Kjartan Mannes

I just realized last night that I know more about the political and legal system of the United States than I do of the Norwegian system. This came to me as I was trying to read up on Norwegian politics to find out where my country is headed, and I kept getting confused. The irony is that I read a dozen or so political blogs that focus on U.S. politics and never suffer the same level of confusion. After trying to find out the cause of this I remember that I learnt most of the basis of the system used in the States from the few years I spent in school, in a Norwegian school and not the several international schools I attended while my family lived aboard. We spent 3 weeks on the checks and balances of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as well as the how the powers were divided between federal government and states. I've never had anything approaching the same information on the Norwegian system, and I haven't really got a clue on where to figure it out.

I actually know more about the Democratic presidential nominees than I do about the ministers of my own country. Or maybe its just one of those things Norwegians who have spent their whole life in Norway learn over the years. Seeing as I spent a little under 3 years in the Norwegian school system I might not be the best critic of the educational system in Norway. Which from my experience is rather backwards compared to some schools I have been through my during limited life experience so far.

The EU has released an FAQ on the new VAT regulations.

I read in a comment, forget where sorry, asking why European corporate lobbyists didn't prevent this from happening. Well, the story is more of them wanting it to happen because it gave an unfair advantage to non-EU companies selling to the Eurozone. EU companies have had to charge VAT all along, this just levels the playing field.

Enforcing this will be interesting, but I don’t think it’s a major problem. From what I remember with VAT regulations it’s the consumer’s responsibility to make sure they pay the VAT. This means that if the authorities ask if you paid VAT on product X you need to provide the documentation. This might not be a big issue for individuals, but will be of bigger concern to larger companies.

I dabble a little in politics now and then and try to keep up to date on global events. So, inevitably I end up having political discussions with people around the world. Today I had a bit of a weird encounter on IRC where we were discussing the current situation around the missing WMDs and what it would mean if the politicians from the USA and UK had lied. As such discussions go it was mostly friendly, they have a tendency to get heated unfortunately. However, at one point someone offered this gem of a thought:
<Fanatic> Hypothetically if you had been asleep for the past 50 years and when you woke up were told that we had just liberated millions of Iraqis from a cruel dictator, would you support it?
Not being one to ignore a challenge I had to rebut, it is this male ego of mine you know.
<Kjartan> Yes, well, where to start. You seem to miss the point of this debate, the moral issue is not in question. Of course we should liberate all people who live under oppressive regimes, but then why stop at Iraq? There must be several dozen other states out there that we could liberate. Also the freedom of the Iraqi people was not used as a main reason to go to war. The main reason was the immediate threat posed by Saddam and his regime. So far the evidence to support the positions by Bush and Blair before the war have not materialized.
<Kjartan> A better hypothetical would be: if you had been asleep for the past 60 years and when you woke up were told that we had just gone to war to destroy and prevent nuclear, biological and chemical weapons but after the war found no trace of them, even though we had such strong evidence we knew where they were before the war, would you support it?
<Kjartan> Both hypothetical situations are obviously flawed, but I think mine is closer to the events. Yours makes it into a moral issue which nobody in their right mind would say no to, but that was never how it was presented. Try again :)
* Fanatic has quit IRC (Leaving)
Guess he just didn't have any come back. It is really annoying to discuss politics with people who just repeat what they picked up from the nightly news instead of being able to think and make up their own opinions. We all get slanted by what we watch, but we should never fail to have our own opinions about the important issues.

I think it is only natural that the anti-American feels grow as more and more people oppose the war. The media is making more of the situation than it really is though. Controversy sells, reasoned logic doesn't.
---
Venner av Amerika (Norwegian Fiends of America) was started as an ad-hoc campaign against increasing anti-American sentiments in the Norwegian public debate. We wish to support the good bi-lateral relationship between Norway and the USA by highlighting the political and historical kinship between our two nations.

I think it is only natural that the anti-American feels grow as more and more people oppose the war. The media is making more of the situation than it really is though. Controversy sells, reasoned logic doesn't.

Personally I think the US misjudged the feelings other people had against Iraq. They came out hard against the Iraqi regime and almost from day one were making statements about Saddam having to be replaced by something else. The UN has never passed a resolution that Saddam has to be removed from power. He has to disarm which is a very different issue. For there to be a successful disarmament of Iraq there has to be the threat of war. Economic sanctions don't harm the regime as much as it harms the people of Iraq, so we need the thread of military action. However, there is a difference between the treat and the promise of war.

Saddam had been mostly quiet in his part of the world for the last decade. There have been incidents but nothing that represented a major thread. Then the US brings back the disarmament process, which is a good thing. I'm all for it. What I am against is the threat of war being so great that Saddam doesn't believe he will survive even if he does comply with UN resolutions. Most of Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter, are convinced that the US wants a war no matter what. Even if Iraq does a 180 and complies fully the US will want to have its war is the popular belief. From the speeches coming from the US government it is very hard to see a way out without a war. Europeans fear that pressing too much may cause the weapons Saddam possesses come into use, because not many people believe has no weapons either. We just don’t know what he has, and so far the proof presented hasn’t been believable.

We just don’t agree with the way the US is handling the issue.

The US ignored this fact for a long time, until it boiled over. It is not that we don't like Americans, we just do not agree with pushing the war to the point of no return so quickly. To us it seems the threat is getting us somewhere, inspections are making progress. Why then force Saddam into a situation where he has no choice but to use them? Does he seem like the person who would just roll over and play dead because we have him in a corner? I'm more convinced that he will retaliate with whatever he has, which may not be much or it may be something. Something tells me it won't be long till we find out.

Another issue I feel the US has quietly brushed over is what will do if/when Saddam is removed from power. It’s not like you have that many candidates to replace him with. The whole area is in a very delicate situation. One wrong move and the whole thing blows up. It is not the place to shot first and ask questions later. So we need a plan on how to deal with the situation after a war, and to do this we need the Arab world. The US has been alienating most of the Arab nations for a long time.

Eventually European politicians relying on votes could no long ignore the anti-war movement, as the US pushed for more the citizens around the world started to doubt the real intentions of the Bush government. In everything there is a balance. Since the Americans have gone really far to being pro war, someone had to provide the anti war argument. This I feel is a reason why France and Germany are so opposed to a war. Had the US pushed the war less, and emphasized the inspections until most of the world was convinced Saddam would not comply the anti war movement would have been proportionally less strong. How France and Germany will act when it is time to finally decide I’m not sure. Some think their opposition is just for show and that at the end of the day they may follow suit, others think they have gone so far into the anti war rhetoric that they, like the Americans, can’t back down without loosing face.

My fear is that even if a war in Iraq is a success and there are no immediate negative after effects that the way it all happened will cause there to be a greater risk of terrorism. Many nations around the world are feeling ignored by the US, and if the UN does not back the war it will be even worse. This may, will, cause more people to hate so much that they perpetrate horrible actions in the name of some silly cause. Handling the Iraq issue in this way does not strike me as the best way to make the world a safer place. There are so many more immediate threats that are not being handled already, so why go looking for more?

Interseting view of US politics. Not that from the truth either. Not the old world map though. Germany is still divided, the USSR still exists, and Yugoslavia still is one. Ah well, can't demand perfection.