I've always wondered - do they really put flags in the corners of every elementary school classroom and get the kids to pledge allegiance each morning, or is it just on TV?

I grew up and went through the public school system in Tempe. AZ. We said the Pledge every morning for 12 years (1974-1986) I don't know if it's still done today. I don't recall anyone ever refusing to do it.

In elementary school (1983-1989) , we did flag pledges every morning. We no longer did them in homeroom in Jr. High and High School.

In middle school we pretty-much never did the pledge. When I got to high school we had "morning announcements" over the PA system which included the pledge every morning. Class of 1999 by the way.

In elementary school (1983-1989) , we did flag pledges every morning. We no longer did them in homeroom in Jr. High and High School.

We recited the pledge every day in elementary school. Now the strange thing to me is we said it so much it had no meaning. Additionally, we started at such a young age with perhaps limited vocabulary it was really like this:

iplegalegence tothuflag ofthe United States of America [pause] andtotherepublic forwhichitstands one nation undergod ...

I don't know if anyone else remembers it like this or not.

the strange thing to me is we said it so much it had no meaning

Brainwashing technique #1.

I don't think that anyone intended it that way, but it is a nice side effect.

I don't know if anyone else remembers it like this or not.

Pretty much. How many people can recite it alone, out loud and correctly? Not a lot can when they try...

I can. (Just did, quietly, so as not to confuse my cell^H^H^H^Hcubicle-mate.)

I had to think about it a little, but I got throught it the first time. I wonder if this is because it wasn't drummed into my head as a collection of phonemes.

P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?

The first two stores in Colorado Springs were placed 2 blocks from each other. The first one is on 134 N. Tejon, the second one is 7 S. Tejon. Both placed right near very successful local coffee shops. It actually generated quite a bit of local news, and for a while the Starbucks sat empty. But with the influx of more and more outsiders, the local coffee shops never bothered to move outside downtown, opening up the rest of the city to be claimed by Starbucks. The local shops are still around downtown though, and most offer full meals that make the visit well worth it.

Until a few weeks ago, I had never had anything from Starbucks. Now I'm hooked on their carmel apple cider drink.

Our businesses aren't state owned or run.

No, your state is business owned and run.

Sorry, I could not resist.

Seriously: Andy, Bitt and others pretty much said what I wanted to. However, let me stress this: not every complaint about American policy is a sign of animosity. I certainly don't hate USA, even less its citizens. We like the friendly giant, but we are wary of an elephant in a china shop, and we don't trust empire builders.

People here are rather well informed and don't tend to pass judgments based on prejudice. (A year or so ago an American here wrote that I was better informed about America than most of its inhabitants; I am proud if it, but I am a bit forced to be: quite often blunders of American policy affect me as much or more than those of 'my own' politicians.) So, our American friends (and I mean friends), don't react paranoically to out criticisms here: we share the world, and your country, by its own choice, has unproportional share of responsibility for the future of it. Try to listen here and there to a view from outside.

Cheers!

and your country, by its own choice, has unproportional share of responsibility for the future of it.

Don't you mean "by its own success"? The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower. Furthermore, most countries which begin to climb the ladder end up falling from grace rather quickly. You phrase your argument as if one day, we just decided we were going to take an "unproportional" share. We *earned* that share. And our responsible use of that power (in most cases) is what allows us to keep it.

The "empire builder" comment is just plain ridiculous, and nullifies your pat-on-the-back about not passing judgements based on prejudice. America might throw its weight around a little bit on foreign policy matters, and mistakes have certainly been made (Vietnam being one of the most recognizable.) But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort. I'm not so delusional to think that every move the U.S. has ever made is of the noblest intentions of making the world a better place, but to call us imperialists is taking things a little too far.

This quote from Colin Powell (one of the few in the Bush Administration I respect) sums up how much land the U.S. is after in its world affairs (source)

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort.

Perhaps you should read your history about the Panama Canal.

Hmm. I'll admit I'm not up on my canal history, but this encyclopedia entry about the canal's history doesn't reek of imperialism to me. Especially since, as of 1999, the Canal is under Panamanian control. It sounds to me like the U.S. pretty much purchased all the rights along the way to make the canal happen.

Another quote I saw in my googling said "the U.S. has at least as much right to the Canal as it does to Texas" and that seems about right to me. The fact that we've since released control to the Panama government would seem to underscore our lack of interest in having it be part of our "empire."

The Panama Canal. Would Panama have the Panama Canal without the US?

Actually, Texas is another good example. In fact, all of Manifest Destiny.

From that entry, though:

Active negotiations led in 1846 to a treaty, by which the republic of New Granada (consisting of present-day Panama and Colombia) granted the United States transit rights across the Isthmus of Panama in return for a guarantee of the neutrality and sovereignty of New Granada.

...

The Hay-Herrán Treaty, signed (Jan., 1903) with Colombia, would have given the United States a strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama in return for an initial cash payment of $10 million and an annuity of $250,000, but the Colombian senate refused to ratify it. An insurrection, involving Bunau-Varilla and other proponents of the canal as well as the regional population, was encouraged by the United States. Panama rose in revolt on Nov. 3, 1903, declaring itself independent of Colombia. Invoking the treaty of 1846, the United States sent an American warship to Panama, and its presence prevented Colombian troops from quelling the outbreak. The new republic was formally recognized three days later, and on Nov. 17 the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed, granting to the United States, in return for the same terms offered Colombia, exclusive control of a canal zone in perpetuity, other sites necessary for defense, and sanitary control of Panama City and Colón. Colombia’s efforts to secure redress for the loss of Panama later resulted in ratification of a treaty (1921) by which the United States paid Colombia $25 million, and Colombia recognized the independence of Panama.

So the US decided they wanted Panama to build a canal, fomented revolution in Panama, and somehow claimed rights to have a warship in the area, preventing the rebellion from being quelled, based on a treaty with a country that no longer existed that stated that the US couldn't intervene.

And I think that understates the case.

proper rules of engagement

While I totally understand your point -- war is hell and all -- if he's going to complain that they're not following the Geneva Convention, he should do so himself:

[The] prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

Source: The Guardian

They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22)

As opposed to interned in a posh hotel? I haven't read those articles, but where are we supposed to intern prisoners, other than in a prison?

The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower.

No, but it can decide not to be a super-power.

an effort to build an empire

We're not necessarily talking about occupying the land. It's enough that US throws its weight around in order to exert influence over other countries, for the benefit of US corporations. Chile is a good example of this.

In a way, the US is lucky in this regard. When the British decided that they wanted to trade with other countries (in order to enrich their own merchant class), we actually had to invade them with troops. The US gets to use McDonalds and Disney.

Part of the problem is that we here in Europe see (from our perspective at least), the US making some of the same foreign policy decisions/mistakes that we did when we were empire-building. How can we tell the difference?

Don't get me wrong. I like America. I like all of the Americans that I've met -- both in person, and on the BBS. But, face it, your government comes across as arrogant, and misconstruing our criticism of US policy as criticism of US citizens is entirely missing the point.

where are we supposed to intern prisoners, other than in a prison?

From here:

Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.

The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent.

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure how the US is in contravention of this article. I assume that the proscription of penitentiaries is designed to prevent POWs being locked up along with criminals -- which would imply that they were criminals.

Moreover, it specifically states that "The Detaining Power" should build camps for the prisoners.

About the only thing in here that I'm not sure about is whether the "climate [in Cuba] is injurious for them".

Edit: The introduction to the Geneva Convention is here

if he's going to complain that they're not following the Geneva Convention, he should do so himself

By their very nature, those people are illegal combatants. The idea of illegal combatants was not invented to persecute civilians who take up arms but to protect civilians that choose not to and to safeguard all civilians from the direct action of military force. Here is a link that explains how it works and why it is important. If you want, you can skip to the second to the last paragraph and get the gist.

I'm unsure how people defending themselves in their own country (to be clear, in this case, it's Afghanistan) against an attacking force (to be clear, I supported that action) can be illegal combatants.

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure how the US is in contravention of this article.

They are in the penitentiary of the base in Guantanamo Bay. It's a military jail, not a POW camp.

I'm unsure how people defending themselves in their own country (to be clear, in this case, it's Afghanistan) against an attacking force (to be clear, I supported that action) can be illegal combatants.

Because they are not clearly identified as a soldier. Does that make sense? If it were legal for combatants can be dressed in civilian clothes and act like a civilian and then take pot shots at clearly identified enemy combatants then all civilians would then be suspect and the civilians who wish immunity from being shot at on sight will be much more likely to be shot at on sight because the ennemy combatants can't tell the difference. That's why it is a rule of war.

It's a military jail, not a POW camp.

But if it's not (currently) got criminals in it, then it might not be classed as a penitentiary. I see your point, though.

I think the killer clause is the one that requires that the POWs be quartered in equivalent conditions to the US troops, though (but that's Article 25).

Because they are not clearly identified as a soldier.

Specifically (III.Art4.2.b): that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

Although:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

...might be a getout clause, provided that they then organise themselves.

They are in the penitentiary of the base in Guantanamo Bay. It's a military jail, not a POW camp.

See above. If you accept they are illegal combatants then the US cannot be in violation of the Geneva Convention. The real argument is whether they are illegal combatants. I think the US freely admits they are not following the Geneva Covention with regards to those detainees (that sounds so much nicer).

...might be a getout clause, provided that they then organise themselves.

Understood. Maybe the UN could pass a resolution with "serious consequences" if the US doesn't release them. [just a little poke at the UN].

The real argument is whether they are illegal combatants.

Even if we accept that they are illegal combatants (and are thus not covered by the Geneva Convention), they're not being treated equivalently to other criminals held in the USA. The way in which they are being treated (blackout goggles, no access to legal representation, etc.) is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.

To be fair...is there any nation in any major war that has come as close to following the Geneva convention as we have?

I've read accounts written by WWII vets of shooting soldiers who were trying to surrender (both by allies and axis.)

Here we are mincing over whether Guantanamo is a prison or POW camp, while it's probably a resort compared to how ANY troops were quartered at the time the Geneva Convention was written.

EDIT: I have a close friend stationed down there right now...I'll try to get a hold of him and ask him what the conditions are like for the detainees

This is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.

I am uncertain as to this reference. Just curious... What human rights law specifically affords that right? Does it matter that they are not being held in the US proper?

To be fair...is there any nation in any major war that has come as close to following the Geneva convention as we have?

To be fair, you're not following the Geneva convention in this case, so your point is moot .

In all honesty, I have no evidence that, in general, the US is worse (or better) at following the Geneva Convention than any other nation involved in a conflict. I assume that (based on the fact that the US is a civilised nation), the US would follow it pretty closely.