Saturday, March 20, 2010
I originally wrote this in response to the discussion about the possible withholding of arms for Israel.
This evolved into a discussion of arms trade involving Israeli inventions, the US prevention thereof and some other issues that got me thinking about democracies, especially small ones versus great powers and also the morality or rather amorality of "interests:" So I decided to make a separate post. I apologize that it's kind of long but I'm trying to pull some ideas together here because I think we're seeing a lot of overlapping issues.
So - I started out by venting about the canard about Israeli power relative to ours:
Look. The baloney about America being controlled by Israel is ridiculous, it is obviously the other way around, to the point of saying what they can and cannot sell or build or live or even if they will have the capability to defend themselves. That is the harsh reality. There are some discussions on TNR about why Obama isn't being tough on Russia for example which clearly isn't acting in American interests as a rule, so why is he beating up the Israelis.
Well it's pretty obvious - Russia is big and powerful and rich in resources and Israel is small and dependent on us. So duh. It sucks but there it is. PS so much for defending minorities not to mention honoring democracy in practice.
The Israeli democracy is a pain in the kazoo precisely because it is a democracy. So here we are supposedly promoting democratic ideals but when it comes down to it it's easier to deal with dictators.
And that sucks too.
One wonders if, having set up a democracy in Iraq to replace Saddam, we will be pleased if it turns out to be a radical Shi'a democracy. In Latin America when we didn't like how elections or revolutions worked out we have "suggested regime change."
Note my use of quotes and euphemisms is sort of like "crude homemade rockets."
The same thing of course happens if certain pet dictators get out of control, like Saddam. "Regime change."
But when a democratic ally is more or less threatened with suggestions that maybe they should change their elected regime, as per Goldberg's theories in the Atlantic - that is beyond hypocritical.
Of course the implications that apartments in Jerusalem threaten American soldiers approaches a blood libel and it's also absurd considering the fact that imperial powers have been meddling in the East for centuries and this includes Muslim empires as well as Western empires and corporate interests such as the oil industry.
We have had two wars with Iraq - having armed a terrible dictator who then attacked Iran, murdered his own people with WMD's, invaded Kuwait - and apartments in Israel are responsible for this? Apartments in Israel are responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of that country and our arming of the mujeheddin we now fight? This is Orwellian, definitely.
Meanwhile another important issue remains - globalization hasn't worked out exactly as planned. A more open system of enterprise hasn't really defanged China or made it less militarily potent, not that I find this surprising.
It hasn't made us less militant either, come to think of it, and there is now a danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and international arms trade is not only huge but often ungoverned and now includes fissile materials that could easily wind up in the hands of terrorists or states that disagree with our point of view (to put it mildly - in fact Pakistan could easily come such a state.)
Here's an interesting piece, it's long but worth reading I think.
Anyway, this is related to the Israel discussion in a lot of ways, some subtle, some pretty obvious, as market forces and sheer demographics on a global scale threaten to overwhelm local governments and the interests and relative power of their citizens.
Look at the EU - now the Germans are balking at rescuing Greece and this could have an enormous effect on the global economy, but also EU politics are not democratic in the sense that local French politics are democratic, etc - the power of upper EU echelons are remote from people in their respective nations.
And we're seeing too just exactly how much Europeans actually love their neighbors when it comes down to it - prosperous, efficient Germany is not eager at all to save the Greeks, who besides sun and water don't have much besides culture and rocks - they really are in a bad spot economically which is why historically Greeks took to the seas, to trade, and many today live in diaspora just to make a living. But the Germans are asking, so what? We should care why?
So much for globalizing risk and improving regional economies! The Greek crisis could actually, by itself, threaten the global economy precisely because we are so globalized and interdependent.
Likewise, corporate power isn't democratic at all and when people discuss "interests" frequently they are discussing a combination, I think, of military and corporate power. They are not discussing lives, morals, history or the national ethos - ideals like fraternity, equality, liberty.
Corporate power, globalized corporate power in particular doesn't fly the American flag - it no longer represents American ideals let alone the interests or will of the people. That's so obvious just in the decay of our industries and in the loss of so many American jobs. And, in many cases national political decisions don't reflect the will of the people.
Now, in re Israel, Congress has voted repeatedly to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital but the US has yet to do so.
This has sent mixed signals to the world including the Israelis and it's also kept the issue of Jerusalem and whether it should be "Palestinian" alive.
Was this even an issue when the Jordanians annexed the Old City and the West Bank?
Anyway, when it comes to diplomacy I think really clear, firm messages that don't change every five minutes are far more likely to resolve conflicts than this ambiguity which actually serves to play both sides against the middle.
I guess it's a sort of Machiavellian strategy of "divide and conquer" but we are playing with real lives here. This has always been the case of course - but our ideals tend to paper over the harsh reality: when it comes down to it although we celebrate life, the value of the individual and human rights - we ignore or even act in opposition to our stated ideals and national values.
And, when it comes to making peace between the Israelis and the Arabs, we may have inadvertently (?) hardened positions on the edges with The Great Apartment Flap - Bibi might actually become more popular, not less, and the Palestinians are not only not negotiating they are rioting and shooting rockets.
Swell. We may actually have helped start another war instead of getting people to sit down and negotiate.
All of the above is what people like Chomsky are trying to say when they criticize great powers including the US. There is some truth to his point of view, or to the general point of view about imperialism, or if you want to reduce it still further to the temptation to abuse power.
No country, no group of people is immune to that either - in fact I think the Israelis are also guilty in that regard from time to time though hardly to the degree one would think given the outrageous propaganda.
Regardless it's a common feature of humanity - have gun, will shoot.
And, our own frequently ambiguous and confusing foreign policies also reflect the fact that the US is a democracy or at least a kind of republic and we also have a range of opinion within the government and among the people - so Congress and the people might think one way and the State Department another, the business community a third, then there's the military, etc, plus under our system the very powerful executive branch potentially changes every 4 years.
And, our policies greatly reflect the power of globalized corporate interests and the nexus of military and economic power that is really running things to a very large extent, far beyond the control or input of individual people unless they happen to be uniquely wealthy and powerful.
Little countries like Israel, regardless of what they've created or how much they love America or how moral their point of view, don't matter when it comes down to that kind of power. Thus you see Mearscheimer and Walt "realism" about American interest - you see the British Empire - who the hell cares about a few Jews if they get in the way of that?
For that matter what chance did Judea have against Rome?
Compared to that what kind of power do any little people really have?
This applies domestically too, actually. All the demonstrations of the sixties - power to the people - red banners, celebrations of The Worker - protests against the war - what happened? Basically the "revolution" just vanished and people did what people do - eventually the war fizzled out when we declared "Peace With Honor," as the Communists overran the South and our dead mounted to 50,000 and so many horribly injured veterans.
We carved the names of the dead on a black stone wall. We went to work, we raised our families - we sort of forgot. We watched TV, the kabuki theatre of politics, we watched wars on TV as if they were movies. Do you remember watching the bombardment of Baghdad, the SCUDs falling in Israel?
The Tea Parties of today might be a similar manifestation of sixties-type frustration, of a sense that the control of major issues is totally beyond our control regardless of what side of the issues or political spectrum we support.
Meanwhile, the world changed and the centers of power have become, I think, even more remote and further and further from any kind of actual local input let alone individual input.
We don't have any say whatsoever over what our corporate bosses do. I personally have been through so many recessions and downsizing, so many job redefinitions, retraining - and meanwhile the jobs dwindle and our prosperity dwindles regardless of what we personally might do or may have contributed - and many of us are facing retirement with next to nothing.
And, I am beginning to wonder if "globalization" isn't just a new word for imperialism only now it wears a Nike logo instead of an emperor's coat of arms.
I also sense that "interests" are completely untethered from the ideals that epitomize and define our nation. Worst of all the US - the world - seems to be feeling like an Orwellian novel. We are on camera all the time, we don't know what or whom to believe.
Everyday just by cross-checking a few sources the mendacity of major media - often on issues dealing with Israel - are nakedly apparent.
Sometimes I feel like myself am wearing a tinfoil hat but when I read one day that a certain blog is read by certain powerful people and then a couple of weeks later said blog is quoting Juan Cole and publishing highly inaccurate anti-Israel propaganda - and when I read an actual poll in Ha'aretz that says x and the MSM reports that it says y - I gotta wonder if my hat isn't pretty accurate.
What do you guys think?
I thoroughly enjoyed your meandering almost incoherent rant, Sophia. Thanks for posting.
"our policies greatly reflect the power of globalized corporate interests and the nexus of military and economic power that is really running things to a very large extent"
"I am beginning to wonder if "globalization" isn't just a new word for imperialism"
Those are very attractive for the embittered Leftist.
May I recommend a book to you? Actually several, from the same author, Niall Ferguson.
Empire
Colossus
The War of the World
It is a good 3 book run. Ferguson, first apologizes for the British Empire, claiming it to be on balance Good. Then discusses the US as extenuation of the British and in its own peculiar fashion as empire, and its ambivalence about this, which leads to frustration. Then a somewhat new (but different perspective) of the 20th Century violence and conflict and the macro drivers of it.
I would also urge you to think of the US as a democratic republic (though it is loosing its republic aspects somewhat), and how that makes the US unsteady in its foreign policy...and thus somewhat unreliable. It is criticized for applying effort based on principles in some theatres, and then not doing a damn thing in others, over time. Which makes it seem perhaps more self interested, than perhaps it otherwise would be seen, due to the seemingly capriciousness of its behavior as an actor in the world.
For example, hanging the South Vietnamese out to dry, basically due to internal political pressure from the 5th column, oops, I mean the left.
Anyways, it may be better to reinstitute direct imperial governance and control, if you are looking at stability and peace and prosperity at the local level...at least without a 5th column or Leftist revolutionaries stirring up shit and arming disgruntled groups (as the Soviets and Cubans did so well). Even the Zimbabweans look back fondly to the days of the Ian Smith government.
But alas...
Thank you for reading my rant.
I understand exactly what you are saying about US power and principles meandering from time to time due the nature of our political system.
I do NOT endorse imperial power for the sake of stability. I certainly hope you didn't get that impression EV. Quite the opposite in fact, and because of that I think in general people could stand to be a bit more patient, more flexible, try to work things out if possible
I will check out the books you suggest. Thank you.
David Brooks wrote a good article about our society the other day, I'll find it and link it.
Sophia,
I have something niggling about the words you chose in
especially small ones versus great powers and also the morality or rather amorality of "interests:"
Great also implies something positive as opposed to just being big, the opposite of small, or insignificant.
So what is so "great" about the big powers?
What does amorality mean in this case given that amoral is being neither moral nor immoral?
By the way came across this following piece from Asia Times
Obama in more trouble than Netanyahu over Iran
Do you think that the US is still an Imperial power or is that just another of the clichés along with "Human Rights", "Democracy" used by the Left?
I do NOT endorse imperial power for the sake of stability. -- Sophia
Then you endorse an increase in violence worldwide and genocides as its cohort.
You can get started with these 2 videos, you may be able to find in your library. The Ferguson video is likely there, and I have the 2nd if you would like me to send it to you. Its just gathering dust here.
The War of the World DVD - Niall Ferguson
The World Without US with Niall Ferguson DVD
So now it's all about globalism and the lack of control by the "little people"? No Sophia, it's about putting the wrong person in the Whitehouse - someone who sounded like a Chicago politician and who expressed no clear moral principles during the campaign - but who's followers assured us that he was cleverly "not giving ammunition" to the Republicans. You supported him because he's a "liberal" and because he's black - and because he wasn't John McCain.
I daresay, with all of McCain's faults, that Israel's security and longevity would not be in doubt today if he had been elected. I also doubt that anyone would be seriously worrying about Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons.
Hi guys.
I realize that by nature the issues we're discussing are complex and there's no simple answer.
EV's point is well-taken. We peaceniks hate the violence around the world and the fact that sometimes the US seems to be behaving like a drunken elephant. I think that was also true of the Soviet Union and other mighty powers of course. And, when we look back at the 20th century with its two horrible world wars I think this current situation is an improvement.
On a micro-level, are there any groups of people who haven't been aggressive on occasion? Even Native Americans had inter-tribal wars - maybe we are hard-wired to attack first and talk later? Lord I hope not but sometimes I wonder. I'd like to think people are "good" but I have my doubts (well-meaning inner idealist still not completely dead though).
Anyway, Cold War proxy wars and even stress between 19th century empires continue to have ripple effects today and so do the effects of rapid modernization on very old, conservative cultures (like the Middle East/Central Asia.)
So EV asks - would it be worse without us or our projection of military power? Would the wars be even worse? That's possible, definitely, and it clouds the argument and makes it impossible to come up with a black/white, good/evil paradigm.
Also, even without the US there are other huge powers, some hostile and competing with us; and if the US became Dove City tomorrow they'd still exist. And, there are the unpredictable factors, like al Qaeda, which would also still erupt I think.
Cynic asks if the US is still an imperial power and makes a good point between "great" and "big". I use the term great in the sense of big I guess. I do think we are great in many ways, though. President Obama articulated this in Cairo far better than I can. But the point is well-taken.
As to whether we are an imperial power or not - well nobody has conventional empires in the sense of Rome or Britain anymore. But there are "spheres of influence" and economic imperialism for sure and also hyper-military power.
But look at all this power and how much it has affected our attempts to make better relations with Iran. Iran has just flipped us the bird again, though the headline more elegantly phrases this as "coolness":
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/iran-s-supreme-leader-390244.html
And, Bibi is sticking to Israel's assertion that Jerusalem is their capital.
Maybe that's as it should be. Small nations and their people have rights too whether they behave like wholly owned subsidiaries of United Banana or not.
But I think the Arab/Israeli conflict is very serious and needs work (obviously) and Iran's government and nuclear program are a threat so - what's the best path forward?
Personally I'd like to see less hardware and more persuasion but also, to realize that it takes time to solve problems, we can't, nobody can just flip a switch and change the world overnight.
Here's the Brooks article which I think is interesting -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19brooks.html?src=me&ref=general
Here is The War of the World on youtube 30 parts (Its 3 hours altogether on the disk).
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE79F8DF49019930
Hi Ray,
No, I didn't vote for Obama because of his color. What an absurd thing to say. I thought and still do that he's an inspirational person, and he is extremely intelligent and seems to be able to think outside the box in some ways which could be very valuable to the US in the long run.
I would have preferred Hillary or Joe Biden because of their vastly greater experience though. I personally happen to think age and experience are important and therefore your comment assuming that I don't like John McCain is just wrong.
I actually respect John McCain. But Sarah Palin, I have to admit I had a strong reaction against her, because she is way too far right for me and also because she started whipping up crowds using false accusations about Obama and Democrats in general even and this hasn't really stopped.
For example accusing President Obama of desiring death panels is just an awful thing to say. In fact, the system we have now really does have death panels. They even call their practice, as you age or get sick the death spiral.
If your insurer drops you and decides not to approve a necessary treatment or if you can't afford insurance, for example in CA they've raised premiums by 40% overnight, you are quite literally likely to die so this is an important issue.
Also environmental issues are vital, it's vital that we address these and stop trying to ignore the deleterious effects of pollution on our planet.
As far as globalization is concerned, there most certainly are overlapping issues here. I'm sorry if I'm unable to better articulate and pull all these ideas together.
But one of the problems I have with EU style regional governments, the idea of a global government and even the UN is precisely that the centers of power are too remote from local businesses, people and politics and they are inherently undemocratic and so are corporate politics. This is especially true of multinationals who in no way shape or form support any kind of national ideal.
Am I wrong? I realize we are not going to agree about Obama, Palin etc so let's not go there.
But what about globalization and regional governments, multinationals and corporate influence on international politics and national diplomacy including ours?
For just one example look at the huge impact of the oil industry alone since the late 19th century on geopolitics.
So, if I am wrong about these issues, show me how and where?
"Anyway, Cold War proxy wars and even stress between 19th century empires continue to have ripple effects today and so do the effects of rapid modernization on very old, conservative cultures (like the Middle East/Central Asia.)"
Niall Ferguson's take is that the fading Euro Imperial power of the 20th century (and especially after WW2) were only aggravated by the Soviets, who supplied the weaponry, expertise, ideological vehicle, to the former colonials to wage violent war against the the former colonial structures, either still in place or which had already been handed over to the locals in some form or fashion.
Proxy war, makes it sound as if the SuperPowers were responsible for the wars only. This is false, and furthermore, to equally blame the US and the Soviets is also a mistake. The Soviets were agitating populations to revolution and supplying the weaponry and money (and the accompanying prestige to the locals) to make it happen.
The Arab Israeli conflict is the result of the vacuum left by empires that retreated the Ottoman and the British (and French). And is just one example of many, as local groups fight to establish an order that they are satisfied with, which often means ethnic cleansing (see Turkey), genocide, terrorism, violence, war, etc.
Sophia,
Personally I'd like to see less hardware and more persuasion but also,
Please wake up to the reality that relates to human beings and their "psychosis spectrum".
Don't project your thinking onto others in the expectation that cultural differences will evaporate.
The US might be a super power but it is projecting fear of and uncertainty in using that power which only emboldens countries like Iran and reduces the possibility of support from other countries who now see it as a loser.
Jeez. I actually agree with both Cynic and EV at least to some extent.
Cynic what do you mean about "psychosis spectrum?"
Sophia,
I was being sarcastic in an attempt to encompass the gamut of mental states that we come across and have to deal with nowadays along with the cultural baggage that these humans drag along with them.
Some times I don't know whether to laugh or cry when observing how seemingly similar cultures cannot get along and the selfsame clowns then enjoin actions for two disparate cultures to engage.
Oh - :)
I thought maybe you meant that People Are No Damned Good, which was my ex-father-in-law's philosphy, and he saw a lot of People At Their Absolute Worst as a military professional who'd fought in several wars.
It was his Theory Of Everything in fact.
Me, I'm of the Anne Frank school, insisting that People Are Really Good At Heart Even If They Have a Distressing Propensity For Goosestepping And Worse.
Sigh.
As far as clowns - well I guess you mean one-state clowns or peace-will-break-out-any-minute-clowns in particular.
Nu?
I do think there are ways to create paths of commonality even across cultural divides. Commerce is one, culture is another, we find things to enjoy about each other and this will get us talking. In my work I've seen this many times. Say I'm performing for an audience that typically would include many Americans but also people from all over the Middle East - Israeis, Palestinian Arabs, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Turks, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Lebanese. Through the power of art all these disparate people come together even if it's only for a few minutes. It can be done and we can build from this.
Example in Israel there are teams of Jewish and Arab Israeli filmmakers, musicians, and some include Palestinians too. The Middle Eastern Jews are quite close to Arab culture, etc. Some Bedouin apparently still practice vestiges of Judaism. It is far from hopeless but I think this sort of healing has to be on a local, person to person level and can't be forced from outside, which I suppose is what I am trying to say in my rant.
What the US and other big powers can do though is try to encourage non-violence and security that will stop attacks before they start, and help create an atmosphere where incitement is kept to a minimum, so as to allow for healing. I think people here and in Europe though need a) to really want to create peace b) to stop the incitement - look at some of the s*** that comes from outside and c) be patient.
OK this is getting ridiculous. My cat is sitting on my mouse.
Later:)
Again, the US isnt the problem. The problem is Iran and Arabs.
The US cant force anyone to make peace if they dont want to, or are unwilling to.
Sophia, Of course, I should not have suggested that you voted for O for that reason. But I do believe that this was a primary motivation for many voters. Based on reading many of your fine comments I'd find it surprising if that wasn't part of your reason.That's not wrong either - as long as it did not overshadow substantive issues. Like you, I found McCain's choice for VP the real killer for me. I also agree with you re: the EU model as having serious problems.
I did prefer Hillary over Obama and her experience was part of that. I also thought she was more forthcoming re: her values which I found lacking in Obama. Now however, I am seeing a side of her I don't like very much.
Where I strongly disagree with you is where we've always seen things differently: it's your belief that Arabs are just like us and will repond similarly if we treat them like Westerners and respect their supposedly similar humanity and motivations. Richard Landes describes this psychological state as cognitive egocentrism. It is firmly embedded in the minds of most liberals I've ever met including you. I realize it is difficult to imagine that some millions of Muslim Arabs and Persians do not share our same basic emotions when dealing with others inside or outside their society - but they do not - and this erroneous belief is why the Western world is now in a defensive stance with Islamism and steadily losing ground in this war.
The evidence is overwhelming that large majorities of Arabs/Persians and Muslim Turks see life as a struggle for personal dominance as measured in units of honor and shame, not in terms of personal happiness for the greatest number as we've become accustomed to in the West. I know these words will be jarring to you as they refute a very important belief that lies at the heart of your belief system - that all humans are basically the same and only want happiness and peace. But, in A/P society, happiness comes from physically dominating others to gain power and acquire wealth at their expense. Sharing a larger wealth created by honest government and education is not relevant. You only win if others lose. This world view permeates A/P society throughout the ME and into the Balkans. Happiness for them comes only when you have humiliated anyone else who seeks honor at your expense. It is better to die trying to win by shaming others than to compromise. Compromise means you have lost. For leaders compromise with enemies means assassination.
They deal this way with each other as well as with any foreign states they come into contact with. It starts in the family with the children and permeates all levels of society. That's why today there is no ME state that actually elects its leaders and who's leaders can remain alive without several layers of secret police protection. It's why Palestinians will gladly commit suicide if they can also take a bus full of Jews with them.
Obama, Hillary, most liberals including you and many progressive Jews do not understand this as it violates your basic liberal world view. I know because I used to share that view too and never questioned it. But, you all need to open your minds to this disturbing truth before it's too late.
What you are doing is exactly what the world did in the 30's while Adolph Hitler was taking steps to create his greater Germany - pretending that if we just treated him as a friend and maybe gave him Austria and Czechoslovakia then everything would work itself out because after all - "the Nazis are just like us and only want some respect". This time we are headed for a war that will make WWII look like child's play. Reality often does not feel very good. But that does not justify ignoring it.
Well Ray you know how much I respect Richard Landes and I do think the honor/shame paradigm is real.
Still I guess we have got to find a way to overcome that or at least communicate with it if that makes any sense.
Is this even possible? Or is change possible? And, isn't it possible to communicate as people, with people? This can and does transcend culture doesn't it? Or is this just me being an idiot?
As to Hillary, Ben Smith at Politico excerpted a bit from her (really pretty excellent) AIPAC speech:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Clinton_Israel_cant_control_the_images_and_the_messages.html
Now this comes across as sort of prejudicial on his part imo but that said, she's right.
The 'net, the inflammatory 24/7 content on Arab networks and Press TV are full of antisemitic and anti-Israel incitement. Lies and slanders are spread in the US even, from the far right to the far left.
This isn't helping matters. And even if in actual fact Israel is hardly central to regional conflict the media and the internet have made it central and this is forcing the issue of US interests vs Israeli survival.
I apologize if this is off topic but in a sense it's on topic, on the subject of our interconnectness these days which is both good and bad, and also it highlights the vulnerability of people against whom it is all to easy to stir up real hate ie Jews.
I get the sense that for Israel there's really no choice. I think maybe Jerusalem can be separated out as an issue but otherwise it's over. It's withdraw or else or annex the West Bank and give everybody citizenship.
I think that Hillary is reflecting this perception. It doesn't matter what we say about history etc or even what is or is not moral.
She's also correct that guarding the borders won't prevent missile attacks.
So, she's coming across as a hardass but I think she's being realistic.
Thoughts?
Ray in Seattle AKBHAR!
Sophia, you said earlier that you view the world as 15 year old Anne Frank did - that people are basically good - except for the ones who are murderous thugs and those who apologize for murderous thugs.
islamofascists view "compromise" as little steps to their ultimate goal.
Anyone who closes their eyes to the obvious are FOOLS.
Again, the real NAKBA for "leftists", islamofascists, neo-fascists, is the catastrophe that the Israelis are NOT the unarmed Jews of WW2 nazi filth infested WW2 europe.
Sophia, Thanks for your response although it has me shaking my head. I can see you don;t really understand what I am saying: that people in different cultures see the world differently than we do - and that makes them act in certain ways that don;t make sense to us. But that is the reality and wringing our hands or trying to "communicate" will not change it. Perhaps if I reworded your comment a bit this might help. Imagine that you said this in 1939.
I think you will find that there were many Brits, French and Americans saying much the same thing in 1939. They prevailed for several years but turned out to be terribly wrong. Many millions of innocent civilians, six million of them Jews, paid the price for that wishful thinking. (Thanks to Escape Velocity for posting that link to "World of War" above.) As that program points out, if the West had dealt with Hitler using as much force as necessary to destroy him and his movement at the first signs of despotism and threats against other peoples - and even if some German civilians had been killed - then many millions of civilian (and military) lives would have been saved. It is likely Hitler's own forces would have revolted and done him in. The terrible destruction of WWII is a monument to such wishful thinking.
BTW, I don't think you are an idiot. You are probably well above average intelligence and a damned good writer. You have some beliefs that I see as irrational; that you hold because they make you feel good, not because they withstand any rational test. I'm sure I hold some irrational beliefs as well but in this case I think I'm right.
Hi Ray, Eddie,
With respect, I don't think that cultural differences between East and West are the same thing as the differences between normal cultures and the Nazis.
Do you? Seriously?
It's one thing to say, we don't necessarily think the same way, with which I agree - but to go from there to accusing all Arabs and Muslim people or Eastern Christians for that matter of being Nazis is a little OTT don't you think?
Eddie this goes for you also.
And, comparing me to Chamberlain, because I think we can build bridges between East and West, that's obscene.
Sophia said: "With respect, I don't think that cultural differences between East and West are the same thing as the differences between normal cultures and the Nazis. Do you? Seriously?"
I'm not sure what you're asking - but, cultural beliefs that are instilled from an early age are some of the strongest determinants of behavior choice in the mind. They are part of one's identity. Asking someone to go against them is like demanding that they become a fundamentally different person than who they are - someone who is an alien in their own skin and would be rejected by their family, friends and society.
"Normal cultures"? Our Western culture is not normal in the span of human history. For most of recorded history humans have either been the very few wealthy power possessors and wielders - reaching that position by ruthlessly killing their enemies - or vassals to that power. That's ME Muslim Arab-Persian culture as it has existed from its inception in 700 AD - through to this day - almost completely unchanged.
I did not accuse anyone of being Nazis - although that case could certainly be made for Iran and Arabia. In fact though, for ME Muslims, honor-shame considerations preclude any vast military - political - economic organization for a grand cause such as Hitler's Reich. That's probably the reason we are not all slaves to Islam at the moment. It's not because we are preventing it. The Arabs themselves can't get past their internal power challenging long enough to be really effective on such a grand scale.
I compare you to Chamberlain because you prefer to believe that "we can all be friends if we just talk to each other like humans". Some people do not want to be your friend. They want to be your master because that's what their culture and their religion demand of them. That's your "normal" human culture. You live in a Western bubble that shields you from such truths. But you live there by choice because that's what you want to see.
The ugly realty is that the those who want to be your master are more than willing to kill you if you don't submit to them and their god because that's what their culture (beliefs) and their religion demand of them. The naive cognitive egocentrism of the West facilitates that process - and even if the Islamists don't succeed for now it will still result in many needless civilian deaths on both sides - as it already has. 911 was just one small skirmish in that war.
I know your mind will reject this and not even be able to consider the possibility that what I say is true but I want to be able to say that at least I tried.
Ooops, the Persians have been around for almost 5000 years, much longer than the Muslim religion. The Persians (Iranians) are much better organized than the Arabs and would be more likely to pose a real military challenge to the West and our values - as they seem to be successfully doing as they repeatedly spit in Obama's outstretched hand while demanding that the US abandon Israel. Then again they present a more concentrated target for our military than the Arabs who have been very successful operating in small cells against the West using modern technology like cell phones.
Nice try Ray, though I doubt it will get through.