19.04.2007
photojack
There have been Sandinistas, Iran-Contra, and a long list leading up to Bush's second Iraq war that have caused the world to question America's formerly noble positions. We need to vote out these fundamentalist evil-doers before the damage is irreconcilable. Our foreign policy needs to return to the noble stature it once held.
Derek1148
I personally believe that it is the malignancy of liberalism that has created the necessity for the current activities the United States now finds itself engaged in.
===========================
The hitherto natural course of evolution of humanity has been fraught with inter-groups calamities and portends ever more catastrophic encounters.
Should'nt we actively apply ourselves to affect the course of evolution of the WSS towards a rational optimal survival scheme.
Should'nt we actively promote a specific defined World Social Structure?
What WSS (World Social Structure) should we promote? Faith-based? Science-informed-Based? preferred-phenotype-oriented? Broad-genotype-oriented?
Start consideration of options with the 19.04.2007 photojack-Derek1148 stands?
"What WSS (World Social Structure) should we promote? Faith-based? Science-informed-Based? preferred-phenotype-oriented? Broad-genotype-oriented?"
A good question and I hope my choice would be obvious to most people who have followed my posts or read my signature. I don't think they would be surprised at all by my stating that the science-informed position holds the best strengths to see mankind reach its true potential.
With the concepts of sustainability worked in with the high-tech, bio-tech agricultural, electrical and reality-based developments that science only can bring about, the future of man will be one of unlimited potential. The scientific advancements of the next 10, 20 or 30 years will be mind boggling in some aspects, but I will safely make one prediction... that evolution will stand unchanged as the unifying concept in all of the "natural" and "earth" sciences and will only have further support and evidence backing its primary truths. 
By contrast, faith-based World Social Structure would bring all the radical factions, religions, sects and their conflicts to the fore with no possible resolutions or reconciliation that could be foreseen.
Chaos, war and conflict are the only outcomes from this scenario. 
Historically, religions have fomented division, opposition and major conflicts. Which future vision would rational thinkers choose? Which one has the optimum chance of solving the dilemmas facing our world? I know beyond doubt where I would place my bets. Any takers? 
I'll watch with interest for others to weigh in on the "preferred-phenotype-oriented or broad-genotype-oriented" concepts. Whitherward USA and the world!
A good question and I hope my choice would be obvious to most people who have followed my posts or read my signature. I don't think they would be surprised at all by my stating that the science-informed position holds the best strengths to see mankind reach its true potential.
With the concepts of sustainability worked in with the high-tech, bio-tech agricultural, electrical and reality-based developments that science only can bring about, the future of man will be one of unlimited potential. The scientific advancements of the next 10, 20 or 30 years will be mind boggling in some aspects, but I will safely make one prediction... that evolution will stand unchanged as the unifying concept in all of the "natural" and "earth" sciences and will only have further support and evidence backing its primary truths. By contrast, faith-based World Social Structure would bring all the radical factions, religions, sects and their conflicts to the fore with no possible resolutions or reconciliation that could be foreseen.
Chaos, war and conflict are the only outcomes from this scenario. Historically, religions have fomented division, opposition and major conflicts. Which future vision would rational thinkers choose? Which one has the optimum chance of solving the dilemmas facing our world? I know beyond doubt where I would place my bets. Any takers? I'll watch with interest for others to weigh in on the "preferred-phenotype-oriented or broad-genotype-oriented" concepts. Whitherward USA and the world!
photojack,
You certainly have a great deal more faith in your fellow man than I do.
The United States should not concern itself with leading the world. Furthermore, the world has made it clear that it does not want to be lead by the United States.
Some of the world leaders you would propose to deal with engage in conduct ranging from genocide to cannibalism. The United States should follow a moral path and take appropriate military action against those countries that interfere with our interests.
The point is if a despot who is content on butchering his own people from within his own borders there isn’t a hell of a lot the United States can do about it. When the despot decides to export his butchery, we should consider involvement.
Forget any new world order.
You certainly have a great deal more faith in your fellow man than I do.
The United States should not concern itself with leading the world. Furthermore, the world has made it clear that it does not want to be lead by the United States.
Some of the world leaders you would propose to deal with engage in conduct ranging from genocide to cannibalism. The United States should follow a moral path and take appropriate military action against those countries that interfere with our interests.
The point is if a despot who is content on butchering his own people from within his own borders there isn’t a hell of a lot the United States can do about it. When the despot decides to export his butchery, we should consider involvement.
Forget any new world order.
Photojack: Science-informed position holds the best strengths to see mankind reach its true potential.
Derek1148: The United States should follow a moral path and take appropriate military action against those countries that interfere with our interests.
--------------------------
A distinct development is discernible in Earth's human nationals' cultures with the onset of the 21st century. The 20th century nationals' cultures were still led by "visionary leaders" moved by and proclaiming "ideologic" social and international visions. The "ideologies" were manifestations of "convincing ethical faiths", extensions of or replacements of religious faiths.
Since the last quarter of the 20th century nationals' cultures (except Muslims) have become "managerial" instead of "ideological", concentrating mostly, almost entirely, on promoting of managing efficiency. Concurrently and congruently an outstanding and inspiring international cooperation has been evolving in several fields of science or technology, with realization of results and achievements feasible and possible only via international cooperation.
I suggest that as we continue discussing Witherward USA we bear in mind also Witherward World and if/to-what-degree/when/how efforts+means might have to be applied for what purposes by whom to whom.
Dov
Derek1148: The United States should follow a moral path and take appropriate military action against those countries that interfere with our interests.
--------------------------
A distinct development is discernible in Earth's human nationals' cultures with the onset of the 21st century. The 20th century nationals' cultures were still led by "visionary leaders" moved by and proclaiming "ideologic" social and international visions. The "ideologies" were manifestations of "convincing ethical faiths", extensions of or replacements of religious faiths.
Since the last quarter of the 20th century nationals' cultures (except Muslims) have become "managerial" instead of "ideological", concentrating mostly, almost entirely, on promoting of managing efficiency. Concurrently and congruently an outstanding and inspiring international cooperation has been evolving in several fields of science or technology, with realization of results and achievements feasible and possible only via international cooperation.
I suggest that as we continue discussing Witherward USA we bear in mind also Witherward World and if/to-what-degree/when/how efforts+means might have to be applied for what purposes by whom to whom.
Dov
QUOTE (HenisDov+Apr 23 2007, 07:09 AM)
Since the last quarter of the 20th century nationals' cultures (except Muslims) have become "managerial" instead of "ideological", concentrating mostly, almost entirely, on promoting of managing efficiency.
I should remark that the brevity of my earlier above post presents an oversimplified black-and-white statement.
Looking at two World Powers' cultures, in internal-social policy Russia is reverting to USSR doctrines, rights and rules,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/eu...int&oref=slogin
whereas in foreign-international policy the USA, in Iraq, has been acting with ideologic fervour to perform a biological-medical miracle of converting a Muslim society-regime into a USA-type democracy...
Yet otherwise it seems to me that humanity cannot afford to continue much longer a state of affairs in which each political community on Earth is not ever more cooperative within an international framework, and that such a framework must be a goal of a dynamic fresh venture of the member communities, in an ever continuing process that might evolve infinitely towards a humanity's horizon's vision...
Derek1148 quote, "You certainly have a great deal more faith in your fellow man than I do."
I have "faith" in man's ability to reason and find solutions to vexing problems. I don't look to religion.
Derek1148 quote, "The United States should not concern itself with leading the world. Furthermore, the world has made it clear that it does not want to be lead by the United States."
The United States has on many occasions, been forced to take actions that saved civilization as we know it from dictators with incoherent, damaging policies and masses of followers with aims counter to global society's inherent direction and growth. It is only under the conservative administrations starting with Reagan (Iran-Contra) and particularly "Dubya" that America has fallen from grace. There is no doubt that America stopped Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito from accomplishing untold further havoc on this planet. We prevailed against Communism. The world respected that. We can regain that position with the impeachment of the current administration, or at minimum, their eventual replacement at the polls. The 2006 Congressional elections are leading the way!
Derek1148 quote, "Some of the world leaders you would propose to deal with engage in conduct ranging from genocide to cannibalism."
Where did you possibly get that idea? I clearly stated my opposition to some of the major foreign policy gaffes past administrations have committed, with my ending statement being, "Our foreign policy needs to return to the noble stature it once held."
"Forget any new world order." Derek1148 quote.
There HAS to be a new world order to counter the two biggest threats to civilization as it exists at the beginning of the new millennium. Those being the nuclear ambitions of the totally irrational leaders of North Korea and Iran. There will be others also. The rise of fundamentalist Islam, as practiced by the Taliban and others is the other global threat. Their subjugation of women, by preventing their attending school or driving vehicles, their medieval concepts of "intifadas", "fatwas" and many more and their absolute inability to coexist with differing cultures will lead to clashes beyond what we have seen, even with 9-11. Something will have to change if this earth and its peoples hope to continue living. America will be forced to prevail, as we did at the end of WWII. If that were to fail, we would enter the second "Dark Ages." Only an event like at Masada would bring relief. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada.
HenisDov, The New York Times article was revealing. “Russia is dropping off the list of countries that respect press freedoms,” said Boris Timoshenko, a spokesman for the foundation. “We have propaganda, not information.” It sounds like Russia is morphing back into the U.S.S.R. Let's hope the people rebel. I'm curious as to how you see America's ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq as a biological-medical miracle? The converting a Muslim society-regime into a USA-type democracy would be the start of the necessary effort to prevent the Second Dark Ages I mentioned above. I would see it as a "religious conversion" more than anything biological or medical. I agree with your statement, "humanity cannot afford to continue much longer a state of affairs in which each political community on Earth is not ever more cooperative within an international framework." That way member communities might evolve toward humanity's vision of sustainable cohabitation of this planet and cooperation among its peoples enabling understanding and learning to flourish!
I have "faith" in man's ability to reason and find solutions to vexing problems. I don't look to religion.
Derek1148 quote, "The United States should not concern itself with leading the world. Furthermore, the world has made it clear that it does not want to be lead by the United States."
The United States has on many occasions, been forced to take actions that saved civilization as we know it from dictators with incoherent, damaging policies and masses of followers with aims counter to global society's inherent direction and growth. It is only under the conservative administrations starting with Reagan (Iran-Contra) and particularly "Dubya" that America has fallen from grace. There is no doubt that America stopped Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito from accomplishing untold further havoc on this planet. We prevailed against Communism. The world respected that. We can regain that position with the impeachment of the current administration, or at minimum, their eventual replacement at the polls. The 2006 Congressional elections are leading the way!
Derek1148 quote, "Some of the world leaders you would propose to deal with engage in conduct ranging from genocide to cannibalism."
Where did you possibly get that idea? I clearly stated my opposition to some of the major foreign policy gaffes past administrations have committed, with my ending statement being, "Our foreign policy needs to return to the noble stature it once held."
"Forget any new world order." Derek1148 quote.
There HAS to be a new world order to counter the two biggest threats to civilization as it exists at the beginning of the new millennium. Those being the nuclear ambitions of the totally irrational leaders of North Korea and Iran. There will be others also. The rise of fundamentalist Islam, as practiced by the Taliban and others is the other global threat. Their subjugation of women, by preventing their attending school or driving vehicles, their medieval concepts of "intifadas", "fatwas" and many more and their absolute inability to coexist with differing cultures will lead to clashes beyond what we have seen, even with 9-11. Something will have to change if this earth and its peoples hope to continue living. America will be forced to prevail, as we did at the end of WWII. If that were to fail, we would enter the second "Dark Ages." Only an event like at Masada would bring relief. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada.
HenisDov, The New York Times article was revealing. “Russia is dropping off the list of countries that respect press freedoms,” said Boris Timoshenko, a spokesman for the foundation. “We have propaganda, not information.” It sounds like Russia is morphing back into the U.S.S.R. Let's hope the people rebel. I'm curious as to how you see America's ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq as a biological-medical miracle? The converting a Muslim society-regime into a USA-type democracy would be the start of the necessary effort to prevent the Second Dark Ages I mentioned above. I would see it as a "religious conversion" more than anything biological or medical. I agree with your statement, "humanity cannot afford to continue much longer a state of affairs in which each political community on Earth is not ever more cooperative within an international framework." That way member communities might evolve toward humanity's vision of sustainable cohabitation of this planet and cooperation among its peoples enabling understanding and learning to flourish!
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 24 2007, 06:24 AM)
(1) I'm curious as to how you see America's ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq as a biological-medical miracle?
(2) ... communities might evolve toward humanity's vision of sustainable cohabitation of this planet and cooperation among its peoples enabling understanding and learning to flourish!
(1) - I don't believe in miracles.
- I accept evolution, and culture is plainly a biological entity. Consequently I expect that any coercion of "Western-type democracy" on Muslims, regardless of denomination, is doomed to failure. This is an absurd attempt to convince a biological (ethnic) phenotype to commit suicide and to regrow as another phenotype...an act counter nature's darwinian survival instinct...
see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB...G_Q--?cq=1&p=80
(2) Amen. However, I sadly and realistically expect this to come about by a very very long process of worldover public education, akin to (tfu tfu...) religious evangelism, of converting most humans to adopt science-informed humanitarian worldview...
see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=142
Dov
(2) ... communities might evolve toward humanity's vision of sustainable cohabitation of this planet and cooperation among its peoples enabling understanding and learning to flourish!
(1) - I don't believe in miracles.
- I accept evolution, and culture is plainly a biological entity. Consequently I expect that any coercion of "Western-type democracy" on Muslims, regardless of denomination, is doomed to failure. This is an absurd attempt to convince a biological (ethnic) phenotype to commit suicide and to regrow as another phenotype...an act counter nature's darwinian survival instinct...
see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB...G_Q--?cq=1&p=80
(2) Amen. However, I sadly and realistically expect this to come about by a very very long process of worldover public education, akin to (tfu tfu...) religious evangelism, of converting most humans to adopt science-informed humanitarian worldview...
see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=142
Dov
Shalom HenisDov, You bring up very good points! This quandary between fundamentalist Islam and their apparent inability to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith has to be resolved so humanity can continue to advance. You made reference to "The InterAcademy Council, a UN group, that has been considering recently "inventing a new global organization for developing worldwide cooperation for a science-based better future", to promote international tolerance and cooperation." From http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=142.
I'm curious, has there been no response since your reply to four issues on Monday March 13, 2006 until now? That post brings up such provocative concepts and possible solutions in such a coherent, well thought out and excellently proposed format, it should have garnered many comments. I've also noticed that Derek1148 has dropped out of this discussion. I particularly enjoyed your emphasis on the importance of esteem in humans. I can easily envision its orientation changing from its origins in faith-based thought to deeply convincing scientific rational moral-ethical-social criteria as you so aptly said.
Wouldn't The InterAcademy Council, a UN group or UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) already be positioned to optimally deal with these issues? I realize that these issues are of utmost global importance and seeing them brought to the attention level needed to get action initiated and maintained would be a worthy life goal! Please keep us informed.
Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith, could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog? Something must be done before more fatwas, intifadas or jihads (I'm unsure about pluralizations here) are issued or acted on, or worse, World Trade Center type incidents. Time is of the essence!
I'm curious, has there been no response since your reply to four issues on Monday March 13, 2006 until now? That post brings up such provocative concepts and possible solutions in such a coherent, well thought out and excellently proposed format, it should have garnered many comments. I've also noticed that Derek1148 has dropped out of this discussion. I particularly enjoyed your emphasis on the importance of esteem in humans. I can easily envision its orientation changing from its origins in faith-based thought to deeply convincing scientific rational moral-ethical-social criteria as you so aptly said.
Wouldn't The InterAcademy Council, a UN group or UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) already be positioned to optimally deal with these issues? I realize that these issues are of utmost global importance and seeing them brought to the attention level needed to get action initiated and maintained would be a worthy life goal! Please keep us informed.
Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith, could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog? Something must be done before more fatwas, intifadas or jihads (I'm unsure about pluralizations here) are issued or acted on, or worse, World Trade Center type incidents. Time is of the essence!
photojack,
I did enjoy debating with you. My father was the relative I spoke of when I made reference to service in the Army Air Corp in the Pacific Theatre. Which should give you some indication of my age.
I’m still reading this thread (“religiously”) but I recently suffered an injury and as a result have been ill. As soon as I recover and am able, I look forward to discussions with you again.
Keep posting it assists in my recovery.
Derek
I did enjoy debating with you. My father was the relative I spoke of when I made reference to service in the Army Air Corp in the Pacific Theatre. Which should give you some indication of my age.
I’m still reading this thread (“religiously”) but I recently suffered an injury and as a result have been ill. As soon as I recover and am able, I look forward to discussions with you again.
Keep posting it assists in my recovery.
Derek
Derek1148, Thank you, and I wish you a speedy recovery. And if my continuous posting helps, so much the better! HenisDov came up with some obviously important and crucial concepts for the benefit of mankind. I hope to hear from him as well. Have you linked to his yahoo blogs? They are long, but well thought out. I summarized the key point as, "This quandary between fundamentalist Islam and their apparent inability to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith has to be resolved so humanity can continue to advance." What can America do optimally, to speed this resolution forward? Time IS of the essence!
P.S. I would like to learn more about your fathers service as well. It's weird how often coincidences occur while researching WWII history. My brother found another instructor who knew my father intimately from Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor. My father was the radio instructor for all B-17 crew stationed at the field. He CHOSE to fly out on Dec. 7th to attack, when he could have sent out another crewman. Take care, and feel free to P.M. me through Physorg.
P.S. I would like to learn more about your fathers service as well. It's weird how often coincidences occur while researching WWII history. My brother found another instructor who knew my father intimately from Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor. My father was the radio instructor for all B-17 crew stationed at the field. He CHOSE to fly out on Dec. 7th to attack, when he could have sent out another crewman. Take care, and feel free to P.M. me through Physorg.
photojack (26 April 2007, 3 postings back):
(1) This quandary between fundamentalist Islam and their apparent inability to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith has to be resolved so humanity can continue to advance.
(2) Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?
(3) You made reference to "The InterAcademy Council, a UN group, that has been considering recently "inventing a new global organization for developing worldwide cooperation for a science-based better future", to promote international tolerance and cooperation." I'm curious, has there been no response since your reply to four issues on Monday March 13, 2006 until now? That post brings up such provocative concepts and possible solutions in such a coherent, well thought out and excellently proposed format, it should have garnered many comments.
==========================
Dov:
(1) This is what I wrote: "Western culture thus invokes Islamic terrorism, to counter this offensive threat to its survival and to its proliferation", having explained that for Muslims their mere exposure to Western culture is a threat to survival. Culture is a biological entity, each human phenotype ( ethnic, religious, social, etc.,) has its unique culture which is an inherent component of its identity which it Darwinically attempts to survive and proliferate. This is plain biology.
(2) Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western.
You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems...
(3) As Explained in the SCM introduction, I realized that since my (May 2003) suggested SCM project might be regarded in the States ethically and politically subversive it, most probably, would never be taken up nor encouraged by "scientists" and technologists organizations. Thus, after many unsuccessful attempts, I realistically gave up seeking to advance its realization.
The sad thing is that it is precisely the scientific nature of the SCM underlying thoughts that renders it "subversive" and doomed. Id est Science and Life Evolution are subversive subjects as they endanger the foundation of the faith-based self-esteem of humanity in general and of each and every individual human phenotype in particular...
Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted- eye-glasses...
w/sincere appreciation and respect,
Dov
(1) This quandary between fundamentalist Islam and their apparent inability to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith has to be resolved so humanity can continue to advance.
(2) Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?
(3) You made reference to "The InterAcademy Council, a UN group, that has been considering recently "inventing a new global organization for developing worldwide cooperation for a science-based better future", to promote international tolerance and cooperation." I'm curious, has there been no response since your reply to four issues on Monday March 13, 2006 until now? That post brings up such provocative concepts and possible solutions in such a coherent, well thought out and excellently proposed format, it should have garnered many comments.
==========================
Dov:
(1) This is what I wrote: "Western culture thus invokes Islamic terrorism, to counter this offensive threat to its survival and to its proliferation", having explained that for Muslims their mere exposure to Western culture is a threat to survival. Culture is a biological entity, each human phenotype ( ethnic, religious, social, etc.,) has its unique culture which is an inherent component of its identity which it Darwinically attempts to survive and proliferate. This is plain biology.
(2) Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western.
You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems...
(3) As Explained in the SCM introduction, I realized that since my (May 2003) suggested SCM project might be regarded in the States ethically and politically subversive it, most probably, would never be taken up nor encouraged by "scientists" and technologists organizations. Thus, after many unsuccessful attempts, I realistically gave up seeking to advance its realization.
The sad thing is that it is precisely the scientific nature of the SCM underlying thoughts that renders it "subversive" and doomed. Id est Science and Life Evolution are subversive subjects as they endanger the foundation of the faith-based self-esteem of humanity in general and of each and every individual human phenotype in particular...
Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted- eye-glasses...
w/sincere appreciation and respect,
Dov
QUOTE (HenisDov+Apr 27 2007, 03:12 PM)
(2) Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western.
The main issue in global stability, particularly as it affects England and the United States, is not that we understand other countries and cultures. It is that they clearly understand us and our willingness to use military force if necessary to protect our interests. Not use military force to occupy but as an instrument of punishment.
The main issue in global stability, particularly as it affects England and the United States, is not that we understand other countries and cultures. It is that they clearly understand us and our willingness to use military force if necessary to protect our interests. Not use military force to occupy but as an instrument of punishment.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 27 2007, 04:08 PM)
The main issue in global stability, particularly as it affects England and the United States, is not that we understand other countries and cultures. It is that they clearly understand us and our willingness to use military force if necessary to protect our interests. Not use military force to occupy but as an instrument of punishment.
- "... particularly as it affects England and the United States ..."
- particularly as it affects Russia,
- particularly as it affects China,
- particularly as it affects Iran,
etc., etc.,
- "... particularly as it affects England and the United States ..."
- particularly as it affects Russia,
- particularly as it affects China,
- particularly as it affects Iran,
etc., etc.,
QUOTE (HenisDov+Apr 27 2007, 06:27 PM)
- "... particularly as it affects England and the United States ..."
- particularly as it affects Russia,
- particularly as it affects China,
- particularly as it affects Iran,
etc., etc.,
The problem with your type of thought (if you want to call it that), is that it results in organizations similar to the League of Nations and leadership like Neville Chamberlain. Remember: “Peace in our Time.”
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 27 2007, 07:03 PM)
The problem with your type of thought (if you want to call it that), is that it results in organizations similar to the League of Nations and leadership like Neville Chamberlain. Remember: “Peace in our Time.”
Dear 1148,
Would greatly appreciate yr letting me know, too:
- what is my type of thought ,
- about what,
- and what makes you think you know this my type of thought.
respectfully curious,
Dov
Dear 1148,
Would greatly appreciate yr letting me know, too:
- what is my type of thought ,
- about what,
- and what makes you think you know this my type of thought.
respectfully curious,
Dov
QUOTE (HenisDov+Apr 27 2007, 07:45 PM)
Dear 1148,
Would greatly appreciate yr letting me know, too:
- what is my type of thought ,
- about what,
- and what makes you think you know this my type of thought.
respectfully curious,
Dov
To believe that the world can live in some sort of harmony is a delusion. Whether religion based or science oriented, no organization can effectively deal with genocidal despots or cannibals. The only issue that needs to be clearly articulated to the world is that England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests.
Would greatly appreciate yr letting me know, too:
- what is my type of thought ,
- about what,
- and what makes you think you know this my type of thought.
respectfully curious,
Dov
To believe that the world can live in some sort of harmony is a delusion. Whether religion based or science oriented, no organization can effectively deal with genocidal despots or cannibals. The only issue that needs to be clearly articulated to the world is that England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 27 2007, 08:09 PM)
To believe that the world can live in some sort of harmony is a delusion. Whether religion based or science oriented, no organization can effectively deal with genocidal despots or cannibals. The only issue that needs to be clearly articulated to the world is that England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests.
Dear Derek1148,
We now understand your kind of thinking:
A.
- In (my) science-informed life evolution terms you see the world nations' Darwinian survival struggle and you posit that we, USA, shall survive as Earth's fittest as long as we maintain superior strength and apply it whenever and wherever we see fit.
- I wonder if you have faith-religious tenets re this matter and, in this case, what they are.
You imply that I believe that "the world can live in some sort of harmony". I wish I were wise enough to be able to define this "harmony" and how/when this "harmony" might be reached. This sounds to me like religiouslang, god forbid. Anyhow, I definitely do not BELIEVE. I always try to assess, analyze and plan. A planned program may be broad-based and arriving at its target/goal might take very long time. This does not make it a BELIEF.
BTW, re "effectively deal with genocidal despots" I suggest a look at
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=254
B.
And re our relationship with the other actors/powers on Earth, European Union, Russia, China, Muslim block, etc., you would simply advise them that we "will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests."
Are you seriously suggesting this route as a working program for maintaining and/or improving the stability/comfort of Earth's human population including we Americans?
BTW, I wonder what your attitude as an American is about the reason/purpose and practice of our participation in the extensive international cooperation with all our survival competitors in several scientific and technological projects.
Dov
Dear Derek1148,
We now understand your kind of thinking:
A.
- In (my) science-informed life evolution terms you see the world nations' Darwinian survival struggle and you posit that we, USA, shall survive as Earth's fittest as long as we maintain superior strength and apply it whenever and wherever we see fit.
- I wonder if you have faith-religious tenets re this matter and, in this case, what they are.
You imply that I believe that "the world can live in some sort of harmony". I wish I were wise enough to be able to define this "harmony" and how/when this "harmony" might be reached. This sounds to me like religiouslang, god forbid. Anyhow, I definitely do not BELIEVE. I always try to assess, analyze and plan. A planned program may be broad-based and arriving at its target/goal might take very long time. This does not make it a BELIEF.
BTW, re "effectively deal with genocidal despots" I suggest a look at
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=254
B.
And re our relationship with the other actors/powers on Earth, European Union, Russia, China, Muslim block, etc., you would simply advise them that we "will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests."
Are you seriously suggesting this route as a working program for maintaining and/or improving the stability/comfort of Earth's human population including we Americans?
BTW, I wonder what your attitude as an American is about the reason/purpose and practice of our participation in the extensive international cooperation with all our survival competitors in several scientific and technological projects.
Dov
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 27 2007, 09:09 PM)
The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests.
This is the problem in that much of the world now sees America as a bully who does as they wish and will walk into any country as an invasion or "police" force that they wish to. No country or countries can stand against America and even their allies fear them. And America, a country with many radical thinkers is still building up it's military might.
This is the problem in that much of the world now sees America as a bully who does as they wish and will walk into any country as an invasion or "police" force that they wish to. No country or countries can stand against America and even their allies fear them. And America, a country with many radical thinkers is still building up it's military might.
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 24 2007, 07:24 AM)
The United States has on many occasions, been forced to take actions that saved civilization as we know it from dictators with incoherent, damaging policies and masses of followers with aims counter to global society's inherent direction and growth.
Someone got his historical education from watching John Wayne films.
Decades ago, whitey got kicked out of Rhodesia. The white government under Ian Smith was not as good to the blacks as it could have been but it worked. So Robert Mugabe took over and for a while he did well. But as the old saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mugabe turned into a dictator and systematically wrecked the country turning it from the bread basket of Africa into a basket case.
America did good stuff in the past but now they believe it is their job to tell the world what to do and if they don't, then force them to follow America's wishes. America is now beginning to behave like Mugabe.
Someone got his historical education from watching John Wayne films.
Decades ago, whitey got kicked out of Rhodesia. The white government under Ian Smith was not as good to the blacks as it could have been but it worked. So Robert Mugabe took over and for a while he did well. But as the old saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mugabe turned into a dictator and systematically wrecked the country turning it from the bread basket of Africa into a basket case.
America did good stuff in the past but now they believe it is their job to tell the world what to do and if they don't, then force them to follow America's wishes. America is now beginning to behave like Mugabe.
kaneda,
Your brief description of Rhodesia, which was later renamed Zimbabwe, is even handed. Most people seem to have an obsessive hatred for Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia. It is true that there was not equality for all in the country, however, in other countries of Africa all were starving and dying of disease or violence (except for a few corrupt Marxist leaders). So the issue is to look at the quality of life for the average Rhodesian. Apartheid may have been viewed as oppressive, but it meant life as opposed to death for many.
I had a number of friends who were members of the British South African Police and the Selous Scouts. A cause can be noble without being universally accepted as being fair.
Your brief description of Rhodesia, which was later renamed Zimbabwe, is even handed. Most people seem to have an obsessive hatred for Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia. It is true that there was not equality for all in the country, however, in other countries of Africa all were starving and dying of disease or violence (except for a few corrupt Marxist leaders). So the issue is to look at the quality of life for the average Rhodesian. Apartheid may have been viewed as oppressive, but it meant life as opposed to death for many.
I had a number of friends who were members of the British South African Police and the Selous Scouts. A cause can be noble without being universally accepted as being fair.
HenisDov,
The link you provided was interesting. However, I still believe the most effective method for England and the United States to deal with other countries is to imply the use of military force when our interests are threatened. And if necessary follow through on that implication.
Sharing sophisticated scientific technology with the rest of world is seldom to our benefit. In reference to my religious beliefs, I believe Christians should attempt to assist others. But the world should clearly understand the one’s Christian faith is not a suicide pact.
The link you provided was interesting. However, I still believe the most effective method for England and the United States to deal with other countries is to imply the use of military force when our interests are threatened. And if necessary follow through on that implication.
Sharing sophisticated scientific technology with the rest of world is seldom to our benefit. In reference to my religious beliefs, I believe Christians should attempt to assist others. But the world should clearly understand the one’s Christian faith is not a suicide pact.
Derek, just curious, why England?
I know a lot of Americans feel a close cultural tie with them, but then why not Canada? Is it because Canada didn't support the war on terror and Vietnam?
Would you have been as supportive of Canada if we had supported the war on terror?
I know a lot of Americans feel a close cultural tie with them, but then why not Canada? Is it because Canada didn't support the war on terror and Vietnam?
Would you have been as supportive of Canada if we had supported the war on terror?
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Apr 29 2007, 07:48 AM)
Derek, just curious, why England?
I know a lot of Americans feel a close cultural tie with them, but then why not Canada? Is it because Canada didn't support the war on terror and Vietnam?
Would you have been as supportive of Canada if we had supported the war on terror?
England has demonstrated its loyalty to the United States. Further, while assisting the United States, England has shown the character and courage of its people. I consider England to be an ally of America.
I know a lot of Americans feel a close cultural tie with them, but then why not Canada? Is it because Canada didn't support the war on terror and Vietnam?
Would you have been as supportive of Canada if we had supported the war on terror?
England has demonstrated its loyalty to the United States. Further, while assisting the United States, England has shown the character and courage of its people. I consider England to be an ally of America.
ah...k
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Apr 29 2007, 03:20 PM)
ah...k
Do you believe Canada should have supported the war on terror and the United States in Vietnam?
When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Confrontation may not always be successful. But character is not determined by choosing the safe side or the winning side. Character is determined by choosing the right side.
Do you believe Canada should have supported the war on terror and the United States in Vietnam?
When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Confrontation may not always be successful. But character is not determined by choosing the safe side or the winning side. Character is determined by choosing the right side.
From:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5377914.stm
QUOTE (BBC report+)
[of US relations with Iran ] With a common enemy in the Taleban, the two found grounds to co-operate.
After the Afghan war, US negotiators worked closely with Iranian counterparts to form a new Afghan government.
Some of the talks between US and Iranian officials moved beyond Afghanistan and there was hope that it could lead to tentative re-engagement and eventually a restoration of relations.
.. Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. ..
..What did Iran want?
Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'".
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that US foreign policy is actively intended to create enemies throughout the world.
God bless America?
-C2.
After the Afghan war, US negotiators worked closely with Iranian counterparts to form a new Afghan government.
Some of the talks between US and Iranian officials moved beyond Afghanistan and there was hope that it could lead to tentative re-engagement and eventually a restoration of relations.
QUOTE
..And just a few weeks after Iran and the US had worked so closely over Afghanistan, Iran was described by President George W Bush as part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..And just a few weeks after Iran and the US had worked so closely over Afghanistan, Iran was described by President George W Bush as part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address. |
.. Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. ..
..What did Iran want?
Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'".
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that US foreign policy is actively intended to create enemies throughout the world.
God bless America?
-C2.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 29 2007, 01:47 PM)
Do you believe Canada should have supported the war on terror and the United States in Vietnam?
When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Confrontation may not always be successful. But character is not determined by choosing the safe side or the winning side. Character is determined by choosing the right side.
Nah...I'm not really into war. I'm quite satisfied that Canada decided to go against it.
I also think character is found by choosing the right side, but I don't believe using military action (especially in an internationally illegal way) is the right side.
You said earlier it was impractical to dream of a world with total peace and harmony, that's where we differ. I don't see everyone being happy and holding hands, but I do hope that we can at least eliminate poverty and illegal warfare. And I think it is almost an oxymoron to bring 'peace' with war. I don't know if you swallow Bush Admin's we are brining democracy to Iraq crap, but what they are doing is not going to lead to a stable Middle East down another century. And then the situation will be the same as it is right now: Muslims and Christians being polarized.
When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Confrontation may not always be successful. But character is not determined by choosing the safe side or the winning side. Character is determined by choosing the right side.
Nah...I'm not really into war. I'm quite satisfied that Canada decided to go against it.
I also think character is found by choosing the right side, but I don't believe using military action (especially in an internationally illegal way) is the right side.
You said earlier it was impractical to dream of a world with total peace and harmony, that's where we differ. I don't see everyone being happy and holding hands, but I do hope that we can at least eliminate poverty and illegal warfare. And I think it is almost an oxymoron to bring 'peace' with war. I don't know if you swallow Bush Admin's we are brining democracy to Iraq crap, but what they are doing is not going to lead to a stable Middle East down another century. And then the situation will be the same as it is right now: Muslims and Christians being polarized.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Apr 29 2007, 08:44 PM)
Nah...I'm not really into war.
War is sometimes necessary. Hitler and Hirohito did not give the world much of an option.
I had an international studies professor that advised that: "Pacifism is cowardice raised to a status of ideology."
War is sometimes necessary. Hitler and Hirohito did not give the world much of an option.
I had an international studies professor that advised that: "Pacifism is cowardice raised to a status of ideology."
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 29 2007, 04:58 PM)
War is sometimes necessary. Hitler and Hirohito did not give the world much of an option.
I had an international studies professor that advised that: "Pacifism is cowardice raised to a status of ideology."
You're right, war is sometimes necessary. But as I tried to express in the last post, these situations are created by previous instability and war. Hitler rose to his post because of the destructive effects of WWI. Saddam Hussien rose to his post because of what was happening in Iraq before the Ba'ath party. Iran is ruled by a government that hates America because America installed the previous government for it's own interests. Look at the history of any destructive maniac the world has seen.
And that is my very point: by continuing war today, you are ensuring that their will be no peace in this world for another century or so.
What's that very famous quote, that we should look to our history to learn the greatest lessons...alas no one in power seems to be doing this so far.
I can name many professors and academics who would argue that your professor was wrong.
I had an international studies professor that advised that: "Pacifism is cowardice raised to a status of ideology."
You're right, war is sometimes necessary. But as I tried to express in the last post, these situations are created by previous instability and war. Hitler rose to his post because of the destructive effects of WWI. Saddam Hussien rose to his post because of what was happening in Iraq before the Ba'ath party. Iran is ruled by a government that hates America because America installed the previous government for it's own interests. Look at the history of any destructive maniac the world has seen.
And that is my very point: by continuing war today, you are ensuring that their will be no peace in this world for another century or so.
What's that very famous quote, that we should look to our history to learn the greatest lessons...alas no one in power seems to be doing this so far.
QUOTE
I had an international studies professor that advised that: "Pacifism is cowardice raised to a status of ideology."
I can name many professors and academics who would argue that your professor was wrong.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Apr 29 2007, 09:18 PM)
I can name many professors and academics who would argue that your professor was wrong.
They may well argue that the professor was wrong, but they would be incorrect.
They may well argue that the professor was wrong, but they would be incorrect.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 29 2007, 06:32 PM)
They may well argue that the professor was wrong, but they would be incorrect.
oh good point!
oh good point!
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Apr 29 2007, 11:48 PM)
oh good point!
The point is that pacifism is ineffective. In addition to the correlation with cowardice, pacifism leads to isolationist foreign policies.
The point is that pacifism is ineffective. In addition to the correlation with cowardice, pacifism leads to isolationist foreign policies.
kaneda, I was gone for a long weekend, so that's why the late response.
QUOTE (photojack @ Apr 24 2007, 07:24 AM)
"The United States has on many occasions, been forced to take actions that saved civilization as we know it from dictators with incoherent, damaging policies and masses of followers with aims counter to global society's inherent direction and growth."
"Someone got his historical education from watching John Wayne films." kaneda quote.
I was referring primarily to WWI and WWII. My great grandfather fought in the Boer War in South Africa. As a naive child, I thought he must have been a hero. Upon reading the history from a global perspective, the Dutch had colonized the area that just happened to have gold and diamonds. The British wanted that, and fought a territorial war to get it. How do the Dutch feel about this? Also, a sidelight of history, the first use of a "concentration camp" was in this war, and it was the British incarcerating Dutch non-combatant women and children! After seeing "Gandhi" directed by a Brit, showing British atrocities committed against the peoples of India, that established a new awareness in me of the power of film to portray and expose calamities such as these. Have you seen "Gallipoli"? I have probably read a hundred books on WWII and almost as many on other world history topics and from other perspectives than just America's. Now listen, pilgrim, one of the only John Wayne movies I saw years ago, had a scene where he hid behind a tumble weed to fend off 44 caliber bullets! The rest of the movie was just as ridiculous, so I have discounted them from decades ago, as laughably inept. 
Now to return to the main topic... HenisDov, I'm curious how my posing of this question, "Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?" elicited this response?
"Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western.
You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems..."
I was proposing a way to COMMUNICATE. I know their viewpoint comes from a radically different perspective that you are probably much more familiar with than I am. Communicational channels have to be established as all of our survival depends on this issue's resolution. I was most assuredly NOT advocating forcing Western views on them. I didn't advocate a military threat or war as Derek1148 did! My earlier position was clearly against "Dubya" and this quandary we find ourselves in. It is this one key aspect that I was asking you, from your closer ties to this issue to comment on. They consider all who do not follow Allah, to be infidels only worthy of death. How can this viewpoint be adjusted to enable them to co-exist with other peoples? Their resolution of this would ensure THEIR survival, as all the rest of the peoples on this planet cannot allow this view to expand. It IS either them or the rest of the world. Fundamentalism of this radical a nature HAS to be toned down in order to co-exist and survive. I would hope that we COULD address letters to several additional natural problems. Those might be the Kyoto accords and the I.P.C.C. reports. These may well ensure our very survival, IF we survive the fundamentalist Islamic threats.
HenisDov quote, "Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted- eye-glasses..."
I would hope we could add the word "some" in front of that quote! Some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations. ImmortalCoil and Confused2 commented with global perspective on individual conflicts around the world as they relate here.
Derek1148 quotes from several recent posts, "When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Character is determined by choosing the right side. I consider England to be an ally of America. The point is that pacifism is ineffective. In addition to the correlation with cowardice, pacifism leads to isolationist foreign policies."
There are more options than just those two. Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation do not imply appeasement, they are the wise choices that lead to resolutions NOT confrontation. That is what I was asking HenisDov for comments on, from his well-placed perspective. The "right" side has to be viewed from a global perspective. England and America have definitely NOT been on the right side at all times! Please see the film "Gandhi" for an effective use of pacifism and a total condemnation of England's position, directed by a Brit! That is a film whose message needs further dissemination around the world. It is films of that genre, that are among my favorites. Films created to portray a necessary story or viewpoint for the betterment of mankind. "Schindler's List", "Amistad", "Stand and Deliver", "Dances With Wolves", "Cry Freedom", "An Inconvenient Truth" and many others are timeless in their meaning and importance to influence the future of man and his relationships with each other and the planet. Derek1148, we have a lot in common, and we have our differences. I've got a pretty broad view and background in religions and have chosen to reject them in their entirety , and I try to achieve a global perspective of world political, religious and ethnic tensions, with the hope of bringing about resolutions. Dubya's war and England's position are not viewed by the rest of the world as you see it. Bush made major mistakes and based critical decisions on poorly reasoned analysis. We are paying the price now, and we need to change administrations before the damage is irreversible.
QUOTE (photojack @ Apr 24 2007, 07:24 AM)
"The United States has on many occasions, been forced to take actions that saved civilization as we know it from dictators with incoherent, damaging policies and masses of followers with aims counter to global society's inherent direction and growth."
"Someone got his historical education from watching John Wayne films." kaneda quote.
I was referring primarily to WWI and WWII. My great grandfather fought in the Boer War in South Africa. As a naive child, I thought he must have been a hero. Upon reading the history from a global perspective, the Dutch had colonized the area that just happened to have gold and diamonds. The British wanted that, and fought a territorial war to get it. How do the Dutch feel about this? Also, a sidelight of history, the first use of a "concentration camp" was in this war, and it was the British incarcerating Dutch non-combatant women and children!
After seeing "Gandhi" directed by a Brit, showing British atrocities committed against the peoples of India, that established a new awareness in me of the power of film to portray and expose calamities such as these. Have you seen "Gallipoli"? I have probably read a hundred books on WWII and almost as many on other world history topics and from other perspectives than just America's. Now listen, pilgrim, one of the only John Wayne movies I saw years ago, had a scene where he hid behind a tumble weed to fend off 44 caliber bullets! The rest of the movie was just as ridiculous, so I have discounted them from decades ago, as laughably inept. Now to return to the main topic... HenisDov, I'm curious how my posing of this question, "Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?" elicited this response?
"Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western.
You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems..."
I was proposing a way to COMMUNICATE. I know their viewpoint comes from a radically different perspective that you are probably much more familiar with than I am. Communicational channels have to be established as all of our survival depends on this issue's resolution. I was most assuredly NOT advocating forcing Western views on them. I didn't advocate a military threat or war as Derek1148 did! My earlier position was clearly against "Dubya" and this quandary we find ourselves in. It is this one key aspect that I was asking you, from your closer ties to this issue to comment on. They consider all who do not follow Allah, to be infidels only worthy of death. How can this viewpoint be adjusted to enable them to co-exist with other peoples? Their resolution of this would ensure THEIR survival, as all the rest of the peoples on this planet cannot allow this view to expand. It IS either them or the rest of the world. Fundamentalism of this radical a nature HAS to be toned down in order to co-exist and survive. I would hope that we COULD address letters to several additional natural problems. Those might be the Kyoto accords and the I.P.C.C. reports. These may well ensure our very survival, IF we survive the fundamentalist Islamic threats.
HenisDov quote, "Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted- eye-glasses..."
I would hope we could add the word "some" in front of that quote! Some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations. ImmortalCoil and Confused2 commented with global perspective on individual conflicts around the world as they relate here.
Derek1148 quotes from several recent posts, "When presented with a threat a country must decide between appeasement or confrontation. Character is determined by choosing the right side. I consider England to be an ally of America. The point is that pacifism is ineffective. In addition to the correlation with cowardice, pacifism leads to isolationist foreign policies."
There are more options than just those two. Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation do not imply appeasement, they are the wise choices that lead to resolutions NOT confrontation. That is what I was asking HenisDov for comments on, from his well-placed perspective. The "right" side has to be viewed from a global perspective. England and America have definitely NOT been on the right side at all times! Please see the film "Gandhi" for an effective use of pacifism and a total condemnation of England's position, directed by a Brit!
That is a film whose message needs further dissemination around the world. It is films of that genre, that are among my favorites. Films created to portray a necessary story or viewpoint for the betterment of mankind. "Schindler's List", "Amistad", "Stand and Deliver", "Dances With Wolves", "Cry Freedom", "An Inconvenient Truth" and many others are timeless in their meaning and importance to influence the future of man and his relationships with each other and the planet. Derek1148, we have a lot in common, and we have our differences. I've got a pretty broad view and background in religions and have chosen to reject them in their entirety , and I try to achieve a global perspective of world political, religious and ethnic tensions, with the hope of bringing about resolutions. Dubya's war and England's position are not viewed by the rest of the world as you see it. Bush made major mistakes and based critical decisions on poorly reasoned analysis. We are paying the price now, and we need to change administrations before the damage is irreversible.
photojack,
The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was morally sound. Hussein represented a threat to his neighbors as well as his own people.
The issue is one of strategy. Can the United States sustain its efforts at restructuring? And will the restructured government be able to maintain control and be a positive force?
Does a negative answer to the above questions invalidate our acting in good faith and what the United States Government viewed as a moral imperative? As John F. Kennedy once said, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.”
The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was morally sound. Hussein represented a threat to his neighbors as well as his own people.
The issue is one of strategy. Can the United States sustain its efforts at restructuring? And will the restructured government be able to maintain control and be a positive force?
Does a negative answer to the above questions invalidate our acting in good faith and what the United States Government viewed as a moral imperative? As John F. Kennedy once said, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.”
Point of information..
QUOTE (Photojack+)
They consider all who do not follow Allah, to be infidels only worthy of death.
Tourist boards for three Islamic States
(Probably best not to visit any of these places if your country is actively bombing them at the time )
Pakistan tourist agency
http://www.tourism.gov.pk/explore_pakistan.html
Iran tourist board
http://www.irpedia.com/
Egyptian tourist board
http://touregypt.net/
I have a friend (an atheist) who regularly travels to Iran to see his (christian ) parents. Any problems? Nope.
-C2.
Edit
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
Sentenced to death by only having one seat in parliament? In fairness they are a minority and things could be better.
Please try to get a grip on reality.
Tourist boards for three Islamic States
(Probably best not to visit any of these places if your country is actively bombing them at the time )
Pakistan tourist agency
http://www.tourism.gov.pk/explore_pakistan.html
Iran tourist board
http://www.irpedia.com/
Egyptian tourist board
http://touregypt.net/
I have a friend (an atheist) who regularly travels to Iran to see his (christian ) parents. Any problems? Nope.
-C2.
Edit
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
QUOTE
Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament . Maurice Motamed has been the Jewish MP since 2000 , and was re-elected again in 2004 . In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, other sources put the figure as low as 20,000–25,000.
Sentenced to death by only having one seat in parliament? In fairness they are a minority and things could be better.
Please try to get a grip on reality.
Derek1148, The removal of Saddam Hussein was an accidental benefit from failing to get bin Laden, the actual perpetrator of 9-11. The war was ill-conceived, lacked planning and foresight and opened a Pandora's box of problems that need immediate attention. The first Gulf war had a coalition that included other Arab countries and I was very optimistic that things would change for the better. Stopping that war at the "magical" arbitrary numbers of 100 days of air war, 100 hours of ground war didn't bring it to its proper conclusion. Saddam declared he had "beat" America and remained a thorn in our side, and that of his neighbors. Had we gotten him then, maybe bin Laden would have had second thoughts and the WTC attacks and the second Gulf war never would have happened. Most people in the world view the second Gulf war as a debacle and that there were better options available. Witherward USA? Build another coalition, engage other nations in dialog, show responsibility and perspective to regain respect, as we once had it. Bush has set that back decades and almost irreversibly damaged America's reputation abroad. What about all the other issues I brought up?
Have you seen any of those films? They are of monumental importance and stand today, as they did when first released, as realistic portrayals of mankind's foibles. "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
Have you seen any of those films? They are of monumental importance and stand today, as they did when first released, as realistic portrayals of mankind's foibles. "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts. ~Bill Vaughan
War is a necessary part of country’s ability to maintain world order through its foreign policy.
Do you believe that a country's foreign policy is more important that the victims of a war? A war does not only kill people, but also destroys infrastructure, inspires fundamentalist ideologies, deprives a generation of children from education (in a long war), wastes loads of money that could have been spent to eradicate poverty, and advance science. There is no way that economic interests of a country are more valuable that that.
In September 2006,the 'Iraq body count' placed civilian deaths their between 62,281-68,289. If you do not hold a bias against other races and cultures, then surely you must find that to be very wrong.
Eisenhower changed his mind about war after he witnessed the atrocities of it during WWII.
Here's a quote by him:
'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?'
Eisenhower said these words in 1953, when modern weaponry was in its infancy. A weapon today is a lot more expensive, in terms of the destruction is causes and the money it requires to build.
QUOTE
There are more options than just those two. Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation do not imply appeasement, they are the wise choices that lead to resolutions NOT confrontation.
Have you seen any of those films? They are of monumental importance and stand today, as they did when first released, as realistic portrayals of mankind's foibles. "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are more options than just those two. Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation do not imply appeasement, they are the wise choices that lead to resolutions NOT confrontation. |
Have you seen any of those films? They are of monumental importance and stand today, as they did when first released, as realistic portrayals of mankind's foibles. "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
It might be a good idea if the various countries of the world would occasionally swap history books, just to see what other people are doing with the same set of facts. ~Bill Vaughan
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 30 2007, 12:24 PM)
The point is that pacifism is ineffective. In addition to the correlation with cowardice, pacifism leads to isolationist foreign policies.
Yeah see, here's the difference between how you and I see the world.I actually think of everyone equally and want everyone in the world to live equally. I am not a big fan of nationalism. I would not rather that children in Sudan go hungry at the expense of a better lifestyle for me due to the high tariffs imposed by my country.
I can understand how your point of view leads you to think pacifism is cowardice. But the word pacifist does not make an appearance in your thought system if you see war as irrational.
If you find war necessary or to be a part of life, then that is the very problem.
And btw, it is not pacifism that least to 'isolationist' foreign policies, but rather saying things like
"England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies"
Yeah see, here's the difference between how you and I see the world.I actually think of everyone equally and want everyone in the world to live equally. I am not a big fan of nationalism. I would not rather that children in Sudan go hungry at the expense of a better lifestyle for me due to the high tariffs imposed by my country.
I can understand how your point of view leads you to think pacifism is cowardice. But the word pacifist does not make an appearance in your thought system if you see war as irrational.
If you find war necessary or to be a part of life, then that is the very problem.
And btw, it is not pacifism that least to 'isolationist' foreign policies, but rather saying things like
"England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies"
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 30 2007, 07:26 PM)
There are more options than just those two. Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation do not imply appeasement, they are the wise choices that lead to resolutions NOT confrontation.
I have seen the films you named. Personally my movie tastes run more to films like: “Serpico”, “Taxi Driver”, “Goodfellas”, and “The Departed.”
Hollywood is not known for its historical accuracy. In addition, there does seem to be a Marxist tinge to their political views.
“Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation” are in fact appeasement when a foreign leader has engaged in genocide and general butchery of his population. Pol Pot, Hilter, Idi Amin, and etc: all viewed dialogue and negotiation as weaknesses (to be exploited).
The best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war.
I have seen the films you named. Personally my movie tastes run more to films like: “Serpico”, “Taxi Driver”, “Goodfellas”, and “The Departed.”
Hollywood is not known for its historical accuracy. In addition, there does seem to be a Marxist tinge to their political views.
“Communication, dialog, negotiations and mediation” are in fact appeasement when a foreign leader has engaged in genocide and general butchery of his population. Pol Pot, Hilter, Idi Amin, and etc: all viewed dialogue and negotiation as weaknesses (to be exploited).
The best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 12:46 AM)
Yeah see, here's the difference between how you and I see the world.I actually think of everyone equally and want everyone in the world to live equally. I am not a big fan of nationalism. I would not rather that children in Sudan go hungry at the expense of a better lifestyle for me due to the high tariffs imposed by my country.
I can understand how your point of view leads you to think pacifism is cowardice. But the word pacifist does not make an appearance in your thought system if you see war as irrational.
If you find war necessary or to be a part of life, then that is the very problem.
And btw, it is not pacifism that least to 'isolationist' foreign policies, but rather saying things like
"England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies"
How would a pacifist respond if he witnessed his neighbor’s daughter being gang raped? Would he try to stop the rape? Call the Police? Would he be satisfied to simply have the perpetrators flee?
Would a pacifist be willing to kill to stop the rape? Or kill to prevent the escape of the perpetrators?
Violence by the righteous is not only necessary, it is desirable. And probably a part of the evolutionary process.
Whether an individual fails to act out of cowardice or alleged principle (pacifism), the end result is the same.
I can understand how your point of view leads you to think pacifism is cowardice. But the word pacifist does not make an appearance in your thought system if you see war as irrational.
If you find war necessary or to be a part of life, then that is the very problem.
And btw, it is not pacifism that least to 'isolationist' foreign policies, but rather saying things like
"England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies"
How would a pacifist respond if he witnessed his neighbor’s daughter being gang raped? Would he try to stop the rape? Call the Police? Would he be satisfied to simply have the perpetrators flee?
Would a pacifist be willing to kill to stop the rape? Or kill to prevent the escape of the perpetrators?
Violence by the righteous is not only necessary, it is desirable. And probably a part of the evolutionary process.
Whether an individual fails to act out of cowardice or alleged principle (pacifism), the end result is the same.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 30 2007, 11:05 PM)
How would a pacifist respond if he witnessed his neighbor’s daughter being gang raped? Would he try to stop the rape? Call the Police? Would he be satisfied to simply have the perpetrators flee?
Would a pacifist be willing to kill to stop the rape? Or kill to prevent the escape of the perpetrators?
Violence by the righteous is not only necessary, it is desirable. And probably a part of the evolutionary process.
Whether an individual fails to act out of cowardice or alleged principle (pacifism), the end result is the same.
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
Like I mentioned before, if you asked me if I supported attacking Hitler in 1940, I would have said yes, attack him. But my point is that war only leads to further instability. And their are better resolution to the world's current problems than war. And especially Iraq was not one of those cases.
Your example is so closed minded, it borders on ignorance of everything I have said so far. Please, read my posts before making assumptions.
Would a pacifist be willing to kill to stop the rape? Or kill to prevent the escape of the perpetrators?
Violence by the righteous is not only necessary, it is desirable. And probably a part of the evolutionary process.
Whether an individual fails to act out of cowardice or alleged principle (pacifism), the end result is the same.
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
Like I mentioned before, if you asked me if I supported attacking Hitler in 1940, I would have said yes, attack him. But my point is that war only leads to further instability. And their are better resolution to the world's current problems than war. And especially Iraq was not one of those cases.
Your example is so closed minded, it borders on ignorance of everything I have said so far. Please, read my posts before making assumptions.
I am very much opposed to the idea that pacifism is cowardly! It is most often a well thought out technique, a strategy of genius, wherein the participants may be turned upon, may be beaten or even killed but they persist in their collective statement that warring is not the only solution to the worlds evils.
A coward would not make a good pacifist, only the brave need apply.
I think first of the marches for civil rights in America, those surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. and his cohorts were not cowardly people, seems that folks knew there would be police brutality and they, marched on...there was much harm done to those citizens.
I believe nearly every country has known it's share of protestation (without intent to harm) by the public...and governments usually do retaliate harshly when angered, with much that brings discomfort or worse to the protester. Remember Tienanmen Square? If I remember correctly, that young man/student was not running the other direction when he was run over, he stood firm in his dream and vision.
I have appreciated reading all of your thoughts, and discovering better who you are, all of you, with this more political thread, than is common here.
I am more aligned with the others Derek, and do see a future where international relations could and will lead to a better future for All who exist, call me optimistic, but the only " right solution" (in my mind) for the eventual evolution across the board, is to gather the best thinkers together (these may be substantially scientific minds) and to work out solutions to the bigger problems...as equals.
The Wars are ego-based and that dynamic has been tried, and tried, and that approach is often one of heightened ignorance, and very often a failure to boot, when the wars were successful the dead and wounded were a resource lost. I think of the people of North Korea, and how some nations will be very resistant to change but with examples (Nations) all about them adapting well to changes, and enjoying the benefits of those different policy's, I can see every country advancing once the ball is rolling along nicely.
If you call my fellow pacifists cowardly, I have the right to call your war monger's ignorant and beastly, do I not?
I loved the courage of Gandhi as well, and that was an excellent movie I agree photojack. Immortalcoil you are a great questioner, and thinker....keep up the good work! Kaneda is here as well, hello friend!
....Derek you have surprised me once again with the familiar sound of potential prejudice lingering and with so much pessimism about a potential new world system of agreements, checks and balances between all sorts of nations. Co-operation can be contageous...firstly one must try the technique, before saying that it is doomed to failure. C2 your point was well taken.
A coward would not make a good pacifist, only the brave need apply.
I think first of the marches for civil rights in America, those surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. and his cohorts were not cowardly people, seems that folks knew there would be police brutality and they, marched on...there was much harm done to those citizens.
I believe nearly every country has known it's share of protestation (without intent to harm) by the public...and governments usually do retaliate harshly when angered, with much that brings discomfort or worse to the protester. Remember Tienanmen Square? If I remember correctly, that young man/student was not running the other direction when he was run over, he stood firm in his dream and vision.
I have appreciated reading all of your thoughts, and discovering better who you are, all of you, with this more political thread, than is common here.
I am more aligned with the others Derek, and do see a future where international relations could and will lead to a better future for All who exist, call me optimistic, but the only " right solution" (in my mind) for the eventual evolution across the board, is to gather the best thinkers together (these may be substantially scientific minds) and to work out solutions to the bigger problems...as equals.
The Wars are ego-based and that dynamic has been tried, and tried, and that approach is often one of heightened ignorance, and very often a failure to boot, when the wars were successful the dead and wounded were a resource lost. I think of the people of North Korea, and how some nations will be very resistant to change but with examples (Nations) all about them adapting well to changes, and enjoying the benefits of those different policy's, I can see every country advancing once the ball is rolling along nicely.
If you call my fellow pacifists cowardly, I have the right to call your war monger's ignorant and beastly, do I not?
I loved the courage of Gandhi as well, and that was an excellent movie I agree photojack. Immortalcoil you are a great questioner, and thinker....keep up the good work! Kaneda is here as well, hello friend!
....Derek you have surprised me once again with the familiar sound of potential prejudice lingering and with so much pessimism about a potential new world system of agreements, checks and balances between all sorts of nations. Co-operation can be contageous...firstly one must try the technique, before saying that it is doomed to failure. C2 your point was well taken.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 04:17 AM)
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
Your example is so closed minded, it borders on ignorance of everything I have said so far. Please, read my posts before making assumptions.
DEFINITION
pacifist: One who opposes military ideals, war, or military preparedness, and proposes that all international disputes be settled by arbitration.
Your example is so closed minded, it borders on ignorance of everything I have said so far. Please, read my posts before making assumptions.
DEFINITION
pacifist: One who opposes military ideals, war, or military preparedness, and proposes that all international disputes be settled by arbitration.
QUOTE (tikay+May 1 2007, 04:20 AM)
the familiar sound of potential prejudice lingering
tikay,
Who do you think I am prejudice against? Rapists? Murderers?
Are you implying an ethnic or racial prejudice?
tikay,
Who do you think I am prejudice against? Rapists? Murderers?
Are you implying an ethnic or racial prejudice?
To believe that the world can live in some sort of harmony is a delusion. Whether religion based or science oriented, no organization can effectively deal with genocidal despots or cannibals. The only issue that needs to be clearly articulated to the world is that England and the United States will not tolerate any interference or interruption of our policies. The world does not need to respect us, however, it is important for other countries to understand that is dangerous for them to obstruct our interests. (Derek)
I was implying an exclusivity exists in your tone that sounds racially or culturally prejudice, forgive me if I am wrong.
I was implying an exclusivity exists in your tone that sounds racially or culturally prejudice, forgive me if I am wrong.
QUOTE (tikay+May 1 2007, 04:55 AM)
I was implying an exclusivity exists in your tone that sounds racially or culturally prejudice, forgive me if I am wrong.
You are wrong and I forgive you.
You are wrong and I forgive you.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2007, 12:38 AM)
DEFINITION
pacifist: One who opposes military ideals, war, or military preparedness, and proposes that all international disputes be settled by arbitration.
My own quote:
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
The same as your definition as I see it.
Thanks for the support tikay, nice to see some civilized and non-derogatory statements in this thread.
pacifist: One who opposes military ideals, war, or military preparedness, and proposes that all international disputes be settled by arbitration.
My own quote:
QUOTE
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
The same as your definition as I see it.
Thanks for the support tikay, nice to see some civilized and non-derogatory statements in this thread.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 30 2007, 10:03 PM)
You are wrong and I forgive you.
Thanks for forgiving my wrong-thinking, and Sorry! for the assumptive guessing... this is not the most ideal way to communicate, much is lost when one cannot see the face, hear the inflections in the voice, and whatever. I do believe you Derek, because that (idea) really did seem out of character, (hence my surprise) and not nearly what I had intuited about you, from your previous posts which were often very moral and compassionate.
Thanks for forgiving my wrong-thinking, and Sorry! for the assumptive guessing... this is not the most ideal way to communicate, much is lost when one cannot see the face, hear the inflections in the voice, and whatever. I do believe you Derek, because that (idea) really did seem out of character, (hence my surprise) and not nearly what I had intuited about you, from your previous posts which were often very moral and compassionate.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 04:17 AM)
I am using the word 'Pacifist' only as a person who thinks the world is better of without war.
War is a necessary part of country’s ability to maintain world order through its foreign policy.
War is a necessary part of country’s ability to maintain world order through its foreign policy.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2007, 08:36 AM)
War is a necessary part of country’s ability to maintain world order through its foreign policy.
Do you believe that a country's foreign policy is more important that the victims of a war? A war does not only kill people, but also destroys infrastructure, inspires fundamentalist ideologies, deprives a generation of children from education (in a long war), wastes loads of money that could have been spent to eradicate poverty, and advance science. There is no way that economic interests of a country are more valuable that that.
In September 2006,the 'Iraq body count' placed civilian deaths their between 62,281-68,289. If you do not hold a bias against other races and cultures, then surely you must find that to be very wrong.
Eisenhower changed his mind about war after he witnessed the atrocities of it during WWII.
Here's a quote by him:
QUOTE (Dwight Eisenhower+)
'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?'
Eisenhower said these words in 1953, when modern weaponry was in its infancy. A weapon today is a lot more expensive, in terms of the destruction is causes and the money it requires to build.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 01:10 PM)
Do you believe that a country's foreign policy is more important that the victims of a war?
The mere opposition to war will not stop the aggression of tyrants. Some foreign leaders will only stop their butchery when violence is visited upon them. Which wars could have been morally avoided? Certainly there may be some. But most of the wars throughout history could not be avoided by the righteous. Peace cannot be purchased at the expense of allowing genocide or immoral aggression.
The mere opposition to war will not stop the aggression of tyrants. Some foreign leaders will only stop their butchery when violence is visited upon them. Which wars could have been morally avoided? Certainly there may be some. But most of the wars throughout history could not be avoided by the righteous. Peace cannot be purchased at the expense of allowing genocide or immoral aggression.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, tyrants are products of previous wars or instability caused by a previous war. It is the culture of nationalism, and war that should be eliminated in order to erase the need for war.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 02:40 PM)
Again, as I mentioned earlier, tyrants are products of previous wars or instability caused by a previous war. It is the culture of nationalism, and war that should be eliminated in order to erase the need for war.
I would agree with you that some tyrants are the products of previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles certainly enabled Hitler to come to power. But what about Hirohito and Mussolini? Free and democratic societies should always be prepared for war. I do not believe we can ever “erase the need for war.”
I would agree with you that some tyrants are the products of previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles certainly enabled Hitler to come to power. But what about Hirohito and Mussolini? Free and democratic societies should always be prepared for war. I do not believe we can ever “erase the need for war.”
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 30 2007, 07:26 PM)
Now to return to the main topic... HenisDov,
(1) I'm curious how my posing of the question "Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?" elicited the response
"Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western. You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems..."
I was proposing a way to COMMUNICATE...
(2) HenisDov quote, "Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted-eye-glasses..."
I would hope we could add the word "some" in front of that quote! Some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations. ImmortalCoil and Confused2 commented with global perspective on individual conflicts around the world as they relate here.
photojack,
(a) Re (1) above, I repeat : Westerns who think that also Muslim individuals, communities, peoples/states think and behave Western are simply pathetically naive. It makes no difference if both sides speak and use the same language and terms. Each of the sides comprehends and defines the TERMS differntly, depending on the situation and circumstances.
(b) Re (2) above, I do not kid myself. True, "some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations", but there are so many different "global viewpoints" with so many "optimum resolutions"... which is the reason and purpose for my SCM program of broad-base science-informed horizon vision. An old Russian proverb explains that a "Gorizon vision" is as attainable as the Gorizon. But where would we humans be without such visions...?
Dov
(1) I'm curious how my posing of the question "Do you think an "open letter" to the leaders of Islam and their followers on how to resolve this apparent inability of theirs to coexist with peoples without THEIR faith could bring about a possible resolution or at least start a dialog?" elicited the response
"Dear photojack, you write like a pathetically naive Western who thinks that also non-Western individuals, communities and peoples think and behave Western. You also suggest an interesting way of addressing a biological problem, i.e. try handling it by writing a letter to the problem. If this works, even fractionally, we might address letters to several additional natural problems..."
I was proposing a way to COMMUNICATE...
(2) HenisDov quote, "Humans are not yet ripe for looking around and seeing things without self-esteem-tinted-eye-glasses..."
I would hope we could add the word "some" in front of that quote! Some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations. ImmortalCoil and Confused2 commented with global perspective on individual conflicts around the world as they relate here.
photojack,
(a) Re (1) above, I repeat : Westerns who think that also Muslim individuals, communities, peoples/states think and behave Western are simply pathetically naive. It makes no difference if both sides speak and use the same language and terms. Each of the sides comprehends and defines the TERMS differntly, depending on the situation and circumstances.
(b) Re (2) above, I do not kid myself. True, "some people have the global viewpoint to look for optimum resolutions to seemingly unsolvable situations", but there are so many different "global viewpoints" with so many "optimum resolutions"... which is the reason and purpose for my SCM program of broad-base science-informed horizon vision. An old Russian proverb explains that a "Gorizon vision" is as attainable as the Gorizon. But where would we humans be without such visions...?
Dov
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 06:10 AM)
Do you believe that a country's foreign policy is more important that the victims of a war? A war does not only kill people, but also destroys infrastructure, inspires fundamentalist ideologies, deprives a generation of children from education (in a long war), wastes loads of money that could have been spent to eradicate poverty, and advance science. There is no way that economic interests of a country are more valuable that that.
In September 2006,the 'Iraq body count' placed civilian deaths their between 62,281-68,289. If you do not hold a bias against other races and cultures, then surely you must find that to be very wrong.
Eisenhower changed his mind about war after he witnessed the atrocities of it during WWII.
Here's a quote by him:
(Dwight Eisenhower)
'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?'
Eisenhower said these words in 1953, when modern weaponry was in its infancy. A weapon today is a lot more expensive, in terms of the destruction is causes and the money it requires to build.
The Eisenhower quote is wonderful, I never knew he was so opposed to warring, and having the burden of (the potential for) American money's, which were often being mis-spent, when they could be used for so much better purposes. I believe we should have stayed out of Vietnam, at the very least, and that we have done a favor to Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power there, but after that we should have pulled out immediately....the death toll would surly not have risen... had we just left with the capture of that so called leader.
One thing I find strange is the way 33 deaths at Virginia Tech, gets a thread in here as a testament to the tragic state of human nature, but I see no thread mourning the senseless deaths of civilians in the Iraqi war zone. I find it hard to understand, when the numbers you post (62,281-68,289) are so many more human lives lost, and yet because it is war, it becomes somehow more acceptable, to outsiders. The families of those killed in war are no less hurt, they will miss the loved-one just as much, may have relied upon the person for their own welfare, and etc...a life is a life, every life is important to someone. Why does war erase the emotional investment in someones being killed ...and the absence of it appear to increase the value of life for people?
If we kept track of every war going on in every nation that wars, I wonder what the toll would be, on a daily basis, and if man could know these numbers and still consider himself civilized and evolved....just because of un-involvement in the actual fighting or politics of it.
The world is my home, people are my family, I see a great lack of intelligence and care being taken to protect them from wars and famine, it has always made me wonder at why compassion seems lacking in so many, for the other human being...the one far off and speaking with another tongue....and at times, the one around the next corner as well.
Where do people displace their compassion? Why can't systems be developed to end all wars? Whence is this evolved man we have all heard about? Is he the man of the future...gosh I really hope so! When a person has the opportunity to become part of differing cultures, he definitely realizes the underlying humanity in every single culture. We may all have our tyrants, but this is something we hope to see bettered, not expanded upon.
Humans have a common thread, if you have to go back to species, or DNA strands, in the end you have to admit that there is a common bond...and it is constantly being broken. I think the future will be a time to mend that bond, that a world community will develop, thanks to a new openness, and to the Internet erasing boarders to communications... and that this new age (one of compassionate compromise in governing factors) will not be the result of a third world war, but i can only hope and wish on this...it is up to those in powerful positions to decide to make it so.
In September 2006,the 'Iraq body count' placed civilian deaths their between 62,281-68,289. If you do not hold a bias against other races and cultures, then surely you must find that to be very wrong.
Eisenhower changed his mind about war after he witnessed the atrocities of it during WWII.
Here's a quote by him:
(Dwight Eisenhower)
'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?'
Eisenhower said these words in 1953, when modern weaponry was in its infancy. A weapon today is a lot more expensive, in terms of the destruction is causes and the money it requires to build.
The Eisenhower quote is wonderful, I never knew he was so opposed to warring, and having the burden of (the potential for) American money's, which were often being mis-spent, when they could be used for so much better purposes. I believe we should have stayed out of Vietnam, at the very least, and that we have done a favor to Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein from power there, but after that we should have pulled out immediately....the death toll would surly not have risen... had we just left with the capture of that so called leader.
One thing I find strange is the way 33 deaths at Virginia Tech, gets a thread in here as a testament to the tragic state of human nature, but I see no thread mourning the senseless deaths of civilians in the Iraqi war zone. I find it hard to understand, when the numbers you post (62,281-68,289) are so many more human lives lost, and yet because it is war, it becomes somehow more acceptable, to outsiders. The families of those killed in war are no less hurt, they will miss the loved-one just as much, may have relied upon the person for their own welfare, and etc...a life is a life, every life is important to someone. Why does war erase the emotional investment in someones being killed ...and the absence of it appear to increase the value of life for people?
If we kept track of every war going on in every nation that wars, I wonder what the toll would be, on a daily basis, and if man could know these numbers and still consider himself civilized and evolved....just because of un-involvement in the actual fighting or politics of it.
The world is my home, people are my family, I see a great lack of intelligence and care being taken to protect them from wars and famine, it has always made me wonder at why compassion seems lacking in so many, for the other human being...the one far off and speaking with another tongue....and at times, the one around the next corner as well.
Where do people displace their compassion? Why can't systems be developed to end all wars? Whence is this evolved man we have all heard about? Is he the man of the future...gosh I really hope so! When a person has the opportunity to become part of differing cultures, he definitely realizes the underlying humanity in every single culture. We may all have our tyrants, but this is something we hope to see bettered, not expanded upon.
Humans have a common thread, if you have to go back to species, or DNA strands, in the end you have to admit that there is a common bond...and it is constantly being broken. I think the future will be a time to mend that bond, that a world community will develop, thanks to a new openness, and to the Internet erasing boarders to communications... and that this new age (one of compassionate compromise in governing factors) will not be the result of a third world war, but i can only hope and wish on this...it is up to those in powerful positions to decide to make it so.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 1 2007, 01:10 PM)
Eisenhower changed his mind about war after he witnessed the atrocities of it during WWII.
tikay and ImmortalCoil,
I respect Eisenhower and I am certain he was not opposed to the United States involvement in the war. There was no option. Let Hitler take all of Europe and in the process execute every Jew over there. Let Hirohito run over Asia and continue atrocities in China.
Yes, Eisenhower had many concerns about the “Military - Industrial Complex.” Don’t confuse that with the moral imperative of the Allied Forces stopping Germany and Japan.
tikay and ImmortalCoil,
I respect Eisenhower and I am certain he was not opposed to the United States involvement in the war. There was no option. Let Hitler take all of Europe and in the process execute every Jew over there. Let Hirohito run over Asia and continue atrocities in China.
Yes, Eisenhower had many concerns about the “Military - Industrial Complex.” Don’t confuse that with the moral imperative of the Allied Forces stopping Germany and Japan.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2007, 08:02 PM)
I would agree with you that some tyrants are the products of previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles certainly enabled Hitler to come to power. But what about Hirohito and Mussolini? Free and democratic societies should always be prepared for war. I do not believe we can ever “erase the need for war.”
Unfortunately too true.
Unfortunately too true.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2007, 02:46 PM)
tikay and ImmortalCoil,
I respect Eisenhower and I am certain he was not opposed to the United States involvement in the war. There was no option. Let Hitler take all of Europe and in the process execute every Jew over there. Let Hirohito run over Asia and continue atrocities in China.
Yes, Eisenhower had many concerns about the “Military - Industrial Complex.” Don’t confuse that with the moral imperative of the Allied Forces stopping Germany and Japan.
To believe that money spent on wars could be so much better used is not in total opposition to the idea that sometimes war cannot be avoided. Both ideas are realistic and correct in these times. The amount of money wasted in the American government (where most of us have some knowledge about the corruption) is extreme.
From nuts and bolts, to toilet seats, or almost any item sold to the government, can be sold at extremely exorbitant prices (this is in the news on occasion) when this foul deed is practiced, at great cost to citizens who pay high taxes, the corrupt act is undeniably WRONG on the part of participants, both seller and buyer are corrupt. The ledgers are full of this foul practice.
I cant know if this is happening all over in a like manner, I have not been informed about this corruption, in other nations, so i will keep my "whistle-blowing" speech, focused on America.
I will see if I can find a link for those who don't know what I am talking about.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1198/ijee/strombom.htm
I think what Eisenhower may have been trying to point out was that, with the (indecent amount of corruption, and the) extreme costs to build weapons we could have a much better America, that all the moneys wasted (those that are wasted) could be better spent on more decent, and many more hospitals and schools and helping institutions.
There is nothing wrong with having military programs, having a military system in place in a world such as this. But there is something amiss when a country, no matter how (deceivingly) financially stable, begins to police the world (disproportionally) and create wars for the sake of warring. (like Vietnam?)
Like I said, after removing the corrupt leader (as if ours aren't) Saddam Hussein, maybe the decision makers should have re-convened and decided to pull out of Iraq at that point, and see how the place fared without our troops.
AS far as I know we were supposed to be looking for Osama Bin Ladin, and not going into oil country by happenstance, to take out SOMEBODY in order to show American power and military might. It reminds me of the practice within police systems that causes innocent people to be jailed (because the actual criminal cannot be procured) when the need to look good exceeds justice.
I respect Eisenhower and I am certain he was not opposed to the United States involvement in the war. There was no option. Let Hitler take all of Europe and in the process execute every Jew over there. Let Hirohito run over Asia and continue atrocities in China.
Yes, Eisenhower had many concerns about the “Military - Industrial Complex.” Don’t confuse that with the moral imperative of the Allied Forces stopping Germany and Japan.
To believe that money spent on wars could be so much better used is not in total opposition to the idea that sometimes war cannot be avoided. Both ideas are realistic and correct in these times. The amount of money wasted in the American government (where most of us have some knowledge about the corruption) is extreme.
From nuts and bolts, to toilet seats, or almost any item sold to the government, can be sold at extremely exorbitant prices (this is in the news on occasion) when this foul deed is practiced, at great cost to citizens who pay high taxes, the corrupt act is undeniably WRONG on the part of participants, both seller and buyer are corrupt. The ledgers are full of this foul practice.
I cant know if this is happening all over in a like manner, I have not been informed about this corruption, in other nations, so i will keep my "whistle-blowing" speech, focused on America.
I will see if I can find a link for those who don't know what I am talking about.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1198/ijee/strombom.htm
I think what Eisenhower may have been trying to point out was that, with the (indecent amount of corruption, and the) extreme costs to build weapons we could have a much better America, that all the moneys wasted (those that are wasted) could be better spent on more decent, and many more hospitals and schools and helping institutions.
There is nothing wrong with having military programs, having a military system in place in a world such as this. But there is something amiss when a country, no matter how (deceivingly) financially stable, begins to police the world (disproportionally) and create wars for the sake of warring. (like Vietnam?)
Like I said, after removing the corrupt leader (as if ours aren't) Saddam Hussein, maybe the decision makers should have re-convened and decided to pull out of Iraq at that point, and see how the place fared without our troops.
AS far as I know we were supposed to be looking for Osama Bin Ladin, and not going into oil country by happenstance, to take out SOMEBODY in order to show American power and military might. It reminds me of the practice within police systems that causes innocent people to be jailed (because the actual criminal cannot be procured) when the need to look good exceeds justice.
tikay,
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 5 2007, 03:04 PM)
tikay,
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
An excellent point, and I agree with you again. Politicians of the future must take a scathingly honest look backwards and make sure that nothing they do would cause such a horrible overreaction such as those made by Mussolini and Hitler.
These men were so selfish and ignorant, that they changed the face of the earth without shame.
There is still an element of this same ignorance in politics today. Now it has more to do with pollutants/deforestation...perhaps, more than warring...but the horrible results will be the same, death and destruction, to millions who are allowed and encouraged to lay waste to their homelands not seeing the future for need of financial gains in the now.
If wars are to remain a necessary challenge for man, and a way which we cope with the catastrophic, let them come to be eventually, wars against ignorance and pride. More than those fought against a neighboring tribe or nationality.
All I want is the very best future, and in this optimistic light, my stance will always be one that promotes evolution and that ultimate evolution in man equates to a peaceful planet, so far as I am concerned. Forgive me my hippy roots, but I will always expect and predict that man can someday evolve to the point of not warring in a militant capacity. It may take century's, but it may not take millenia.
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
An excellent point, and I agree with you again. Politicians of the future must take a scathingly honest look backwards and make sure that nothing they do would cause such a horrible overreaction such as those made by Mussolini and Hitler.
These men were so selfish and ignorant, that they changed the face of the earth without shame.
There is still an element of this same ignorance in politics today. Now it has more to do with pollutants/deforestation...perhaps, more than warring...but the horrible results will be the same, death and destruction, to millions who are allowed and encouraged to lay waste to their homelands not seeing the future for need of financial gains in the now.
If wars are to remain a necessary challenge for man, and a way which we cope with the catastrophic, let them come to be eventually, wars against ignorance and pride. More than those fought against a neighboring tribe or nationality.
All I want is the very best future, and in this optimistic light, my stance will always be one that promotes evolution and that ultimate evolution in man equates to a peaceful planet, so far as I am concerned. Forgive me my hippy roots, but I will always expect and predict that man can someday evolve to the point of not warring in a militant capacity. It may take century's, but it may not take millenia.
just to get things in perspective a little..
On Tuesday September 11, 2001, at least 35,615 of our brother and sisters died from the worst possible death, starvation.
http://www.starvation.net/
All action starts with thought.
All thoughts start in our own minds.
People must attend to the wars raging in their own minds, to stop the action they blame others for.
g.
QUOTE
Every day in the developing world,
30,100 children die from mostly preventable and treatable causes such as diarrhea, acute
respiratory infections or
malaria. Malnutrition is
associated with over half of those deaths.
More than 800 million people in the world are
malnourished --
777 million of them are from the developing world. 177 million of them are children.
In the last 50 years, almost 400 million people worldwide have died from hunger and poor sanitation,
according to the report.
That's three times the
number of people killed in all wars fought in the
entire 20th century.
30,100 children die from mostly preventable and treatable causes such as diarrhea, acute
respiratory infections or
malaria. Malnutrition is
associated with over half of those deaths.
More than 800 million people in the world are
malnourished --
777 million of them are from the developing world. 177 million of them are children.
In the last 50 years, almost 400 million people worldwide have died from hunger and poor sanitation,
according to the report.
That's three times the
number of people killed in all wars fought in the
entire 20th century.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every day in the developing world, 30,100 children die from mostly preventable and treatable causes such as diarrhea, acute respiratory infections or malaria. Malnutrition is associated with over half of those deaths. More than 800 million people in the world are malnourished -- 777 million of them are from the developing world. 177 million of them are children. In the last 50 years, almost 400 million people worldwide have died from hunger and poor sanitation, according to the report. That's three times the number of people killed in all wars fought in the entire 20th century. |
On Tuesday September 11, 2001, at least 35,615 of our brother and sisters died from the worst possible death, starvation.
http://www.starvation.net/
All action starts with thought.
All thoughts start in our own minds.
People must attend to the wars raging in their own minds, to stop the action they blame others for.
g.
QUOTE (tikay+May 5 2007, 10:20 PM)
Forgive me my hippy roots, but I will always expect and predict that man can someday evolve to the point of not warring in a militant capacity. It may take century's, but it may not take millenia.
tikay,
There is nothing wrong with dreaming of utopia. Just don’t confuse fantasy with reality. John Kennedy once described the world as: "very dangerous, untidy."
tikay,
There is nothing wrong with dreaming of utopia. Just don’t confuse fantasy with reality. John Kennedy once described the world as: "very dangerous, untidy."
Adding to Gorgeous' list.
Not all the world is USA.
Someone's regional "stability" is other's continuous stable catastrophe, often due to difference in size or strength/means and/or due to geographic location or neighboring nations' designs/means.
Not all the world is USA.
Someone's regional "stability" is other's continuous stable catastrophe, often due to difference in size or strength/means and/or due to geographic location or neighboring nations' designs/means.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 5 2007, 06:04 PM)
tikay,
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
I would agree with you that some tyrants are the products of previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles certainly enabled Hitler to come to power. But what about Hirohito and Mussolini? Free and democratic societies should always be prepared for war. I do not believe we can ever “erase the need for war.”
From Wiki:
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I would agree with you that some tyrants are the products of previous wars. The Treaty of Versailles certainly enabled Hitler to come to power. But what about Hirohito and Mussolini? Free and democratic societies should always be prepared for war. I do not believe we can ever “erase the need for war.”
From Wiki:
QUOTE (wikipedia+)
One notable case was the assassination of moderate Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi in 1932, which marked the end of any real civilian control of the military. This was followed by an attempted military coup in February 1936, the February 26 incident, mounted by junior Army officers of the Kōdōha faction who had the sympathy of many high-ranking officers including Prince Chichibu (Yasuhito), one of the emperor's brothers.
Hitohito was a successor to the Japanese throne because of his father. He was not democratically elected, and as I argue, was raised in an environment that was not challenged to war, in fact quite the opposite.
And also it is clear that Mussolini was a production of WWI and the preceding instability in Italy and Europe.
I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability.
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
Reminds me of an Eddie Izzard gag which said that the world is okay with it as long as dictators kill their own kind. Pol Pot, Xeng Diong, and currently Kim Jong Il all killed their own people mostly, but that's okay. As soon as they touch someone else though, like Hitler and Mussolini did, then everyone else is pissed.
Hitohito was a successor to the Japanese throne because of his father. He was not democratically elected, and as I argue, was raised in an environment that was not challenged to war, in fact quite the opposite.
And also it is clear that Mussolini was a production of WWI and the preceding instability in Italy and Europe.
I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability.
QUOTE
Historically more people are butchered by their own leaders, within their own country’s borders, than are killed as the result of wars. Both Stalin and Hitler murdered tens of millions simply for political reasons. Hitler even based his barbarism on science. Hitler thought he was assisting the evolutionary process by purifying the Aryan race.
War itself is neither good nor evil. The reason one goes to war is the issue.
Reminds me of an Eddie Izzard gag which said that the world is okay with it as long as dictators kill their own kind. Pol Pot, Xeng Diong, and currently Kim Jong Il all killed their own people mostly, but that's okay. As soon as they touch someone else though, like Hitler and Mussolini did, then everyone else is pissed.
"I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability."
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 6 2007, 06:56 AM)
Reminds me of an Eddie Izzard gag which said that the world is okay with it as long as dictators kill their own kind. Pol Pot, Xeng Diong, and currently Kim Jong Il all killed their own people mostly, but that's okay. As soon as they touch someone else though, like Hitler and Mussolini did, then everyone else is pissed.
Specifically, what do you suggest?
Specifically, what do you suggest?
Part of the problem is that many people in the third world believe they can have as many children as possible without consequences. The third world believes it can borrow as much money as possible from the first world because it knows it's debt will be written off so not need to be paid off. There are ever more millions of people demanding help. We should make all aid conditional otherwise our children's children will be doing exactly the same thing for their children's children.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 6 2007, 07:56 AM)
Reminds me of an Eddie Izzard gag which said that the world is okay with it as long as dictators kill their own kind. Pol Pot, Xeng Diong, and currently Kim Jong Il all killed their own people mostly, but that's okay. As soon as they touch someone else though, like Hitler and Mussolini did, then everyone else is pissed.
Too true. You only have to look at much of Africa. They couldn't wait to kick whitey out because he had been giving the black man a hard time with all sorts of demos against South Africa, Rhodesia, etc. Then the new black leaders turned out to be worse than the whites ever were and all the protestors said and did nothing because black on black persecution is OK.
Too true. You only have to look at much of Africa. They couldn't wait to kick whitey out because he had been giving the black man a hard time with all sorts of demos against South Africa, Rhodesia, etc. Then the new black leaders turned out to be worse than the whites ever were and all the protestors said and did nothing because black on black persecution is OK.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 6 2007, 05:42 AM)
"I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability."
Are you serious?
Um..you kinda didn't prove or show me wrong. So yeah, I'm serious.
Just something that occurred to me.
Just something that occurred to me.
Part of the problem is that many people in the third world believe they can have as many children as possible without consequences. The third world believes it can borrow as much money as possible from the first world because it knows it's debt will be written off so not need to be paid off. There are ever more millions of people demanding help. We should make all aid conditional otherwise our children's children will be doing exactly the same thing for their children's children.
Kaneda, many third world countries have population problems because of the lack of education. The obvious solution is to provide an education for these people.
Making aid conditional is a situation bound to create a lot of politics (I know this might piss of Derek). This is the case currently with Kin Jong Il, it was with Saddam Hussien, and a couple of African nations. Most of the times, the general public is left in the middle of the politics, hungry.
The many African nations which did 'steal' from the World Bank did not really benefit much from it. The dictator of the country usually does though. It is clear that the over borrowing comes not from a nation's people, but a few corrupt leaders. And also World Bank's application of these loans and 'reforms' is one of the greatest failures of politics and economics.
Kaneda, many third world countries have population problems because of the lack of education. The obvious solution is to provide an education for these people.
Making aid conditional is a situation bound to create a lot of politics (I know this might piss of Derek). This is the case currently with Kin Jong Il, it was with Saddam Hussien, and a couple of African nations. Most of the times, the general public is left in the middle of the politics, hungry.
The many African nations which did 'steal' from the World Bank did not really benefit much from it. The dictator of the country usually does though. It is clear that the over borrowing comes not from a nation's people, but a few corrupt leaders. And also World Bank's application of these loans and 'reforms' is one of the greatest failures of politics and economics.
This is a great point, when birth control and education is an option for the poor and maligned, then we may say they were ignorant and had too many offspring.
Until then we are co-conspirators to the dilemma, since the educated are made responsible by such knowledge of how to solve problems, they are ultimately responsible for those who have not had the same opportunity to become educated, learning about solutions to population problems and so forth.
Third world mothers who have many children, are third worl
Are you serious?
Um..you kinda didn't prove or show me wrong. So yeah, I'm serious.
QUOTE
Specifically, what do you suggest?
Just something that occurred to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Specifically, what do you suggest? |
Just something that occurred to me.
Part of the problem is that many people in the third world believe they can have as many children as possible without consequences. The third world believes it can borrow as much money as possible from the first world because it knows it's debt will be written off so not need to be paid off. There are ever more millions of people demanding help. We should make all aid conditional otherwise our children's children will be doing exactly the same thing for their children's children.
Kaneda, many third world countries have population problems because of the lack of education. The obvious solution is to provide an education for these people.
Making aid conditional is a situation bound to create a lot of politics (I know this might piss of Derek). This is the case currently with Kin Jong Il, it was with Saddam Hussien, and a couple of African nations. Most of the times, the general public is left in the middle of the politics, hungry.
The many African nations which did 'steal' from the World Bank did not really benefit much from it. The dictator of the country usually does though. It is clear that the over borrowing comes not from a nation's people, but a few corrupt leaders. And also World Bank's application of these loans and 'reforms' is one of the greatest failures of politics and economics.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 6 2007, 12:23 PM)
Um..you kinda didn't prove or show me wrong. So yeah, I'm serious.
History has proven you wrong. Neville Chamberlain has proven you wrong. The League of Nations has proven you wrong. France in World War II has proven you wrong. The Jews of Europe in the late 30’s and early 40’s have proven you wrong. The victim’s of Pol Pot’s Killing Fields have proven you wrong. The Chinese residents of Nanking under Japanese occupation have proven you wrong.
History has proven you wrong. Neville Chamberlain has proven you wrong. The League of Nations has proven you wrong. France in World War II has proven you wrong. The Jews of Europe in the late 30’s and early 40’s have proven you wrong. The victim’s of Pol Pot’s Killing Fields have proven you wrong. The Chinese residents of Nanking under Japanese occupation have proven you wrong.
Derek1148, ImmortalCoil said, "I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable (unstable?) situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability."
The examples you list bolster ImmortalCoil's points. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, whose rise was brought on by hyperinflation and the instability within Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust occurred in the midst of mass delusions and instability. The artificial national boundaries drawn up after the First World War, resulted in split-up ethnic groups and instability with repercussions lasting to the current times, particularly in the Middle East. America has had some very strange bedfellows, brought on by allegiances with immoral tyrants and dictators for expediency in certain small-scale conflicts. If our foreign policy took the long-range view over short-term gains and a lack of moral guidance, the world would be a much better place and America would regain its former level of global respect. Bush has not done this, and is showing no propensity to "do the right thing."
The examples you list bolster ImmortalCoil's points. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, whose rise was brought on by hyperinflation and the instability within Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust occurred in the midst of mass delusions and instability. The artificial national boundaries drawn up after the First World War, resulted in split-up ethnic groups and instability with repercussions lasting to the current times, particularly in the Middle East. America has had some very strange bedfellows, brought on by allegiances with immoral tyrants and dictators for expediency in certain small-scale conflicts. If our foreign policy took the long-range view over short-term gains and a lack of moral guidance, the world would be a much better place and America would regain its former level of global respect. Bush has not done this, and is showing no propensity to "do the right thing."
QUOTE (photojack+May 6 2007, 07:53 PM)
Derek1148, ImmortalCoil said, "I still stand by my point that dictators and brutal leaders are produced by previously instable (unstable?) situations, and this can be rectified with the promotion of global peace and economic stability."
The examples you list bolster ImmortalCoil's points. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, whose rise was brought on by hyperinflation and the instability within Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust occurred in the midst of mass delusions and instability. The artificial national boundaries drawn up after the First World War, resulted in split-up ethnic groups and instability with repercussions lasting to the current times, particularly in the Middle East. America has had some very strange bedfellows, brought on by allegiances with immoral tyrants and dictators for expediency in certain small-scale conflicts. If our foreign policy took the long-range view over short-term gains and a lack of moral guidance, the world would be a much better place and America would regain its former level of global respect. Bush has not done this, and is showing no propensity to "do the right thing."
photojack,
You and ImmortalCoil speak of the “causes” of despots. And certainly we should learn lessons from history (i.e. The Treaty of Versailles). This may shock you, but the United States and England did not create every tyrant of the world. Evil exists without the assistance of free and democratic societies.
Preventing the creation of despots is a wonderful notion (just like cold fusion). But suppose you have a brutal tyrant who butchers his own people and threatens the world, what do you suggest? Whine about the United States policy that may have magically created the dictator? Dream of peace all you want. Freedom is preserved by those willing to go to war.
The examples you list bolster ImmortalCoil's points. Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, whose rise was brought on by hyperinflation and the instability within Germany caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust occurred in the midst of mass delusions and instability. The artificial national boundaries drawn up after the First World War, resulted in split-up ethnic groups and instability with repercussions lasting to the current times, particularly in the Middle East. America has had some very strange bedfellows, brought on by allegiances with immoral tyrants and dictators for expediency in certain small-scale conflicts. If our foreign policy took the long-range view over short-term gains and a lack of moral guidance, the world would be a much better place and America would regain its former level of global respect. Bush has not done this, and is showing no propensity to "do the right thing."
photojack,
You and ImmortalCoil speak of the “causes” of despots. And certainly we should learn lessons from history (i.e. The Treaty of Versailles). This may shock you, but the United States and England did not create every tyrant of the world. Evil exists without the assistance of free and democratic societies.
Preventing the creation of despots is a wonderful notion (just like cold fusion). But suppose you have a brutal tyrant who butchers his own people and threatens the world, what do you suggest? Whine about the United States policy that may have magically created the dictator? Dream of peace all you want. Freedom is preserved by those willing to go to war.
I am certainly aware that the U.S. does not create all dictators. But we have sided with some in the past, including Saddam Hussein! The situation in Rwanda would be an example of what you are talking about, and war was not the answer. There are diplomatic scenarios and other situations would require the U.N., especially if they would exercise stronger preventive measures than at times in the past. This current Iraq war is a perfect example of a poorly planned and thought out war that will have negative repercussions for the foreseeable future. War is not always the answer.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 5 2007, 03:48 PM)
just to get things in perspective a little..
http://www.starvation.net/
All action starts with thought.
All thoughts start in our own minds.
People must attend to the wars raging in their own minds, to stop the action they blame others for.
g.
Thanks for you observation. This is a good point and I appreciate the perspective even if it may appear off topic to some folks. I have a holistic way of looking at things and feel that all is deeply connected, everything that happens on the earth, stays here...
I believe the most important priority should be the most damaging element, (observed).
Therefore if starvation tops the list of most catastrophic events on the planet, then it needs be addressed firstly.
Some will say that human population is being culled by this event and is actually necessary, so that others will be able to continue to prosper, (those that do well).
I am in no way of this mind-set, myself. I believe all people deserve to eat and have shelter and even, an education to boot. Therefore I very much appreciate this (your) post.
I can hardly wait to see the responses.
http://www.starvation.net/
All action starts with thought.
All thoughts start in our own minds.
People must attend to the wars raging in their own minds, to stop the action they blame others for.
g.
Thanks for you observation. This is a good point and I appreciate the perspective even if it may appear off topic to some folks. I have a holistic way of looking at things and feel that all is deeply connected, everything that happens on the earth, stays here...
I believe the most important priority should be the most damaging element, (observed).
Therefore if starvation tops the list of most catastrophic events on the planet, then it needs be addressed firstly.
Some will say that human population is being culled by this event and is actually necessary, so that others will be able to continue to prosper, (those that do well).
I am in no way of this mind-set, myself. I believe all people deserve to eat and have shelter and even, an education to boot. Therefore I very much appreciate this (your) post.
I can hardly wait to see the responses.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 5 2007, 07:30 PM)
tikay,
There is nothing wrong with dreaming of utopia. Just don’t confuse fantasy with reality. John Kennedy once described the world as: "very dangerous, untidy."
I agree whole-heartedly that the world is a bloody mess, and beyond untidy...
but that does not mean that with some new policy, that much of it cannot be cleaned up. Just like a teen-ager who refuses to clean his room up despite the parents attempts at disipline, goverments continue to refuse to clean up their act even at the behest of it's peoples.
When the political becomes more personal to more people, and the personal becomes more political....THEN there will be more dreams, on everyones part, of utopian enterprizes and with that DREAM may come an attempt to make it become a REALITY. Like one forces a bulb to bloom, a forced dream becomes a new truth, and a different reality.
If Martin Luther King Jr. had never dreamed he could affect changes in civil rights or Ghandi had never dreamed his influence could change the way the world works, there would be a whole different reality today than the one they helped affect.
There is nothing wrong with dreaming of utopia. Just don’t confuse fantasy with reality. John Kennedy once described the world as: "very dangerous, untidy."
I agree whole-heartedly that the world is a bloody mess, and beyond untidy...
but that does not mean that with some new policy, that much of it cannot be cleaned up. Just like a teen-ager who refuses to clean his room up despite the parents attempts at disipline, goverments continue to refuse to clean up their act even at the behest of it's peoples.
When the political becomes more personal to more people, and the personal becomes more political....THEN there will be more dreams, on everyones part, of utopian enterprizes and with that DREAM may come an attempt to make it become a REALITY. Like one forces a bulb to bloom, a forced dream becomes a new truth, and a different reality.
If Martin Luther King Jr. had never dreamed he could affect changes in civil rights or Ghandi had never dreamed his influence could change the way the world works, there would be a whole different reality today than the one they helped affect.
In the light of the points Tikay has made...
It seems to me that most 'leaders' (elected or self-appointed) originate from Rednecksville (any country - not just USA). To make any change one must first reach/educate the inhabitants of Rednecksville - is this possible? If the people of Rednecksville cannot be reached or educated then I suggest we have eternal strife
-C2.
It seems to me that most 'leaders' (elected or self-appointed) originate from Rednecksville (any country - not just USA). To make any change one must first reach/educate the inhabitants of Rednecksville - is this possible? If the people of Rednecksville cannot be reached or educated then I suggest we have eternal strife
-C2.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 6 2007, 04:19 PM)
photojack,
You and ImmortalCoil speak of the “causes” of despots. And certainly we should learn lessons from history (i.e. The Treaty of Versailles). This may shock you, but the United States and England did not create every tyrant of the world. Evil exists without the assistance of free and democratic societies.
Preventing the creation of despots is a wonderful notion (just like cold fusion). But suppose you have a brutal tyrant who butchers his own people and threatens the world, what do you suggest? Whine about the United States policy that may have magically created the dictator? Dream of peace all you want. Freedom is preserved by those willing to go to war.
Derek, once again you are getting too defensive. I did not say anything about the United States creating all dictators. I am speaking of war and instability in general.
When the rest of the world voted against an invasion on Iraq, do you think that they were all being cowards? Do you really believe that that 'rest of the world' is filled with idiots?
I as a kid lived in Kuwait for some time during the war under constant threat of Saddam Hussien, but even I know that he was no longer a threat to anyone, including his own people.
There are diplomatic solutions (as we recently discovered with North Korea) to such problems and they have much longer lasting consequences.
As photojack pointed out, the examples you have before all supported my argument.
You and ImmortalCoil speak of the “causes” of despots. And certainly we should learn lessons from history (i.e. The Treaty of Versailles). This may shock you, but the United States and England did not create every tyrant of the world. Evil exists without the assistance of free and democratic societies.
Preventing the creation of despots is a wonderful notion (just like cold fusion). But suppose you have a brutal tyrant who butchers his own people and threatens the world, what do you suggest? Whine about the United States policy that may have magically created the dictator? Dream of peace all you want. Freedom is preserved by those willing to go to war.
Derek, once again you are getting too defensive. I did not say anything about the United States creating all dictators. I am speaking of war and instability in general.
QUOTE
But suppose you have a brutal tyrant who butchers his own people and threatens the world, what do you suggest?
When the rest of the world voted against an invasion on Iraq, do you think that they were all being cowards? Do you really believe that that 'rest of the world' is filled with idiots?
I as a kid lived in Kuwait for some time during the war under constant threat of Saddam Hussien, but even I know that he was no longer a threat to anyone, including his own people.
There are diplomatic solutions (as we recently discovered with North Korea) to such problems and they have much longer lasting consequences.
As photojack pointed out, the examples you have before all supported my argument.
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+May 6 2007, 05:23 AM)
Kaneda, many third world countries have population problems because of the lack of education. The obvious solution is to provide an education for these people.
Making aid conditional is a situation bound to create a lot of politics (I know this might piss of Derek). This is the case currently with Kin Jong Il, it was with Saddam Hussien, and a couple of African nations. Most of the times, the general public is left in the middle of the politics, hungry.
The many African nations which did 'steal' from the World Bank did not really benefit much from it. The dictator of the country usually does though. It is clear that the over borrowing comes not from a nation's people, but a few corrupt leaders. And also World Bank's application of these loans and 'reforms' is one of the greatest failures of politics and economics.
This is a great point, when birth control and education is an option for the poor and maligned, then we may say they were ignorant and had too many offspring.
Until then we are co-conspirators to the dilemma, since the educated are made responsible by such knowledge of how to solve problems, they are ultimately responsible for those who have not had the same opportunity to become educated, learning about solutions to population problems and so forth.
Third world mothers who have many children, are third worl