The Slippery Slope

"...when the terrorists strike (whether they be from Al Qaeda or the IRA or the Hamas or Lashkar), they are part of a small group..."

If you are speaking of "card carrying" members then the groups may be small. If you start including those that support them, without being active participants, the group becomes much larger. Support can range from being the parent to those that provide food and shelter.

A perception in the USA is that many Mosques preach death to the infidels. Is that perception correct? I don't know, and maybe the number is small. My believe is that most Muslims are peaceful, but I understand how the excesses of the few causes problems for the masses.

The USA is a representative form of government. That does not mean that the representation reflects the will or thinking of the masses, or that the masses condone or support the views of the representatives. It is true that if you do not support the position of the CEO of your company you can quit. This November many of us will "quit" this representative body because it so often did not reflect our will. When I wrote my Senator and Representative about bailouts, and was ignored, I reserved the right to not vote for them.

Your argument for opting out of the elections is pretty good, but that's simply abstaining from voting for the government decisions. Not exactly quitting the government/country. And of course, as you can't find a government that will represent you 100%, there's no escape from the fact that even if you are able to elect a new government or simply leave the country and join another, the government may still not represent you. And I guess that's part of being a democracy.

Muslims have been cursed with poverty, lack of education and therefore no escape from the clutches of the religious preachers. They are the soft target for Jihadi groups and religious extremists.

.

Quote:

---

That's the convention whether the country is democratic or any other. It's the same when the CEO of a company takes a strategic decision. It is implied that the rest of the staff of the company support the decision. If you don't, you move out of the company.

The important difference, imo, is that when the terrorists strike (whether they be from Al Qaeda or the IRA or the Hamas or Lashkar), they are part of a small group of private individuals. When the head of a country like the USA decides to strike, it's the whole nation that has taken the decision.

So, if a common American wants to blame all the Muslims for the acts of a few, that's not accurate. But if an Iraqi wants to hold the entire USA responsible for the acts of GWB, he would be more justified in doing so.

---

Firstly i have worked at many organisation where i have completely disagreed with executive decisions, and have never even thought about leaving the company, this is because most people cant just make decisions like that out of principle, they have people to look after and bills to pay.

Secondly you cannot compare a Company to a country. You can choose the company you work for but not the country you are born in.

To say that if you dont like the decision of the president or government then you should move out of the country is a bit silly really. Were do you live Honeybee ? Would you leave your country and all your friends and family behind just because you disagree with a government decision ? Also moving countries is not a simple thing, there could be language barriers, many people are not high skilled workers, what do they do ? as it is a lot harder to emigrate somewhere if you are a low skilled worker.

Next your statement

Quote:

---

When the head of a country like the USA decides to strike, it's the whole nation that has taken the decision.

---

is just completely wrong, in the UK for instance Tony Blair decided to go to War in Iraq despite widespread opposition to it, the fact is that in times of War most Country leaders can do what they want regardless of what the people want. The whole nation most definitely has not taken the decision, in fact the whole nation has not had the chance to make any decision at all !!!

It is just as wrong to say all Americans or All British people are complicit in the War on terror, as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters. It is a fallacy which helps keep conflict alive.

I am no more responsible for Tony Blair's decisions than you are for Osama Bin Laden's !

I have already said there's a conflict within the model of democracy, where although in reality the government is never completely representative of each and every member of the democracy, the responsibility of the government decisions falls on each and every member of the democracy.

My point in comparing the company with the country wasn't that you should leave a country if you don't like a government decision, but to stress the above, that when you choose to stay on, you accept responsibility for the decision that has been taken, whether you subscribe to it or not.

A glaring example of this is the recent TARP scheme under which the government has now spent taxpayers' money on salvaging the very companies and institutions which siphoned off the same very taxpayers' money. Many people would not agree to bailing out the financial institutions, but once the government decides to do that, these people also have to share the responsibility, by way of whatever taxes they have to pay or the missed opportunities of using those funds for better purposes. Similarly when a country goes to war, its people have to sacrifice by way of joining the military, contributing to the war chest by additional taxes or surcharges and by many other means.

It is with this premise that I say the responsibility for a decision taken by the head of the state lies with the whole country, even if you individually do not subscribe to or accept the decision wholly/partially. If my country borrowed heavily from the World Bank or the IMF and then hiked taxes in order to repay these loans, I cannot stop paying the taxes saying I didn't agree with the decision to borrow. I am sure nobody will even bother asking me my opinion in this matter. But once the government decides that it will borrow now, and will hike taxes in the future to repay the loans, I must either follow the decision or leave the country. As a citizen of my country I must accept my share of the responsibility of my government's actions, whether I like or not.

Now, since this paradox is inherent in the democracy, it is also important to keep in mind that while you as citizen of a particular country may have to bear the responsibility of its actions, you as an individual may not agree with it. We usually tend to mix up the two, which is where the America-bashing or the Muslim-hating comes into picture.

To answer your last statement, if you are a Brit, as a Brit you are as responsible you are for the decisions Tony Blair took as the Prime Minister as I am for the decisions of my government. Thankfully Osama doesn't rule my country, but if he were heading a democratically elected government of my country, I would have to share the responsibility of his decisions too.

.

Quote:

---

My point in comparing the company with the country wasn't that you should leave a country if you don't like a government decision, but to stress the above, that when you choose to stay on, you accept responsibility for the decision that has been taken, whether you subscribe to it or not.

---

Right i see what you are saying but i dont agree. You talk about choosing to stay, i believe that many people do not choose to stay somewhere they have no choice. Emigration is not always a choice that everyone has for many reasons, and as i have said earlier for many people it is not an easy process.

Also personally i feel no responsibility in any way for the Iraq War or Afghanistan War. I have taken no part in it, i did not vote for it, i did not endorse it, i dont even have any family members involved in it.

Yes i pay taxes in the UK and some of those taxes will go to the MOD and the Army, but i have no option to opt out.

I am responsible for my own actions, and that's plenty enough thank you very much.

Also if the public are responsible for there government are the people of India then responsible for the alleged corruption in the build up to Commonwealth Games ?

Are the people of Zimbabwe responsible for Mugabe ?

how can the general public be responsible for the failing of those that run for office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Also if the public are responsible for there government are the people of India then responsible for the alleged corruption in the build up to Commonwealth Games ?

---

Yes, very much, as far as they are Indian citizens. It will be a national failure if the games fail, even if it is the result of the acts of a few.

Regarding Zimbabwe, the nature of democracy there is questionable at best, so I would not want to comment on it.

Your point on the practicalities of migrating to another country is perfectly valid. However going beyond that, when you become the citizen of a country (say for e.g. the USA), you have to pledge allegiance to the constitution and the rules and regulations. As in your case, if the war effort proves to be a great burden and if the government hikes taxes, you cannot escape paying them by saying you didn't support the war. That's your responsibility as a citizen of the country. As an individual you are free to your opinion, but as a citizen you must abide by the rules and regulations of your country.

.

Ah well i suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one then Honeybee,

Personally i feel the place i was born to be an act of chance and therefore the idea of me being responsible for my country's (place of birth's) actions is completely alien to me and something i reject.

You may feel some responsibility for your governments actions, but until such a time as my government can be trusted i reserve that right !

Abiding by the rules & laws of the country you live in for me is a completely different issue.

Yes, we can agree to disagree!

One last comment: In my posts (or even thoughts) I have not taken the country of citizenship to be synonymous with motherland. Motherland would be the country I was born in, but the country of citizenship could be different. All my arguments pertain to the country of which you hold a citizenship (and I have assumed you do not have dual citizenship). This is why I referred to the citizenship of the USA where cases of immigrant population becoming citizens are much higher than many other countries.

That reminds me: There must have been several people who defected from/deserted their motherlands, countries from Eastern Europe and sought asylum in the UK, US or Canada. Isn't that an example of people exercising their choice regarding government policies?

Yes, it's not easy when it comes to an individual and specific circumstances, but it can be done. Maybe there are ten people who were forced to put up with oppressive regimes for each one who defected, but the one who defected did get to exercise his right of abandoning the regime that didn't represent his views. So while it's difficult, maybe extremely, it's not completely impossible.