Yes - good points. I understand that the US has done some harebrained
(dare I say flagrantly dishonest?) things during the past century and this
has rubbed people the wrong way. Of course ALL of the Western nations -
many of whom were colonialists - did some dubious things. Even the jolly
old Brits, who, believe it or not, supported the Arabs in their war of
potential annihilation in 1948.
And look at the Italians!!!! Descendents of the Romans!!!! You see, it
starts to get silly. The Muslims are still bitching about the Crusades!!!!
And as for: "The West has systematically done this to the Moslems nations
over many years." What the West has done to the Muslims is nothing
compared to what they have done - or not done - to themselves. And ask the
people of India - the Hindus that is - how they were treated by the Moguls
during their invasions; 70 million killed, among other dreadful and
disgusting things. The history of Islam is one of plunder and death. You
don't have to do too much to help yourself by creating things - becoming
industrious - if you can assemble a ruthless army and just TAKE whatever
you want.
This is all verifiable by various history books.
Aside from what I wrote above about the Americans (whom I still admire
greatly), a bunch of poor refugees landed at Plymouth Sound several years
ago and forged, from the ground up, a great, wealthy, risk-taking,
generous, industrious nation. With all the untold oil revenues the Arabs
have, they have done, in comparison, nothing... except build schools of
indoctrination, and buy weapons for terrorists.
So I don't think we can really talk in this respect about the West stealing
their water... They really didn't have it in the first place.
P.
At 04:38 PM 8/15/2006 -0600, you wrote:
Philip Winestone wrote:
Good points Ed.
As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of
self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form
are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our
"freedom" (although the rules, in the case of "honour" killings (I like
to call them "ego killings") are decidedly less favourable toward women
than men).
In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is
concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!!
As for the "water" analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself.
Briefly, I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in
Scotland and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own
"water" as a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create
the "water" they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this
water - without regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to
create it - and would like to either steal it or spill it on the ground
just to satisfy this envy.
Here is where we differ. Although envy is real and can motivate an
individual for good or ill, I do not think it can mobilize many people and
cause them to die for the idea. The root cause has to be a universal
feeling, like pride, fairness, justice or just plane old self
defense. Once these trip wires stir up the emotions, the other side
naturally finds all kinds of defects in their enemy to justify killing
them. We all see examples of great wealth in our countries, but very few
people are motivated to attack these people even if they could. On the
other hand, if a group attacks us, steals our livelihood, or treats us
like dirt, must people would be first in line to kill them. The West has
systematically done this to the Moslems nations over many years. For
example, we supported the Shaw of Iran even though he was a very unpopular
dictator. When he was thrown out by popular revolution, we did everything
we could to intervene. We even supported Iraq in the war between Iran and
Iraq. We treated the popular will of Iran like dirt. If Mexico had done
the same thing to us, there would have been war. I find many people in the
West can not believe our actions are not pure and good. When other people
object, we believe they must be doing this with bad motives, which
justifies our increased control. Of course, things get out of hand, like
a bar fight after a few punches are thrown. At this point, being nice
will not stop the fight. Only calling the cops will work. But would it
not be better to know how to keep a bar fight from getting started in the
first place? Most people know how prevent pissing the other guy off. The
US government has never learned this because we were always the biggest
guy in the bar. Now, the little guys have learned how to gang up and hit
us when our back is turned. Being big no longer works.
Ed
P.
At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote:
Philip Winestone wrote:
Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks
rationally and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't.
Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are
rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you
note below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be
implemented by the individual rather than by the state.
And as for: "A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because
he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the
neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your
friends, you might think of murder."
You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder
their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain
levels of sanity here.
Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the
right to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the
child can not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be
killed. I don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our
system seems to work in some cases.
And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well...
perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that?
Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they
resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well
you get the picture...
Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state
(courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual
to take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was
used more often here.
And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about
water?
Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my
"water" you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you.
Ed
P.
At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote:
I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are
encouraged to believe.
They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what
he has to say in books such as, "Imperial Hubris." He is the most
popular man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named
their sons after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I
think they are misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the
militarists too. No doubt the majority of the country did, even
though it was pretty obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the
nation into Hell.
I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain
behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward
sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these
subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution.
However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for
the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor
because he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example,
the neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your
friends, you might think of murder.
Ed
Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II
style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be
worth practically nothing today.
Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would
all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be
done and if they were, other worse consequences would result.
Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If
FDR or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now.
I mean immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar
emergency wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men & women to fight
the war in Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of
SUVs. If this is really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their
responsibility to do such things. Wars are never won by
half-measures. The nation would follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it:
"Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal
from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so
speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert.
It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do
better?' The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy
present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise
-- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and
this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No
personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of
us. . . . We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know
how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the
responsibility. . . ."
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm
All of that applies as much to the energy/terror crisis today as it
did to the crisis of slavery in December 1862. Then and now, we know
what must be done. We need only summon up the will to *do* it.
And we may yet take action. Don't bet against it! You should never
sell the United States or its people short. The Japanese did in 1941
and look where it got them. Probably more than any other people on
earth, we are capable of doing extraordinary deeds in a short time.
As Edward Grey put it, the United States is like "a gigantic boiler.
Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it
can generate."
The only thing we lack are leaders with guts & vision. Leaders who
are not afraid to demand sacrifices from everyone, not just army
volunteers. In the past, such people have often stepped forth when
they were needed. But it has always been a close call. Lincoln nearly
lost the election and FDR had great difficulty securing the
nomination. The people next in line who would have won if they had
lost would have led the nation into oblivion.
- Jed
