Re: Jihad needs scientists
- From: Robert Latest <boblatest@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Oct 2006 09:19:14 GMT
On 2006-10-06, John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 07:18:41 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At present, no. Deliberately, no. It is in fact difficult to make out
what the US are doing at present, and why they insist on doing it.
The theory is, I think, that the US has the power and the moral
imperative to spread democracy throughout the world.
I don't know where that moral imperative would come from, but
what the US are learning at the moment is that (military) power
alone doesn't seem to be the right way to accomplish much in the
way of spreading democracy.
You can argue
that it's in our self-interest to do so, but I could reply that it's
in everybody's self-interest.
I agree, but that is only because democracy is all I know from a
personal experience.
I really don't know where you see all that anti-Americansim.
Um, this newsgroup? "Americans are fat idiots" sounds a bit anti to
me.
OK.
"Run down by a bunch of religious goons" isn't very friendly,
either.
That's indeed unfriendly, but is obviously directed against the
current American government. If I were anti-american I should
enjoy watching the US government doing such a poor job, shouldn't
I?
Someone even mentioned "a great deal of the alienation the US
are experiencing at the moment" recently.
Poor choice of words on my part. "Alienation" can indeed include
hostility which is not what I meant. I meant it in the literal
sense of "becoming a stranger to former friends".
One could argue that the US is trying to do for the Middle East what
it successfully did for Europe, and for the same reasons.
But how naive ist that? Europe always had strong and friendly
ties to the US -- economically, and above all, culturally. Much
of the US's population back then was (and still is today) of
first- or second-generation European descent. Europeans,
particularly Germans, were and still are great fans of American
literature, film, and music. The US were seen as a powerful and
morally integre friend that was doing a genuine and successful
effort in helping to rebuild Germany. I myself can't quite
understand how the Germans -- after the Kaiserreich, the not very
successful and brief Weimar Republic and 12 years of fascist
dictatorship -- could so quickly, eagerly and successfully build
and adjust to one of the most advanced democratic systems. But
they did because of their strong historical and genetic ties to
the Western Allies.
Trying to transplant that model on a country or region whose
relationship to the US is based on mutual misunderstanding,
language and cultural barriers, and indifference by starting (not
getting dragged into) a war for doctored-up reasons can only
fail. Which could have been foreseen (or understod in
hindsight) by anybody with half a brain. Naive isn't a strong
enough word for it.
What I don't
understand is why so many Europeans are so upset that the attempt is
being made. This, I think, turns out to be a deepish issue.
See above. The attempt was based on lies, which is something that
people -- at least Europeans -- deeply resent, even if the cause
itself is honourable. And given the long experience that
Europeans have with wars, like you yourself have noted, they knew
damn well that "C'mon, let's go spread some democracy for the
camel jockeys" just isn't going to work.
There is some disappointment here that Europe, now free from the big
bad bear, is not taking a more effective role in its former colonies
in Africa, where people are unnecessarily dying by the millions.
But wel all -- Europeans and Americans alike -- live so damn well
with all the nice things we let the African people get cheated
out of, don't you think?
It
looks almost as though Europe, in its criticism of US actions and the
lack of action on its own part, has become uncaring and insular,
saying "leave it to the UN" knowing full well that the UN does mostly
nothing. And criticizing the US for *trying*.
The Europeans are anything but insular; in fact they are trying
to solve global problems on a broad consensual basis. It's (among
very vew others) the US that is actively thwarting those
attempts. Th UN and Kyoto are but two examples.
Given the chaos of causality over time, it's impossible to say what
the longterm consequences of our actions, or inactions, may be.
Indeed. And that's a very shaky basis on which to start wars, for
example.
robert
.
- References:
- Re: Jihad needs scientists
- From: Robert Latest
- Re: Jihad needs scientists
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Jihad needs scientists
- Prev by Date: Re: Reading on receiver LO phase noise impact on sensitivity
- Next by Date: Re: Agilent Direct sucks
- Previous by thread: Re: Jihad needs scientists
- Next by thread: Re: Jihad needs scientists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
