen. William J. Nicholson.
Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists. Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street, but many of those voices fell silent in light of the new public sentiment. Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.
The New York Police vowed to apprehend the perpetrators of the terrible crime, yet no arrests were ever made in the case. The NYPD and FBI officially gave up on the case in 1940, having never identified any strong suspects. No group or individual ever made a credible claim of responsibility. Some historians have suggested that the incident may have actually been a botched attempt to rob the gold-filled Assay Office nearby, yet no compelling evidence has been found which supports this notion.
No plaque marks the site of one of the deadliest terror attacks in US history— only a pockmarked facade stands as a memorial to the loss of life and liberty that struck America in 1920. The owners of JP Morgan have repeatedly stated that they will never repair the superficial scars. “Replacing those great blocks would be inordinately and unnecessarily expensive,” one Morgan partner pointed out, “And besides, it’s right and proper that they should stay there.”
The event remained as New York’s deadliest terror attack until 11 September 2001.
As with most (if not all) nations, the Swiss have their warts. Their “neutrality” in WWII may not pass the smell test. The government worked with the Nazis in many aspects, including stashing a whole lot of the valuables seized from German Jews and gold looted from European banks. The Swiss were some of the first outside Germany to know of the atrocities going on, yet still did business with Hitler. I can understand the desire to save your own skin, but I’m not so sure I’d be “proud” of what transpired. Switzerland closed its borders to Jews trying to flee the Holocost, and demanded Germany stamp all Jewish passports with a “J,” so they could be more easily turned away.
The Swiss also waited until 1971 to extend the right to vote to women. And that wasn’t even nationwide, as two Cantons waited until the late 80s or early 90s to allow women to vote.
Today, Switzerland has a rather large and powerful anti-Muslim movement. I believe they’ve banned minarets, and regularly put out anti-Muslim propaganda. Their restrictive nationalization laws seem based on ethnic standards, rather than simply whether the applicant would be a welcome and productive new member of Swiss society.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I do like Switzerland. I thoroughly enjoyed visiting there a while back, and respect a lot about how they do things. Several knives, a watch, and stereo equipment are but a few of my cherished Swiss products. I also dig the cheese dip. But as a country, Switzerland cannot claim any real moral superiority over other countries, which I think klaue also understands. And while patriotism in Switzerland may be more reserved than in the U.S. (or other countries, for that matter), I’m glad that klaue does admit it exists. I would have been shocked to hear there was no patriotism. I hope the Swiss never have to experience being attacked, but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a pretty strong reaction if it ever had to endure such a tragedy. Since military service is mandatory, though, does that mean there would be no civilian casualties?
Oh, and our money says “In God We Trust,” not “God Bless America.”
Ultimately, though, there’s nothing wrong with patriotism, as long as it is not misdirected.
I kind of agree with that but kind of disagree. more disagree. The way Dizzee puts it suggests that people just blow stuff up for shits and giggles and there is not political objective. actually, Human nature has very little to do with it. people participate in these actions because they are driven to them out of despairation. we currently live under the most murderous and brutal system of exploitation the world has ever known. It is only normal for people to strike back against oppression (ie. palestinian freedom fighters) However, the thing is blowing up other ordinary people who are just trying to get by, isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. whats needed is a radical change in the organisation of society.
It is nice that some of you have this romantic view about switzerland. Snow? Chalets? I’m sorry, Switzerland is just another country. Sure, there are alps, but the snow is getting less and less and on the nerves. Also, chalets are expensive. I know noone that has one.
About the neutrality: sure, it’s nice to say that the siwss are the nice people that cause no harm or anything like that. the truth is that we wouldn’t stand a chance. Sure, our army may be good, but were just too few. We could quite easely defend the alps for a long time, but the lowland would quickly fall and some of the most important parts of switzerland are there. So the only way switzerland can survive is trough neutrality. I don’t say that we would start a war if we could, but the thing is that we cannot, and therefore nobody knows for sure.
now, let me adress the things sid said.
“Your country doesn’t have a very clean history, or present, for that matter, so I wouldn’t go throwing stones”
no, we don’t have and I never claimed this. I also did not throw stones. It’s a fact that america is the most patriotic country there is, so if I keep taking it as an example, that’s why. Besides, the history of the US is a whole magnitude dirtyer. But such a history doesn’t really mater for me anyway because everyone that participated in it is dead by now. The current generations diddn’t life then. But I’m a bit amazed how fast most americans seem to be to point out WW2 to the germans while forgetting about their extermination of the indians (and other things). Again, this doesn’t matter for me. What matters for me is that the current generation of america was in favor for starting a war against afghanistan and iraq. Yes, in my book, that’s worth a whole lot of minus points.
“The Swiss also waited until 1971 to extend the right to vote to women. And that wasn’t even nationwide, as two Cantons waited until the late 80s or early 90s to allow women to vote.”
This is another point that americans like to state. Yes, it’s true and it’s not nice. But you have to understand that switzerland has a direct democracy. The voting rights of the women was not pushed by a small group of politicans, it was voted by the whole population. It may be that this also worked, sooner as in S., in other countries (for example america), but there’s no proof of that because S. is the only one with such a political system, AFAIR.
“Today, Switzerland has a rather large and powerful anti-Muslim movement. ”
not really. The reason is, once again, direct democracy. most swiss people are catholics. If someone wants to build a minarett or a church or so, the people decide. It is not anti-muslim, it is anti-. not that this is any better, but it is different. Also, many cases are from sepparation of church and state. Generally, crosses on the wall are not allowed in schools – why should burkas be?
“and regularly put out anti-Muslim propaganda”
never seen this.
“Their restrictive nationalization laws seem based on ethnic standards, rather than simply whether the applicant would be a welcome and productive new member of Swiss society”
the s. does welcome productive foreigners who want to blend in and lern the language and so on. but many of them won’t. I made an experiment once and tried to listen to casual conversations on the street on my way. the sad thing is that 80% (not exagerrated) of it was in a foreign language, turkish for example. such an unwillingness to learn the custom and the language caused the harsher immigration laws as of lately (no, I don’t think that’s nationalism). But I’d say it’s still less restrictive than the US way, demanding biometric passports just for making holidays there, regularly detain people for hours or days at the airport and so on. As you yourself said, people who live in glass houses…
“But as a country, Switzerland cannot claim any real moral superiority over other countries, which I think klaue also understands”
yup, I do. As a matter of fact, no country is able to do that. All in all, we’re all just humans and what plautus said thousands of years ago is still true – “Lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit, non novit” (one man to another is a wolf, not a man, when he doesn’t know what sort he is)
“I hope the Swiss never have to experience being attacked, but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a pretty strong reaction if it ever had to endure such a tragedy.”
sure there would be a strong reaction, but I doubt that it would be a patriotic or military one
“Since military service is mandatory, though, does that mean there would be no civilian casualties?”
children? and women do not have to go to the army – the official reasoning is that they “have to” endure birth. the real reason is probably that the army doesn’t think women can fight, but that’s just my guess.
Oh, don’t mistake my defending of switzerland for patriotism. I would do the same thing for Germany or any other country I know enough of. As a matter of fact, I also defended americans some times
Sid,
I agree, there are blemishes and yes given a choice between getting overrun or capitulation, most would choose the second. You must realize the Swiss were reacting to pressures, not causing them, dirty hands? absolutely but there is a big difference between looking for dirt and being told where to dig. I understand your points though and agree with the facts, not necessarily the slant or subtle lighting used while delivering them.
I guess the one beef I have with the Swiss is the veiled, subtle arrogance about their record of bestowed peace, many have died so they can live in such a way, then they fault us for our war like manner… which is true Americans like to chew bubble gum and kick butt and we can usually find a shortage of gum somewhere. (sorry, stole old quote from Mr. Piper, an 80’s thing…) I often wonder how other countries would behave if they had what we have…
klaue, I do respect the Swiss in their determination and the quality of their products. I also repect that the majority of your people speak several different languages and are widely cultured because of the influx of other people in your lands. I am impressed with your willingness to debate in English and about your own country, you are to be commended.
I think your country can use its Democracy to filter out unwanted culture and people and does. I can hardly blame a country who protects its own vision of best interest, as if religious and cultural descrimination is a new concept…
Isolationism has its good points and I think for Switzerland, it works.
Conceded.
I guess it was the tone I inferred, which may have something to do with English not being your first language (I presume). You suggested Americans have no reason to be proud of their country, which seems a bit presumptious. People (Americans or anyone else) can be proud of whatever they want, for whatever their reasons may be. It’s not really up to you to decide if such pride is justified. You also seem to hold a bit of contempt for patriotism. From what you have written, I get the impression it doesn’t fit into your logical world, which I can understand, so you seem to dismiss it as something that is wrong, which I don’t support. Furthermore, I wouldn’t say it is a fact that Americans are the most patriotic. That may be your perception, as well as that of many others. Having travelled the world numerous times, however, I have seen many countries that have fiercely patriotic poulations. Not really something that can be qualified or quantified, so you probably shouldn’t refer to your opinion as a fact. Finally, your closing comment about not starting a war after the bombing referenced in the article seemed a bit snarky, to me. If I misread your post, then I certainly apologize, but it seemed you were at least tossing pebbles, if not throwing stones.
Fair enough regarding comparative histories. I might argue, however, that Swiss “neutrality” with Nazi Germany was a pretty big deal. Again, the Swiss knew what was going on (extermination of Jews), yet did nothing. In fact, your country aided the Nazis by maintaining trade (including supplying weaponry and precision machinery that was used to advance the Nazi war machine), and, as previously mentioned, helping to hide the spoils of their war on the world. America’s attempts to wipe out many native tribes was, as you mentioned, long ago. Horrific, but nobody around today was a party to it. The same cannot be said of Swiss collaboration with the Nazis.
As for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, these are two separate matters, although obviously tied to the same event. America, and many other nations, went into Afghanistan for what most still believe to be justifiable reasons. A country proud of its long history of neutrality may not see it that way, but that’s to be expected. No matter what goes on in the world, the Swiss do not seem to want to get involved when it comes to engaging in hostilities. That’s neither good nor bad, in this context. It just is.
Iraq, of course, is another story. Many Americans supported the war, and many of them have now decided against it. History will ultimately determine if our actions in Iraq are/were good, bad, helpful, harmful, or whatever. Again, it is not surprising you would take points away, based on your support of Swiss neutrality.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say Americans “like” to state this. It’s simply a fact. Yes, your system of government is unique. I guess what you’re saying, though, is that, until 1971, the majority of men in Switzerland did not feel women should have this right? That’s a big minus in my scoring sytem.
I’ve read a number of articles that state there is a strong anti-Muslim movement in Switzerland, but you’re there, so if you say that is not so, then I guess it is not so. I’ll post links to some of the articles in question below, which include at least one Swiss media outlet, just so you don’t think I’m making this up.
As for the people voting on minarets, that may be one of the flaws of direct democracy. It allows for a “mob rule” mentality to prevail. If the majority of people wanted to take certain rights away from certain people, could they do that? I don’t know, since I’m no expert on Swiss government. If so, however, that would seem to be a problem.
As for crosses on the walls of schools, such displays would imply government sanction of a particular religion. An individual wearing a burka speaks only to that individual.
I guess “regularly” may not be defendable on my part, since it would be hard to define “regularly,” and I’m not there to catalog each instance. It does, however happen. Here are the articles to which I referred above. They speak to both anti-Mulsim propaganda and to the perception that there is an anti-Muslim movement in Switzerland (as well as throughout Europe, so you’re not alone).
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=106&sid=5987397&cKey=1123175248000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-16-mosques_N.htm
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world00/swiss-racist.htm
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=201&sid=6535300&cKey=1142413018000
I wasn’t talking about visiting. I was talking about becoming a citizen. It is much harder to become a Swiss citizen than it is to become a U.S. citizen. But U.S. passport requirements are based on international standards, not U.S.-only standards. Most (if not all) EU nations issue biometric passports to citizens, as does the U.S.
As for detaining people at airports, it happens everywhere. England is notorious for it, and has been since long before Sept. 11. I experienced it firsthand in the late 80s. Having been the victims of a terrorist attack of monstrous proportions committed by people from other countries, I’m sure you’ll forgive us if we turn up the screening process a little.
But again, I was talking about becoming a citizen, and in Switzerland, the criteria seems to have a heavy emphasis on ethnic screening. That, to me, sounds like trying to keep Switzerland as Swiss as possible, which also sounds to me as being fairly nationalistic, which I also consider fairly synonymous with being patriotic.
Agreed.
I hope neither of us is ever proven to be correct or incorrect. But I’m guessing if something were to happen, and it was done by a particular group (based on ethnicity, religion, or some other easily identifiable affiliation), there would be a serious crackdown on ALL from that group in Switzerland.
That was just a joke. Mandatory military serice, though, with no objections from a majority of the people, sounds kind of patriotic, to me. People gladly being forced into service sounds like a serious commitment to the nation. Then again, they probably realize it is highly unlikely they will ever have to lay down their life in defense/offense of their country, so there’s not as much risk involved.
And don’t mistake my points as being a sign of dislike for Switzerland. Again, I like the country, and a lot of what it does. And if you were truly just interested in getting a handle on patriotism in America (although the question should really have been about just patriotism, as America is just one of many, many nations with a strong, patriotic populace), then good for you. I hope others have helped to explain it to your satisfaction. Again, patriotism is neither good nor bad. It’s just a form of pride, which is also neither good or bad.
Two Cents,
You may want to dig a little deeper regarding the Swiss during WWII. I can understand your view about the desire to capitulate rather than be overrun. I’m just not sure they needed to be so helpful to the Nazis, especially considering they knew early on about the Final Solution. Also consider the fact that, after the war was over, they wanted to keep all that Nazi booty. I believe there was finally a settlement in a case brought by Holocost survivors and their heirs against Swiss banks in the late 90s. Who knows how much they did actually keep? That’s a heavy moral burden to bear, unless your morals are guided more by dollars than any sense of caring for your fellow human being.
Sorry, but I buy into the belief it is better to die fighting for freedom than to live on your knees before a tyrant. Realistically, had Hitler succeeded, does anyone really believe he would have left the Swiss alone? He needed their banking system to funnel the spoils, as well as their manufacturing, but if he had completed world domination (yes, I know that was highly unlikely), why would he need the banks or manufacturing to be independent? Keeping Switzerland neutral during the war was far more beneficial to Hitler than it was to the Swiss. Neutral Switzerland means the Allies don’t bomb munitions factories, which were supplying Germany. Occupied Switzerland means they are fair game, and if they are liberated, there’s a chance all that treasure goes bye bye.
Furthermore, as a “neutral” country, you would think they would have opened their arms to war refugees. They did not, from what I understand, and specifically kept Jews fleeing the Nazis from legally entering Switzerland.
Isolationism may very well work for Switzerland, and I wouldn’t try to tell them they need to do things differently. That’s not my place. But I will point out what their isolationism can and has done with respect to others. There is no question that the Swiss helped to feed the Nazi war machine, so I really cannot consider them to have been neutral in WWII. They did not fight, but they did take a side.
sorry not to use the quote tags, DI seems not to support the BBCode-standard, even if it looks like it. It keeps to automagically remove my quotetags
“klaue, I do respect the Swiss in their determination and the quality of their products. I also repect that the majority of your people speak several different languages and are widely cultured because of the influx of other people in your lands. I am impressed with your willingness to debate in English and about your own country, you are to be commended.”
That’s something funny about swiss people I noticed. if there is a group of, say, 5 swiss people talking about something and an english speaker joins the group, everyone switches to english (as good as they can) :)
and here, most/all people speak or at least write english, so i switch to it. hell, if I’d wrote in swiss-german, nobody would understand me ;)
“Furthermore, I wouldn’t say it is a fact that Americans are the most patriotic. That may be your perception, as well as that of many others. Having travelled the world numerous times, however, I have seen many countries that have fiercely patriotic poulations. Not really something that can be qualified or quantified, so you probably shouldn’t refer to your opinion as a fact.”
In the first survey about patriotism from the World Values Survey, USA scored #1, in the second one #3 (very nearly #1). Saying that america is the “proudest” nation is not fully, but borderline true, based on this survey.
“Again, the Swiss knew what was going on (extermination of Jews), yet did nothing. In fact, your country aided the Nazis by maintaining trade (including supplying weaponry and precision machinery that was used to advance the Nazi war machine), and, as previously mentioned, helping to hide the spoils of their war on the world.”
Well, what should Switzerland have done? Attack germany? Maybe this would’ve killed Hitler with laughter.. Plans for attacking switzerland were allready made. If we did not “cooperate”, I don’t think there would be a switzerland left.
“America’s attempts to wipe out many native tribes was, as you mentioned, long ago. Horrific, but nobody around today was a party to it. The same cannot be said of Swiss collaboration with the Nazis.”
Why not? Humans life for about ~80 Years. So everyone that still lifes from this period of time was about 12-14 (or younger). Do you really blame those children for not fighting against germany? And even if you do, you should consider that those people are only a tiny percentage of all the current inhabitants – is that enough reason to still blame a whole country? If it were 10 years ago or so, I would agree though.
“I’m not sure it’s fair to say Americans “like” to state this. It’s simply a fact. Yes, your system of government is unique. I guess what you’re saying, though, is that, until 1971, the majority of men in Switzerland did not feel women should have this right? That’s a big minus in my scoring sytem.”
Well, about every time I speak to an american about countries (for wahatever matter), they always seem to be really happy of unearthing this. And again I ask – Are you sure that it would not have taken longer for the USA if it had direct democracy? It is a difference if only a few people (which should usually have a higher intellect than the general population, even if that doesn’t seem to be the case every time) voted it or if the whole population, which also includes all the idiots and sexists, did.
“As for the people voting on minarets, that may be one of the flaws of direct democracy. It allows for a “mob rule” mentality to prevail.”
sure, and not only that. no political system is perfect and flawless. I just think that this one is one of the better ones.
“If the majority of people wanted to take certain rights away from certain people, could they do that? I don’t know, since I’m no expert on Swiss government. If so, however, that would seem to be a problem.”
honestly, I don’t remember clearly. As far as i do remember, the constitution is pretty much unchangeable and it grants the basic human rights and forbits discriminating. but don’t nail me to it
“As for crosses on the walls of schools, such displays would imply government sanction of a particular religion. An individual wearing a burka speaks only to that individual.”
I admit that it is not a perfect example, but if christians would, for example, shave a cross in their hair, that wouldn’t be allowed either. the christians (at least the ones around here) do not wear any recogniseable apparel, so I can’t give a better example..
“They speak to both anti-Mulsim propaganda and to the perception that there is an anti-Muslim movement in Switzerland (as well as throughout Europe, so you’re not alone).”
OK, i forgot about the SP. It is “our” right wing party and it always uses borderline illegal advertising (they’re very good at finding loopholes in laws). But it is not generally anti-muslim, but anti-foreigeners (yes I know that that’s not better). There is some racism here (as in any other country, including the USA) but what I wanted to say is that I never saw anything specially anti-muslim. also, it’s not common – ask some people by chance if they hae muslims, you won’t probably hear anything but “no”, or a “no, but..”. By the way, your third link is not usable because it is not objective (global islamic movement).
“I wasn’t talking about visiting. I was talking about becoming a citizen. It is much harder to become a Swiss citizen than it is to become a U.S. citizen. But U.S. passport requirements are based on international standards, not U.S.-only standards. Most (if not all) EU nations issue biometric passports to citizens, as does the U.S.”
I don’t think it’s harder to become a Swiss citizen (if you learn the language) than becoming an american one. and that about passports is not quite true. The US demanded this, other countries had to adjust. Firstly they were only temporary
“That was just a joke. Mandatory military serice, though, with no objections from a majority of the people, sounds kind of patriotic, to me. ”
I know it was a joke. I have this weird pet-peeve of answering rhetorical questions :P
and no, it’s not really patriotic. most people of about 20-40 years (own estimation, may not be accurate) would love to trash the army once and for all. In my opinion, it’s a demographic problem. We here have many more old people than young ones and the old ones seem to think “if I had to do this, so will you”. And, as you probably know, humans remember good things way better than bad ones – old people probably don’t remember the senseless stuff they had to do (like standing still for hours in the cold rain) but only the positive ones (companionship) so they don’t object (anymore)
I may be wrong, but I think that is a more realistical statement.
“Again, patriotism is neither good nor bad. It’s just a form of pride, which is also neither good or bad.”
well, honestly, I’m not so sure about this. If patriotism kann cause people to feel good or to kill someone – how many feel-goods do you need to weight out even one death?
Let me take an anology. If there were a new drug on the “market” which causes most people to just be happy, but also causes a few of them to kill others – would you think it’s a good drug?
I do not want to offend you, but I think that, viewing it as objective as possible, it is a quite good analogy..
A little bit of patriotism is an ok thing. Playing one’s national anthem before every sporting event to the point where it gets ignored like elevator music takes things a little too far, eh?
No.
Sid,
I understand the dirt of the Swiss, thamks for the refresher course though. Most of what you describe is cohersed behavior which proves the general point I made saying the Swiss behave themselves, it was not Swiss aggression that was the cause, it was Germanys.
Let me ask you this, if after seeing the Poles get waxed in 6 weeks, then the low countries get swept, France falls in six weeks even with the English helping… Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and parts of Yugoslavia all jump into Germanys bed, you, as a member the Swis leadership would really say come on boys lets go down fighting?? Not to mention what they were able to do to Russia in the first few months of that campaign… of course they knew the Jew, gypsies and other undesirables were getting struck down by the Reich. It would have been pretty easy to have been added to the list or handed a rifle and sent East to the Russian front. I think Spain and Switzerland walked a fine line and indeed spent time on their knees, better than a national dirt nap. From the couch and after the fact, sure I can say the Swiss did bad things and are stained for WWII actions. The biggest piece of dirt that cant be washed off by the pressures of war. where is the German loot?? In Swiss banks…that stings the arguement and is a good point. In general however, the Swiss have minded their Ps & Q’s.
One thing we must realize is that Switzerland is not a EU country, their neutrality forbade the entry in the 90’s…so, they are in economic terms an island unto themselves.
It may not seem politically correct and narrow, but I think a government has the right to regulate who is and is not welcome into the country.
klaue, it seems Patriotism does exist in Switzerland in many forms, it may just be “low key”.
Well, according to the survey, American’s have more pride in their country than any other. I guess it can be quantified and qualified. I stand corrected, I guess (not sure of the true meaning of the survey). I’d still say there’s nothing wrong with being proud of America. How did Switzerland do in the survey?
How about not buy Nazi gold to fund the war machine, and not sell munitions and precision machinery to equip the Nazi war machine? Hitler planned to invade many countries, and did so. They still exist. Switzerland chose to not only capitulate, but to profit. Logically, that certainly makes sense. Morally, not so much. Just my opinion, though.
We still have a lot of WWII vets that are alive, although the number is diminishing rapidly. I don’t see why you would not also have folks alive today who were involved in aiding the Nazis. And I wasn’t blaming the whole country of today for anything. I was talking about what the country did in WWII, and added some perspective as to why it may be more of a concern in people’s minds today than the American experience you cited. I certainly didn’t think you were blaming todays Americans for that.
I appreciate your dedication to anecdotal evidence, but it’s not very scientific. As for whether or not it may have taken longer given your hypothesis, we will never know. If the women’s suffrage movement started in Switzerland around the same time it did in most of the rest of the “civilized” world, though, you took far longer than most, which, again, is a negative for your direct democracy (which, until 1971, was only for men).
Agreed that, warts and all, Switzerland is one of the better ones. I feel America’s, likewise, is one of the better ones, warts and all.
I cannot believe it is unchangeable. It may be hard to change, as it should be when done right, but a country as generally advanced as Switzerland cannot possibly have been so shortsighted that they could not imagine the possibility things might need to change down the road, and make allowances for that.
Can they wear crosses as jewelry? Are ornamental Stars of David prohibited, too? That seems fairly restrictive of personal freedom/expression.
The articles seemed to indicate anti-Muslim, but if it’s really just anti-foreigners, that’s still bad, which I’m glad you see. As for asking folks if they hate anyone, most people will not admit it, even if they do. And while I understand the problems with the mentioned article, it is certainly usable, although you can question its validity. If folks in the Muslim world ( even if it is just some, or some who want to stir up trouble) feel Switzerland is promoting an anti-Muslim agenda, then that is probably something that should be of concern.
No, it’s definitely harder in Switzerland. The U.S. was not alone in pushing for biometric passports, though. We probably had the strongest argument, considering, but not the only one.
You’re there, so you’d likely know.
No, a better analogy would be, if a drug helped people, but abusing it killed some, should it be banned. The answer would be, no. Again, patriotism is not bad. Abusing it to promote a bad agenda is.
klaue —
Is this what you are trying? –> the quote tags are [ quote ] otherwise
– Be sure not to add the space between the bracket and the “q” and the “e” like in my example. I added them so DI would not think I wanted to create a quote and hide them. Then to close the quote it’s [/ quote ]. Once again no space between the “/” and the “q” and “e” and the ending bracket.The Don.
klaue,
You have made the “American Indian” a discussion point. Sure we took from them, we went to war with them, fought them for 250 years… sometimes they won battles, ulimately, we won the nation from coast to coast. They were a crafty and resourceful foe and now contribute to our society. They are one the best treated peoples to have survived a drawn out war where just about everything was rested from them. Today, for the sacrifice their “Grandfathers” made, they enjoy reparations, opportunity and benifits which the forked tongue white man can only dream of. Indians in our country can go far on the back of the “White Fathers”, American government, today if they choose to devote themselves to learning and following our system. If not, they will be given ample support and special priveledges/rights to carry them through this life, not a bad deal for a defeated people?? Win win either way? work and be rewarded or sit on the couch and be rewarded…
16th (of 19)
I wasn’t. as I said, everyone that participated is long dead. You pointed out all the missdoings of switzerland which are, in my opinion, not important because the people that were responsible for it are long dead.
that’s exactly my point. we can’t know. Why blame switzerland for it if it’s not sure that other countries would’ve been quicker with the same rules?
that’s what I meant with “pretty much”. sorry for my english.
well, as long as it’s not clearly seen (for example below the clothing) i think so. but it has nothing to do with personal freedom. it’s a bit like a job uniform.. sepparation of church and state is pretty important and because schools are institutions of the state, they also should not contain religion. At least as far as I remember ;)
well, folks in the muslim world also feeled that sweden was promoting anti-muslim agenda because of some comic drawings of mohammed and were outraged..
@Radiatidon:
Yes, I know. That’s what I tried. it diddn’t work. I don’t know the reason, but it’s not a miss-spelling or anything like that.. maybe the preview just diddn’t work..
@Girth:
So what you are saying is “Yes, we stole their land, murdered the greatest part of them, but hey, today the few that are left are allright, they even have their tiny reservats for which they can be very happy because if it wasn’t for the “white fathers”, they’d only have the whole country”?
sorry, but that’s how it sounds..
klaue, exactly…
We beat them, stole their land fair and square and instead of killing them to the last man, woman and child as most disposessed peoples have been treated when they refuse to “migrate”; we put them on reservations, gave them huge land grants, reparations, an abilility to have a free advanced education, give them special hunting/fishing/land use priviledges, gambling, tax exemptions, own nation status, medical coverage and the mineral rights to most(all?) tribal land… not bad for a defeated people. I dont recall any other group of people getting such preferential treatment from their conquers 130 years after the fighting stopped, as well as citizenship upon request… my point is, yes we smoked them, since then we have paid. Ever hear anyone else doing that? Again, priviledges the common white man only dreams about.
klaue, about the ” they’d only have the whole country” routine, give me a break, if you cant defend it, you cant have it, the way of the world 101 good or bad. Try not to get too passive their klaue. Who did the Swiss get Switzerland from, who had to be eraticated in Europe, I know all sorts of histories and after awhile most blend into the same mold, humanity and its many conditions… It was good for us to develop, settle and own this land, we had the drive and power to do it, so we did, simple. Sorry about the Native Indians, but that is the way the ball bounces, Native Indians had tribes which swept thru to rule then ebb as well.
Some in my family are from Poland, guess when they left? You got it, as Hitlers boys rolled across the border…did they ever see a dime, get a sorry??? Nope… so spare me the bleeding heart routine, we have come along way since our inception and have helped where we pleased and hurt where we have pleased. The Indian matter is not our best moment, but it was necessary to forge and grow a new nation, I think we’ve done that pretty well. To the point where we have made great contributions to aid in cleaning up many, many European mistakes…both of the post colonial sort and of the modern, and Switzerland does what during all this exactly?? Yes, yes let me guess, “but we are small country spiel”, ja, ja… Being a nation in the world forum is not a spectator sport, as soon as all nations realize that, the better.
On to something else… Does it seem we spend alot of time cleaning up after ohhh the “older nations”? Vietnam, lets see an old French problem… The middle East, humm England and the French again congratulations for putting three different peoples in one country, Iraq. Afganistan…lets see England and Russia thank you for taking care of that. Yugoslavia, now that is an old one, a country with an identity crisis lets see who lumped them together to begin with hummm? Sudan, we have chosen to stay out of that area, glad to see the human rights nations all banned together and took care of it… no? no one? even after 500,000 dead? no matter, wasnt that an old French area? Lets see on the map who is closer? the EU or the US? humm should not the EU step in? ohh the UN; rental cops when you really need storm troopers, they always help, are they really issued bullets?
So, as you can see klaue, I can get worn thin when a sit on hands Europe comes across with some silly lopsided bovine feculence like “they’d only have the whole country” routine. Perhaps if we were neutral, Europe would look far different today. Perhaps if Europe was really the place to be, we would have never left…Pehaps the Indians should have killed us on the beaches. That is what I would have done if you took my corn!
Again, there is a big difference between nation players and nation spectators. We take the risks and your kinds of countries watch, a little tired of that concept. Then, if we get it wrong you types complain, so easy…perhaps your types of countries should purchase your tickets/seat to have the priviledge of watching…perhaps you should make just as much noise after the many, many times we get it right! I’d be a little depressed too if my country didnt have the courage to send an army to help…I’d too wonder where my nations Patriotism is, among “other things”. Yes, I believe there were two of them…Lets see they were round and fuzzy where did they get off to???
Why is the US military still in Europe? Fun destinations for the troops? Supply stations, airbases. How much is the EU paying us to keep these things going and how much do they pay for the stability we bring? Ohhh the US pays? It is time to leave Europe to the EU, let them defend it with their own troops and we will have a smattering of personel there to keep the lines of communication open, like we do here in the US! How about we close a base or two in Europe and open one up in lets say Michigan, where they need a new financial start? Makes too much sence I know. Why do we now defend the EU when they are a direct economic competator? Let them pay for their own troops. How about our borders? Could we use those troops oh in lets say TX,AZ,CA?? a few planes, tanks and automoblies should slow immigration. Again, I am for a bit more Isolationism…
Thanks for the time.
Oh, I agree that they had their reasons for doing what they did. A history of neutrality is a good thing in a region with a histroy of violent power struggles. And if you’re concerned with losing your land and life, you have an important choice to make. But it is still a choice.
Italy was already an ally of Hitler, and Romania and Bulgaria blew with the wind, joining the Axis when they thought it would win, then joining the Allies when the Axis was crumbling. Yugoslavia joined, a coup resulted in Prince Paul getting dumped, and Hitler invaded, even though the new King said Yugoslavia would stick to the Axis agreement. These countries seem to have made their decisions based on a mix of fear and the potential for gain in a successful German campaign. By the time France fell, and the USSR was bloodied, it was pretty clear world domination was the goal. Germany had invaded several neutral countries. Swiss leaders would have been fools to think a triumphant Germany would simply leave them alone. They played a waiting game, and sweetened the pot by aiding Germany while still claiming neutrality. Don’t get me wrong, that was the smart move. It just wasn’t what I would consider the moral move. Slavery was smart (cheap labor), but not moral. Subjugating weaker countries and holding them as colonies for financial gain is smart, but not moral. I’m a pretty freedom-minded individual. Although I cannot say with certainty what I would have done had I been in charge of Switzerland, with knowledge of Germany’s eradication programs and plans on world domination, I like to think I would either throw my lot in with those oppossing oppression, or at least really stay neutral. not take in blood money, then take my chances.
Spain was “neutral” because Franco was in power thanks to help from Germany and Italy. It gave quite a bit of aid to the Axis Powers, while still claiming neutrality. Switzerland was not nearly as bad, but it did help Germany in its own way.
Not to mention the knowledge the Swiss had as to the origin of a lot of that booty, and what was being done to its previous owners. Not after the smoke cleared, but while it was going on. Trying to keep the money is bad, but you can make the “spoils of war” argument in court. Taking the money in the first place may actually be even worse, in my opinion.
Sure. I never said it was a barbaric nation. I just pointed out it’s not quite as pure as the driven snow as some may like to think. It’s got warts, just like the rest of the world. They may be fewer, but some are bigger.
Not officially EU, but they have committed to some of the economic stuff via treaties. I don’t have a problem with a country regulating who comes into it. I just think it should be based on standards that apply to everyone. From what I’ve read, Switzerland uses ethnicity as one standard, which seems a bit racist to me.
I guess I was actually wondering what the score was, not the rank. Coming in 16th could mean you’re still pretty patriotic, if the 19 countries were all, in general, pretty patriotic.
Yes, the Americans are long dead, but the Swiss are either far less long dead, relatively recently dead, or still alive. Like I said, we’ve got WWII vets still alive, so it would not be that hard to imagine some Swiss involved in the nastiness who are still around.
Why? Because your men had the power to extend voting rights for quite some time, yet they did not. Your unique system allowed the suppression of the voice of women, and your men allowed it to continue. We’ll never know what other countries may have done, but we do know what your country did. It was simply wrong to keep women silent for that long, regardless of how other countries remedied their own situations.
No problem. I’ve studied three living languages and one dead one, and am nowhere near as fluent in any as are you in English.
Well, if the schools have specific uniforms, then that’s completely different. I may still not agree with restricting the personal freedom of students by saying they cannot wear religious items, but if everyone is required to wear the same thing, then I can understand the policy a little better.
Very true. Also something of which to be wary. It always amazes me when people decide they want to express their artistic or political speech freedoms by creating something they know will do little more than upset people. That, of course, is generally their true goal (and to get attention), and their work rarely has any real artistic merit or makes any poignant political comment.
Wait… so terrorism DIDN’T start on September 11th, 2001? I’m confused.
Oh and USSReagan, change your name. It sucks. “Homosexual-communist lobby”?? That, my fellow human, is just stupid.
Get off MY planet while you are at it. Nothing against you, just what you have to say.
Sid,
As you elaborated, another point came to mind. Remember how many divisions were needed to occupy Yugoslavia? Many… for Germany, it was a losing situation, they could not remove their troops and expect stability, so those divisions were in eccence removed from front line fighting and forced to be occupational targets of resistance raids, not a very effective way to use German divisions… I imagine Switzerland could have taken a stronger stance and in turn had harsher demands and recieved an aggressive German presence, forcing another mountain resistance battle to wage within the Reich. That would be about the best they could have managed, being surrounded by Axis countries. I wonder if the loss of life, property and neutral status, which aided many to escape Germanys wrath, would have been worth it. Can you blame the puppet for the crimes of the puppeteer?? I think when we talk gold, not acccepting the wealth of “Germany” would have constituted a level of resitance that would have seen the Nazis take over and sieze the entire banking system, not a good move for the Swiss.
What many of us have forgotten or dont want to admit is, during times of huge scale warfare, morality gets tossed out the window and can be viewed as a far of luxury. Some of these basic rights we have are a treasury of moral wealth, not some day to day right we all deserve… I know this contradicts the cherished “certain inalienable rights” stance, those things are indeed gems of free people, in a sence, we are rich beyond measure in some of our Freedoms and Rights, but suffer during the time of war; perhaps a sacrifice of liberty for liberty. More than armies are defeated in major wars, societies, views and ways of life are shattered, put on hold or never seen again; wiped away by the appetite of mans darker side. Swizterland did well to avoid this reshaping as much as possible.
Oh, as for Franco, I completly agree, he owed who he was and where he was to Hitler and stayed as close as possible to him, besides, how could he say no… The internal structure of Spain could not support a warlike stance for either side, they were simply too new of a regime and just finished a bloody civil war, drained they already were and the English navy would have leveled the Spanish coast line at will, a price Spain dared not pay. Portugal has an interesting little story during WWII as well; a haven to some, a possible escape from Hitlers Germany. Hitler used Spain as his proving grounds for his equipment; little horrors like the 88mm, Stuka, prototype tanks and machine guns were all tested and proven very effective in the field.
I think we may see a bit more of a “cultural revolution” as more of these “Swiss kids” reach the voting age and more of the 60’s generation take the reigns… what always got me about a democracy like Switzerland, in the fact they always vote the changes, much like the state of Texas does, is that it may give the voting power to the people, but the proposed items to which the people can vote on is still regulated by a political body, a classic bottleneck of diluting the peoples power. So, things that may need urgent changing within the country or views that are widely held by the populus can be easily suppressed by simply not formulating a bill to be voted on. An example of this is a state income tax for Texas. This state could use and would benifit greatly from the tax; but it is a political death sentence for whom ever proposes it and it would stand little chance when put to a public vote, yet, this is the 21st century and state governments need state taxes, so they fiddle with laws and limits in other areas to raise their monies. Switzerland, like all other countries is going to change; the “old mans” Switzerland is not going to the same as the new, a simple but profound concept in how Patriotism mutates/evolves…
Students? It’s about the teachers. Never heard that a Student was denied to wear his religious items (as long as it’s not a ceremonial blade or something like that).. Just the teachers. And no, there’s no school uniform, that was just an analogy.. The teachers, through their job, are part of the political system which opposes melting with religion – therefore no religious items for the teachers during work hours.
Not quite. If you collect enough signs (50’000 during a month, AFAIR) you can propose an item for nationwide voting.
That 50,000 ballot bypasses the legislative committee automatically? There is no stalling or “rewriting” of the proposition? Or the adding of additional issues onto a balllot the people want passed? There is manipulation, debate and bottlenecking at the legislative level or it would not be a government…:) since when do the people always get what they want, when they want??
Sounds like a great practice, it seems to lend the people a bit more direct access. Texas has that petition process as well, many fine ideas have been lost, postoned, tied up in the state House of Representatives, never to be seen again…or they are rewritten in a diluted form with loop holes and exceptions to the point only a shadow of its original purpose and power is evident. That is not so in Switzerland??
Okay, I started to read all the comments, and I’m appalled. What started out as a discussion on the bombing in the article rapidly deteriorated into US / Religion bashing and couch-side arguments about terrorism.
A lot of you seem to think there is no difference morally between a military bombing dropping a bomb, and terrorists killing civilians. But there is: a nations military engaged in war has objectives and goals. They are not there to kill civilians. They are there to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war. In WW2, the nuclear weapons dropped were to show Japan that continued resistance (which it is undeniable they would have fought to the very end at great cost to both sides) would result in much heavier casualties and devastation.
It might not have been morally right. But it was the option chosen at the time.
Terrorists however use terror and fear as weapons. Their targets aren’t the military armed forces of a country (despite contrary opinion by the media – based on the reports of all the soldiers being killed by IED’s etc) their targets are anything that will cause fear and outrage.
They don’t care if they kill soldiers, or innocent civilians. They don’t necessarily care whether the bombing does any catastrophic damage to the infrastructure or support networks of the force they are targetting.
In Iraq and Afghanistan they aren’t killing soldiers because they think they can defeat nations like the US. they are doing it because they know eventually people in those countries will get sick of the financial burden, and the loss of their loved ones and will force the government to pull the soldiers out. Once the allied troops have withdrawn, the existing Iraqi and Afghanistani governments will be easy pickings for the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or any number of warlords that have enough power to seize control and rally the others underneath them to become a governmental sized force.
While horrible that innocents are being killed by both sides, it is a regretable fact of war. Every conflict in history has had collatoral damage and innocents killed – either deliberately or accidently. The problem with the situation in these countries isn’t that America and the Allied forces are killing civilians accidently – it is that the mentally and way of thinking of the governments is still revolving around a standard conflict. That is – a War against another armed country. “You engage the enemy soldiers. You don’t engage civilians.”
This works when you have an armed force to engage and destroy. Ie. America vs the Taliban. America vs Saddam’s armed forces. But when the enemy no longer has a government, or an army, and strikes from the shadows while hiding amongst the people what can you do?
If you shoot at someone who isn’t shooting at you, they might be an armed insurgent moving into position for an attack, but they can also be a civilian or a police officer who posed no threat. If you shoot at a car that is failing to stop, they might be armed insurgents attempting a car bombing, or they might be a carload of journalists. If you bomb a building from where shots were fired, it might be full of insurgents, or it might have been one hiding amonst civilians because they know that you aren’t allowed to shoot at them.
But if you DON’T shoot, you risk not only your own life, but a lot of others too… if that car bomber detonates the explosives, how many other civilians around you might be caught in the blast?
In short, you’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t. And eventually, working that way means you work up too much angst in the populace “stop killing innocents” without enough visible effect against the enemy. (Capturing Osama Bin Laden etc)
The only way to stop terrorism is to destroy the public support for the extremists so that they rout them out and stop the terrorists hiding amongst them. Essentially spotlighting them to be targeted. But there is a vast difference in the way the western world thinks, and the way the Eastern one does. You can’t win the hearts and minds of a people by forcing democracy on them. But at the same time, you can’t win by doing nothing and waiting for the extremists to decide they are going to convert your country because they have enough strength in their own.
So really, unless you all have a method to win the hearts and minds of the masses in the middle east (including those raised from birth to hate the US and the West), the only other option (besides pulling out completely) is to start fighting terrorism WITH terrorism, removing prohibitions against targetting civilians and eradicating all possible reinforcements and cover for the afforementioned terrorists.
But there’s another name for that… it’s genocide.
So. Now this argument is well and truly moot, can we get back to the original topic of the article please?
Station409,
In the engagements you’ve described, many make sence and are accurate. I would ask you to consider one more variable to your scenarios, the accountability of the other combants (terrorists, insurgents, rebels etc.). We have this “burden” to make sure our shot is clean, precise at times and the economy of force is considered. When the other combatant chooses to engage in a populated place, that is a place of his choosing, therefore he is responsible for the damage, civilian causualties; if we are not able to withdraw and find it to be deadly ground. We have been playing and judging our conduct by the medias rules of engagement, they are a business, not a military, not even a benevelant press…I think we as Americans should weigh and measure our military matters by military standards and let the media take pictures and write stories, not push to set policy or rules of combat. These deaths of civilians are for the most part a result of an ememy making poor choices in a populated area, the shame and responsibility is his and those who support him, not ours. We can feel the sadness of the loss of life but not the guilt, that is for the enemy. Now within the scope and economy of force, I would not see a city block get leveled by precision armament costing half a million just because a rag head is going nuts with an AK, firing out a window. A bullet or two from a scoped shot should do the trick. If not an assault on the building should suffice. People need to put the actions of the enemy under as much scrutiny as our troops are before they start weighing judgements and assigning blame on casualities. Another thing is, the countries in the region need to be held accountable for what its citizens do. If they cant control their people, another government should take its place. I am tired of the governments supporting these terrorists by holding them high, backing them or permitting all the slanted anti-US rhetoric to persist in their nation, then be able to say it was not us, it was just a couple of radicals… these radicals function as a military unit and their countries need to be held responsible for their citizens and troops/radicals. We police our nut jobs, I havent seen many civilian U.S. groups blowing up the middle east in terror attacks. Granted, we have groups like the CIA and “independent contractors”to do that kind of stuff for us. :) Perhaps, these radicals are agents of the hostile nations and feul the terrorist fervor, all the while keeping the actual country shielded from direct reprisal, I think that loophole needs to end soon. I think the blame of these losses needs to rest with the ones who have put the civilians in danger. I have no doubt if the enemy were to name the time and place far from civilians, we would not hessitate to make an appearance and remind them who can bring the biggest hurt locker to the party. They fight the only way they can fight, like beat down coyotes in the midst of a wolf pack, they are scavengers. Our fight is not really with that rabble but with the opposing countries. Unfortunately, the hearts and minds we really need to win are our own… thanks again media, stupidest modern institution I have experienced yet.
Well, that’s better, even if I still don’t agree with the policy. Teachers or other state employees wearing burkas, or any other religious item, shouldn’t be considered a government endorsement of religion any more than their wearing a particular brand of clothing, watch, hairstyle, etc. should be considered a government endorsement. We have a little more tolerance, institutionally, for different views, I guess.
On another note, I recently found an article that defended the recent vote on immigration as not being anti-Muslim, specifically, but being anti-immigration for those who refuse to assimilate, as you held. Of interest to our discussion, however, was a comment in the article that the Swiss “are also fiercely patriotic and traditional.” It went on to say, “Switzerland is a patriotic nation even more so than just a country, and that nation wants its newcomers to fit in, not break the law, and be just as proud of being Swiss as they are.” Seems like some disagree with your original assertion that the Swiss are not very patriotic.
According to Wikipedia (which should always be taken with a grain of salt), the Swiss people can challenge a law by referendum if they gather 50,000 signatures within 100 days (not sure if that is from when the law passes, goes into effect, or the petition process starts). They can propose a constitutional amendment if they gather 100,000 signatures within 18 months. Parliament can offer an alternative proposal, and if both are accepted, the people vote by ballot as to which they prefer. If only one is on the ballot, I guess it’s a straight up-or-down vote. Not a truly direct democracy, since not everything is voted on by the people. Probably a good thing, though, as that would make for a crazy looking ballot.
The big question, of course, is whether it is better to stand up to tyranny, and risk annihilation, or capitulate/collaborate, and risk subjugation. Many nations have faced the same question throughout history. In this case, the question is augmented by adding the fact that capitulation/collaboration meant not just doing nothing to stop a genocidal maniac with dreams of world domination (regardless of whether actually resisting would have accomplished anything positive), but also meant your nation could actually profit from the maniac’s activities. Again, smart move (history shows), but not moral.
As for Germany seizing the Swiss banking system, that would have not benefitted Hitler. Swiss currency would have simply been rejected as little more than Nazi currency. That was why the Nazis craved Swiss collaboration. Swiss currency, during WWII, was an exceptionally valued currency. Selling plundered gold to the Swiss helped Nazi finances, as they could then use the currency relatively freely. Seizing the banks would have ended that.
Of course. But morality comes back into play once the hostilities end, and people and nations are going to be judged based on their actions, and based on what others perceive as the reasons for their actions. That’s where discussion such as this come into play. As I keep saying, the Swiss made the smart move, but it is still is open to moral consideration.
I doubt Swiss society would have been shattered or wiped away, but that’s something we will never know. If the decision was to ignore genocide and worldwide domination by a madman in order to preserve Swiss society, that is a decision. I can’t say it was right or wrong, but I can offer my opinion on it. I don’t support the decision, and the decision to profit, and try to hold onto those profits, makes my view even more negative.
Not how could he, but why would he? He was a fellow dictator. He did say “no” to joining the Axis, but still offered military and other support. Fortunately, he is still dead.
Perhaps, regarding Spain. It still cooperated with Germany, as did many other “neutral” nations, including Portugal. Probably no “neutral” nation was truly neutral, at least in Europe. Maybe Liechtenstein?
I don’t think they have as much direct input on laws, although I could be wrong. I believe Parliament still proposes and passes most of it, but the people can oppose new laws through referendum, and can propose constitutional changes.
Interesting reading the above comments. Tho it always raises an eyebrow for me when an American uses Switzerland’s neutral stance in WWII as a negative point. Claiming they should have done more to stop Germany. Do they forget that for the first few years of WWII America themselves maintained a neutral stance and refused to become involved? In fact, if memory serves the US never actually declared war on Germany or the Axis powers.
Surely an American presence from day 1 would have done more to stop the Germans and the holocaust than if Switzerland had fought with the Allies?
It’s hard to define what would be “day 1,” but there is no question in my mind that had America been involved earlier, the outcome would have been different. Probably a shorter war, but definitely a different outcome. Same goes for any country that did not jump in immediately. America, like Switzerland, wanted to be “neutral,” not to mention build up its machine a little. The military was not in the best of shape when open hostilities really began. It was a nice luxury to be removed from the fighting to allow time for development.
However, America’s “neutrality” aided the Allies, while Switzerland’s aided the Nazis. That’s the real contention. Not to mention the Swiss knew about the genocide going on, while Americans only heard rumors. Personally, though, I would have preferred if America had jumped in earlier, if it was strategically feasible. Not declaring war, though, probably helped a little with our efforts to help get supplies to the Allies.
As for declaring war against Germany, that was done three days after declaring war on Japan (also a member of the Axis), along with declaring war on Italy. A little late to the party, but an active participant on the side of good.
Skydive, welcome to the fray:)
I view some of Switzerlands actions as negative but think it wise they didnt try to go toe to toe w/ Germany, that would have been disaterous. Like Sid and I are describing is, from the couch, after the war, descisions like not not returning vast sums of money to people who obviously had their property and accounts siezed by the Nazis; then kept it, supposedly waiting for an account holder to arrive. Sorry, that is a bit tainted and as to war treasures stored, if they cant be claimed, then return them to the last confirmed individual who owned them, if still living, if not use it to rebuild. Why was it the US’s duty to rebuild Europe when vast sums of war loot sat in the Swiss vaults. We instituted the Marshall plan to rebuild, the Swiss did what??? That is the kind of stuff that supports casting the Swiss in a negative light, so put your eyebrow down and keep reading. :)
Yes, we stayed out of WWII directly (meaning we were the Arsenal of Democracy for a time, all the equipment and money but few if any actual troops) until forced to act. When the war was over what did the Swiss do to help Europe rebuild. The neutrality issue is well, good and justified, it doesnt give them a right to sit on their hands when it comes time to help. Then the subtle arrogance of we are peace loving and your warlike barbarians, the Swiss should be very thankful we fight these conflicts so they dont have to… again, it is easy to be a spectator.
We declared war on Japan…two-three days later, Germany declared war on us. So from then on, the arbitument of the sword was all tidy and proper. So memory may need some reviewing:) It was WWI where we did not actually declare war…
As to your last question, I believe the Germans could of handled us just fine and kept on going with the Holocaust the first few years, German might was unmatched during those first few years and I believe we would have gotten smoked on the ground anywhere we landed had we been involved. It wasnt until the Eastern front opened up, occupied the bulk of German ground forces, material and provided literally millions of causalties did Germany weaken, enter the US on the ground…
A wise choice in my opinion, a luxury we had in both WW’s, thank goodness.
I will admit this, the US has a bad habit of trying to convince ourselves and the world that our contribution, sacrifice would be a better word actually, was the greatest… this simply isnt true when looking at the numbers of people involved who saw their last breath during this war.
We, the US, lost about 420,000 to WWII, a big number with lots of Mothers, Sweethearts and Wives left to rebuild back in the states. Do you realize that less than one third of one percent (.32%) of the total WWII causualties? We contributed alot of material, but in terms of blood, just a drop in the bucket. China gave some 20 million lives, the Russians 23 million, Poland 5.6 million during the war for one type of war death or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
After this war, can you not understand why the Russians and China were so active in their defense and the cause of Communism? They were ravaged by WWII folks, would not have made a difference what their political orientation was, they were going to be aggressive states because of the hurt done to them. So, no, I dont think the direct contribution of troops in 39′, 40′ or even 41′, in Europe, for that matter would have served any purpose other than increasing our losses. The command in 42′ and 43′ shared those sentiments until D-day only after Russia bore the fury of the Axis air and ground assaults through those precarious years. All the while the Chinese had been getting slaughtered for almost ten years… how big a contribution? One thing the Swiss and Americans have in common is we each lost less than 2,000 in civilian causualties. 40′-43′ were some of the darkest in our modern hisory, many have cause to be hurt, shamed and tired. We can be proud and take comfort that we overcame and defeated a vast legion bend on doom, each in our own way.
Sid I was typing my post while you posted #227 and did not get a chance to read yours until after. If it looks like I snatched your thoughts, I was actually using my own stuff. :)
Your post makes alot of sence and sounds vaguely familair. Again,:)
One little contention though, it was the Germans who declared war on us… this allowed them to justify and continue, unrestricted sub warfare,their open season on our merchant shipping full of undoubtably labeled manifests reading “medical supplies and human aid shipments”. :)As far as Germany was concerned, we were already in the war and like the other Allied countries, powerless for a time to rest Europe out of Hitlers grip.
No problem. Never really thought you might have snatched any thoughts.
True, although we did return the favor with our own declaration the same day. Also, I believe there was a formal declaration in WWI, after that little note to Mexico. In the big picture, though, a formal declaration is relatively meaningless when discussing if we contributed. There are plenty of tombstones that will attest to that.
Two Cents from Girth,
Regarding your response to my post – I agree wholeheartedly with you on the points you make. It always amazes me how when a pilot drops a bomb and civilians are killed, or when a soldier hits a civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan, how everyone in countries on both sides jump up in arms and scream about murder, but when three suicide bombers attack a civilian religious procession in those same countries no one on either side utters a word. Or at least, no one in the west does unless the media portrays it as the fault of the West.
Why is it that they are allowed to indiscriminately target civilians, but when civilians are accidently killed in cross-fire, or by the concussive blast of an explosive that it is murder for the soldiers?
Unfortunately while the media should simply report on facts without bias it is never done that way in this day and age. Sensationalism sells, and so the media dresses up every story to get the best results from what they report. More people watching, and more profit they make.
People look at Iraq and deplore the fact that 4000 Soldiers have been killed in 5-6 years. Does anyone remember that more than twice that number were killed on one BEACH on one DAY in Normandy? Or that Millions of soldiers died in WW1 which was only 4 years long?
What has changed? Has time meant that a soldiers life is more valuable these days? Or is it just the fact that people are now able to ‘log into’ a war from the comfort of their arm chair, then take issue with the death and bloodshed that goes against the romatic ‘hollywood’ image of a war they have been raised with?
Maybe we should bring back Movietone news reels. :-)
Station409,
What is the deal with the percieved “sacredness” of Islam?? It is a farce of a late commer to the religious race… Practiced by some of the most poor and ignorant people on the planet. Our religions in the US are sliced and diced daily, but ohhhh Allah forbid we demystify Islam. Dont let out the secret, but when you rent a camel from AL Alamo, it comes with a prayer rug stowed in the trunk. People that stupid should be reminded five times a day that they have faith… amazing, I can dice it in three minutes but try to find the public trashing Islam, the primary instrument of our enemy, dont you think we could perhaps marginalize that religion instead of ours, seem backwards yet?? thanks again media… Seems political correctness only protects our enemies. Of course our military cherishes every soldier in its ranks. Tech and tactics is key to survival. We put the most expensive soldier in the field, we’ve invested and we’d like to see them return.
When I was in college, again in 2004, a few of the professors were saying this was our next Vietnam and we needed an exit strategy before we attacked…how stupid is that?? We go from A-Z and expect to be able to predict or have the arrogance we can totally control the situtaion
from B-Y to reach Z as per plan, get real… In my opinion, if we are truely making democracies, Iraq will take three generations to form a self sufficient democracy we will need a presence there until then. Even then, there will be religious friction, we could easily form a three nation state from Iraq; one for Sunnis, one for Shities and one for Kurds. Redesign it like the British and French should have done +-90 years ago. So much for Gertrude Bell’s guesses.
Wow, that is a long way from NYC…:) again we drift, sorry.
Station409,
I agree with that bit about the 4000 looses we have suffered. It seems the terroists/insurgents/rag heads arent really that good at killing, well at least armed soldiers anyway. Let me get this straight, for six years, the “infidel” or “minions of the great evil” have walked their lands and the best these guys can do is take down 4000 grunts and God only knows how many more thousands of civilians? With at times well over 200,ooo targets residing in their country, 4000 dead is the best these jihad crazed camel jockeys can do? Your right, we lost that many in one day, one week, one month many times and didnt lose heart.
CNN ALWAYS portrays this as a huge number, it isnt when considering the length of time and ammount of teritory we are covering. Of course I have to make this statement so no one jumps down my throat: the troops have value and should not be considered disposable. But, they are the ones I want those cross eyed loonies shooting at, not our civilians on US soil. So, we keep an area open and give them the opportunity to light up our highly armed, trained military instead of coming here…smart military move, perhaps our skeptics and media should honestly consider that. I guarantee, if those fools were over here because we were not over there in their face, these media idiots and dissenters would not know how to act, I just dont like those whining cupcakes… We have done a great job militarily, end of story. The things like the political structure and the “exit strategy” will solidify after the region has stabilized, which could in fact be a very long time… if not, we come home and brace for the next wave of violence to wash up on our shores, which may happen anyway. If we could talk and that would make the difference, I’d be all for it, that is just not gonna work yet folks…
With regards to Swiss neutrality in WWII, it must be kept in mind that as a neutral, they provided a great humanitarian service. In addition to acting as go-betweens in the matter of exchanging interned civilians and diplomatic personnel, they also accompanied the International Red Cross on inspection tours of POW camps to make sure that signatories to the Geneva Convention were following the rules.
And they were not the only neutral country in Europe.
Still trying to recover from its Civil War, Spain sat out. So did Portugal, for similar reasons. Even though their island possessions in the Atlantic (the Canary Is., the Azores, Madiera) would have made for nice bases. Sweden stayed out as well; so did Turkey. Ireland was equally divided between hatred of Germany and hatred of England; so they stayed on the sidelines.
Of course, all neutrals titled one way or another as the fortunes of war shifted.
After the war, Ireland’s PM Eamon de Valera read a letter from a Capt. Henry Harrison in a parliamentary debate over Ireland’s not joining the moral crusade against Nazism. It summed up the attitude of the neutrals perfectly:
Other countries had remained neutral “when Denmark and Norway, Holland and Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece were in turn ravaged and enslaved.” These countries – the United States and the Soviet Union – “fought because they had to, because they were attacked. Little Ireland was not attacked. That is the difference. That is the sole difference. For there is nothing more certain than that Ireland would have fought back if she had been attacked.”
(“The Neutrals” by Denis J. Fodor, Time-Life Books, 1982)
Mutual support is much better than trying to go it alone.
Holy Crap !!!..Damned interesting viewpoints…I like the idea of taking the terror to the terrorists… with all these fancy weapons, you’d think we could find some way to insert a smart bomb into those camps they claim are in the Pakistan mountains. “Oops! Sorry Pakistan, we’re not bombing you but we’re currently fighting a war on terror and since you won’t rout them out, we will !!”
Thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Jeffrey93 you draw upon the exact quote that stuck out to me in that whole story!
“Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.”
Shame how it was overlooked by so many others.
It will always be easier to be in ‘the system’ where your actions, decisions, desires and thoughts are made for you
After all one wouldn’t want to be denounced as a supporter of violence or terror now would they?
Wake up, wake up, WAKE UP!
This article NEEDS to be recycled to the front page again. Not only does the explosion parallel 9/11, but preceded the stock market crash of 1929 by less than a decade. Look at where we are now.
Many comments, interesting discussion…
Re: Terrorism
Respect? Formidable opponent? I’d assume you’re kidding, but you’ve repeated this stuff so many times, that you probably truly believe it.
What exactly makes someone who can cobble together some explosives and either pack them in a car or wear them as a belt formidable? Any teen can download instructions from the internet, and pushing the detonator doesn’t take much brains either. In the case of those detonating the belt version it rather indicates a lack thereof.
Why should I respect someone who has to affirm his political or religious beliefs by killing innocents. That is simply a testament to their inability to find a peaceable solution.
Yes, I would and without hesitation.
There are those terrorists you mention, who throw away their own lives to become martyrs and kill as many infidels as they can in the process. Is that a brave thing to do?
Bravery is the willingness to act despite the fear, the risk or the perceived danger to oneself. So if you find a bomb and pick it up to carry it as far away form other people knowing full well that you will probably die in the process is brave. (Picking it up and carrying it even if there is noone around to protect would still be brave but also stupid.)
If you hold the firm belief that by killing yourself, you will gain access to a pleasurable afterlife, then there is no risk, no fear, no danger – so why should it be considered a brave act? In fact it could be considered an easy way out to secure said afterlife as opposed to living a life of piety.
Another kind of terrorists are those who recruit and send out the actual bombers. Are those brave? No, there is little risk to their safety as well, and many of them are intelligent enough not to believe the sermons they preach themselves. I guess quite a few of them are in it not for religious reasons at all, but for the power it gives them over their followers.
There is a third group who actually take up weapons and go up against superior forces. They may not fight fair in an open field battle, but to this group I’d be willing to concede a certain amount of bravery.
And then there are the remaining 99,9% of the world’s muslims who abhor terrorism as much as any US citizen does – maybe even more, because more of them have experienced it first hand – and who would be astounded that anyone would respect terrorists.
Wrong! Most Islamic countries DO want to coexist peacefully with the US and the rest of the world. Many of them have very good relations with western countries and their relations with the US are currently getting better by the month.
Re: WWII
I’d like to take exception to the notion that America “didn’t save anyone.” It is true that the allies would probably have won in Europe eventually even without the intervention of the US. No one can say for certain, because it didn’t happen, but a few plausible scenarios would be that either the war could have gone on long enough for Hitler (or more level-headed advisors) to negotiate a cease-fire or the war could have ended by Stalin reaching the river Rhine, maybe taking a bit of France for good measure.
In the pacific there was no power to halt the advance of Japan except for the US. Australia had no military to speak of, the British simply hadn’t enough troops to send to their colonies in India, Russia had no way of bringing enough troops and materiel across Siberia and most other nations were already beaten by the time the US entered the war.
Oh, and I’m not simply some patriotic American, who holds up the flag, but someone who would probably have grown up under a swastika or on the other side of the iron curtain had it not been for the intervention of the US.
Re: US as World Police
Oh but it does. When was the last time any other nation acted without the US taking the initiative? Thinking back it was probably back in 1939 when Britain and France decided that Hitler invading Poland was finally the last straw. By then he had annexed Austria invaded Czechoslovakia and installed a fascist regime in Spain.
Some people complain that the US only intervenes when its interests are somehow affected… Well yes, but then [I]it is not the duty[/I] of the US to police the world. I am glad that America sometimes takes the responsibility upon itself though, for apparently humanity as a whole is not yet fit to exist without a police force, and the UN does not seem to be capable of carrying out the duty that should be theirs.
Re: Nuclear Proliferation
What kind of attitude is that? I don’t care if they nuke you, just as long as they don’t nuke me? The country I live in is about the last western country any nation state would shoot nukes at. It doesn’t matter, because people are going to die no matter where the nuke is dropped. Besides terrorists don’t care about diplomatic relations. They’ll gladly nuke your country too given the oportunity.
Re: Miscellaneous
Whoa… naming Bismarck, Hitler and Hirohito in one breath is quite audacious. I suggest you brush up your reading on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck before doing so again.
Bismarck was one of the greatest statesmen of the 19th century. He was a stabilizing factor on European politics for over 30 years, managing to maintain peaceful relations with all European nations (except for France). Without his travails WWI might have started a few decades early.
He also implemented some of the first social security legislations worldwide, including Health, Insurance, Accident Insurance as well as Old Age and Disability Insurance.
Be very careful when using superlatives.
America may be a free country, but in some respects it is way behind several European nations.
So Might makes Right? You were stronger, so it was OK for you to make war on them and take their land? You really think, granting lots of privileges to descendants many generations removed from those that were actually wronged will make a difference?
Of course nobody who is alive today is actually responsible for what happened, but in the same vein, nobody who is alive today has any right to claim to be personally affected by what happened 200 years ago. Many families have lost everything and regained much several times over in this time, so sitting around in a reservation moping is not the thing to do.
Taliban Special Forces in action. Respect this?
http://splodetv.com/video/taliban-special-forces
I need th music on my ipod
Alright, I couldn’t read all of the comments, I think it took me an hour to get half way through, and I’m a pretty fast reader. Anyways, I have three points to make.
First of all, after we dropped the bombs on Japan, the war ended(with them, at least). We didn’t give a shit about winning ‘hearts and minds’. We helped them rebuild, and 50 years later relations have never been better with the Japanese. Maybe deep down they really hate us, but at least they are good at hiding it.
Secondly(and I got this from Wikipedia, so it may not be true. But what is the truth, really?), in the core Islamic belief system, they are specifically told that it is perfectly in accordance with Allah’s wishes to lie to the infidels. That you can tell a lie to someone as long as in your mind, you are telling God the truth. Play nice with the infidels when in a weakened position, but keep the hate buried deep so that you can turn on them when you have the means. I say ‘core’ belief because a few branches of the faith have specifically stated that they do not follow that. Of course, they could just be lying.
Lastly, we are all living in a historical time in history(what time isn’t?). Change of any type is difficult. The current difficulties are most likely as much to do with issues completely unrelated to current events as not. Whatever the outcome, humans will survive. We aren’t even remotely close to achieving the ultimate potential of the human race, but hardship and strife is absolutely necessary for the continued evolution of our species.
Yes, I am a bit of an Anarchist. But don’t forget that Family is proof of the concept, we just need to learn to extend it further than the people we live in the same home with.
I first replied to this article in May 2007.
Ten years ago…
How could that much time have slipped by?
What’s really scary is that I had forgotten this article and that I had responded to it.
No posts since 2008?
Odd.
Well, that was dumb.
I completely missed my comment from last year.