Mother tongue: Polish Joined: February 18, 2003 Location: Poland
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on November 1, 2009 9:14 AM
you got tons of facts to memorize equally without rhyme or reason
Well, that depended on the teacher, how capable s/he was of synthesizing things. We were certainly not taught to disregard connections between events, their causes and effects. On the contrary. What you say about the transmission of culture, knowledge, and philosophies was there, in addition to the undisputable fact that
history is usually studied in terms of conflict: who conquered whom and what territory was won and lost.
So I agree with Liliana's overall assessment above.
The role of ideology was to brainwash you to believe that now mankind has found a solution to all its troubles and it is the only solution acceptable simply because it is perfect and foolproof. QED. Hence "We have to lead, we must, we are responsible..." Ring a bell?
Mother tongue: Polish Joined: February 18, 2003 Location: Poland
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by John Bunch on October 31, 2009 10:05 PM
Someone once said "The Germans will never forgive the Americans for liberating them". ... You might say that about all Europeans, too.
Yes, John, you are right as usual. In your own perspective only. All Eastern Europeans will, indeed, never forgive the Americans for liberating them in Yalta.
Originally written by Jacek K. on November 1, 2009 9:39 AM
The role of ideology was to brainwash you to believe that now mankind has found a solution to all its troubles and it is the only solution acceptable ...
Seems to me that all political parties have the flavour of ideology. Many political parties, especially those in the "free" world, claim to be democratic or run along the notion of an almost absolute free will and ability to influence, via active participation in the political process, how best to live your life within the particular system. It isn't so!
Every morning while reading the news from various Danish sources I can only shake my head, for there is little (nothing?) one can do to influence the process of who gets what and why.
You have hundreds of people and many organizations petitioning for AB, and with very good documentation showing why it is needed and the minister in charge rejects it out of hand. Later, when during yet another hearing, she is asked if she knows that XY official agency who receives tons of public money through taxes and heavy tariffs and who is supposed to actively promote AB, does not in fact do so. She doesn't know. Receiving the public money was conditional and the minister replies that she's surprised to discover that the reality is otherwise. DUH. No one bothered with the documentation.
The minister doesn't have a clue, she doesn't know and now a new law affecting millions of Danes is totally off-kilter for the next four years. No, she says, it cannot be changed now.
This is just one small instance of how it's almost useless to try to influence the political process.
Then there's brainwashing and mass hysteria. Last night the TV signals changed from analogue to digital. For the last six months, the hysteria has been almost total. The idea was that the future had arrived, etc. blah - blah - blah and to be part of the future you must purchase a new digital TV. Many people did just that - brainwashed into supporting the ailing economy - and all stores selling electronic gear have been sending out adverts that unless you buy or rent of subscribe or --- your TV signal would completely disappear last night. The state, the cable giants and the TV stores had the only viable solution to this terrible personal dilemma
I refused to join the unwashed and the brainwashed and guess what happened to my old TV?
Nanna, on a Sunday morning rant...
[Edited by Nanna Mercer on November 1, 2009 5:14 AM]
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1818 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Politics and brainwashing...
Hi Jacek, once again we are back to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You like to have it both ways: when America intervenes, it is the aggressive "hyperpower". When it doesn't, it is abandoning peoples and nations (Yalta) to their fate. So which is it ? You can't take every position simultaneously and then claim moral clarity and superiority.
Mother tongue: Polish Joined: February 18, 2003 Location: Poland
RE: Politics and brainwashing...
It was a joke in reply to your joke about the Germans, and all Europeans, being unable to forgive the Americans for having been liberated... 64 years ago. Frankly, fewer and fewer witnesses of those days are still alive so how about if we close that chapter and move on to Doris Lessing or other topics more likely to create a better, not worse, atmosphere for our work today?
Member Posts: 49 Joined: October 13, 2009 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by Jacek K. on November 1, 2009 4:33 AM
Originally written by John Bunch on October 31, 2009 10:05 PM
Someone once said "The Germans will never forgive the Americans for liberating them". ... You might say that about all Europeans, too.
Yes, John, you are right as usual. In your own perspective only. All Eastern Europeans will, indeed, never forgive the Americans for liberating them in Yalta.
Were you always this difficult? Ha-ha.
I suppose we could have nuked the Soviet Union when we had the chance. Seems like they had a few troops and tanks on the eastern front.
Mother tongue: Polish Joined: February 18, 2003 Location: Poland
RE: Situation in Iran
Originally written by Ron Finney on November 2, 2009 6:12 AM
I suppose we could have nuked the Soviet Union when we had the chance.
Hi, Ron,
That's the beauty of nukes. After just one Hiroshima lesson, man learned what he was unable to learn over millennia about conventional weapons: how not to use them for aggressive purposes. Nukes are the best and only deterrent against the human animal. Well, until the animal learns how to think, but that may take all the remaining cosmic time allotted to his species.
Iranian "hard-liners" sound just like America's neocons when opposing negotiations.
By Glenn Greenwald
The Washington Post's David Ignatius today notes the irony that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being criticized by his country's "hard-liners" for supporting a deal with the U.S. over nuclear issues:
The prospect of a deal with the Great Satan produced a political frisson in Tehran. . . . Critics chided Ahmadinejad for giving away the nuclear store. . . . Khamenei joined in the attacks last week, warning that negotiating with America would be "naive and perverted." The leader was implicitly criticizing Ahmadinejad, who had characterized the Geneva deal as an Iranian victory. . . .
But reading the Iranian press, you get the sense that for Iran's ruling elite, engagement with America remains a bridge too far. "America is still the Great Satan. Negotiations are meaningless," thundered the hard-line weekly Ya-Lesarat.
That, of course, is exactly what American neocons have long been screaming about negotiations with Iran -- that they're crazed, untrustworthy Persian Hitlers who shouldn't be negotiated with and that Obama is being "naive" or worse by trying. It's so striking how identical is the mentality of America's "hard-line" right-wing extremists and those in Iran.
Ignatius also claims, correctly, that the Iranian regime relies on anti-Americanism to sustain its legitimacy because the constant demonization of a foreign enemy unites the population behind the government. Of course, the continuous demonization of foreign enemies has also long been the favorite tool of America's political leaders for the same reasons. That's because exploiting foreign threats for domestic political gain is a virtually universal tool of governments. That, of course, is exactly why the belligerence and threats towards Iran long advocated by America's Right has as its prime beneficiary the very Iranian mullahs they claim to oppose.
Expert Mother tongue: English Posts: 1818 Joined: February 1, 2008 Location: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
Actually, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela does that (uses a foreign threat - perceived - to justify holding onto and increasing power). I think he learned it from Fidel Castro. For instance, he is now stating that war with Columbia is more and more likely, and is massing troops on the border.
Regarding negotiation, I think it is a fine thing, as long it does not become an end in itself. The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for at least 10 years, to no avail. There were 17 UN resolutions calling for Saddam Hussein to prove he did not have WMDS. That is the background for "neo-con" lack of faith in negotiation, but you didn't mention that.
The Europeans love negotiation. I probably would too if I had - combined - two older and smallish aircraft carriers, and mostly a - historically viewed - almost total aversion to losing any military lives in combat, or paying large sums to have any kind of military effect in the world. Of course the Europeans are then for negotiating. It is like the Kissinger line about an Iranian moderate being "one who has run out of ammunition". The bigger countries - Russia, China, the U.S., who actually can really change things using large-scale military units and aircraft carriers, view negotiation as one policy tool, to be used. But not the only one. Al Quida doesn't seem too keen on negotiation, when it can affect things by just blowing them up. And need I even mention the odious "UN Food Scandal", in which Saddam used bribes to pay French politicians to vote against the U.S. in the UN ? That must also fall under negotiation. Negotiation also seems to me to involve people in expensive suits, meeting in places like Geneva and Paris, while the Hutus are being hacked to death in Africa, or while Somalia is going to hell in a handbasket. There is thus zero chance that the Europeans will physically stop Iran from going nuclear, so of course they support the "negotiation" option. Israel and the U.S. have other "tools" in the box, and thus are not maybe always so keen on it as the only way. Negotiation is far less expensive than actually going out and doing things, physically. Better to have a conference in Geneva on non-violence, than actually have to send real soldiers to a real battlefield, where they might get hurt.
[Edited by John Bunch on November 9, 2009 7:54 PM]
Mother tongue: Polish Joined: February 18, 2003 Location: Poland
RE: OT
Originally written by Jacek K. on October 31, 2009 4:34 PM
I got interested in Maxi's chronology and possible origins of Enlightenment which took place in the 1700s while the major Arabic contribution to the Western culture happened at least 500 years earlier(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe). While the Islamic influence on the Renaissance is widely known (see the link above), it was less obvious for me in the case of the Enlightenment, yet the names such as John Locke or Isaac Newton confirm the connection mentioned by Maxi.
This may and should be an ongoing exchange:
U.S. Takes Steps to Use Science To Improve Ties to Muslim World
In a surprise announcement, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week named three prominent scientists as special envoys to assess the potential for scientific partnerships with Muslim-majority countries. The move is the first concrete step in a broader U.S. effort to expand the role of science in diplomacy. Speaking in Morocco on 3 November, Clinton announced the selection of Egyptian-born Ahmed H. Zewail, a chemistry Nobelist at the California Institute of Technology; Algerian-born Elias Zerhouni, a radiologist who stepped down last fall as director of the National Institutes of Health; and biochemist Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and current editor-in-chief of Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol326/issue5955/news-summaries.dtl
Forums Disclaimer: The views expressed in the forums are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of the site owner and/or moderators. If the reader considers a post to cause offence, then she or he should address a complaint to the moderator of the forum concerned. The complaint should be dealt with within 24 hours, but please respect the fact that the moderator may be living in a different time zone. Use of the forums signifies your agreement with the Forum Posting Rules.
Language, Literature, Arts, Religion, Other 
TC Mobile |
Foorumi seaded |
Logi sisse
Reply
Quote
Edit
Delete