Expert Langue maternelle: English Messages: 1820 Membre depuis: February 1, 2008 Lieu: 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.
Langue maternelle: Polish Membre depuis: February 18, 2003 Lieu: 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?
[Modifié par Jacek K. - November 1, 2009 11:51 AM]
Member Messages: 49 Membre depuis: October 13, 2009 Lieu: 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.
Langue maternelle: Polish Membre depuis: February 18, 2003 Lieu: 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 Langue maternelle: English Messages: 1820 Membre depuis: February 1, 2008 Lieu: 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.
[Modifié par John Bunch - November 9, 2009 7:54 PM]
Langue maternelle: Polish Membre depuis: February 18, 2003 Lieu: 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
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:
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.
American conservatives have publicly acknowledged willingness to negotiate directly with Iran, but not without preconditions as opposed to Obama. If I remember correctly, there's been a flurry of diplomatic efforts, incentives, as well as meaningless ultimatums offered to the Iranians. I would not characterize Iran as showing good faith at the negotiating table. Sticky issues like the duplicity of their nuclear program, funding Hamas and Hezbollah (like a regional cold war) as they strive to dominate Lebanon and repeated threats to Israel (oh I forgot, they're just a throw-away state). Then there's the reminder of a nation violating the American embassy and holding our citizens hostage for over a year.
The United States of (Central-North) America (those other countries are American too I guess) and Europe must navigate the waters wisely. We know all too well that there are many opposing groups in Iran, including millions of educated, liberal-leaning citizens, and the ruling regime may be more fragile than we had believed. It's easy for the Iranian elite to point to America as the big Satan, the imminent threat, because she and Israel are the only nations willing to go beyond idle talk. If Europe grew some cajones, the possibilites for transformation in Iran would be more likely. From the perspective of the top political minds in Olalla, Washington (USA), Europe is more driven by mercantilistic and utopian ideals. Europe gets about 10% of its oil from Iran, with no easy replacement. Iran has the 8th largest military in the world, comparable to the combined French-German military. Too bad Neville Chamberlain is no longer around... he'd fit right in.
Expert Langue maternelle: English Messages: 1820 Membre depuis: February 1, 2008 Lieu: United States
RE: Situation in Iran
I think that many Europeans had cohones and brains (Winston Churchill, Tallyrande, Disreali, Bismarck, etc.).
But I agree that the notion of Europe doing the heavy lifting in military affairs is not going to happen, for historical and demographic reasons.
Regarding the U.S. striving for better relations with the Muslim world (funny how we here in the West are not referred to as "the Christian World"), I would favor this not being a "one-way street" in which Muslims make demands and the West tries to carry them out. It should be a two-way street in which both sides do more to get rid of negative stereotypes and views. For instance, here in the U.S. we might link Muslim demands to how non-Muslims are being treated in Indonesia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise it becomes a caricature of "negotiation" in which one side constantly makes demands (while never changing its own ways), and the other side cringes and bows to them, in a craven manner.
Déni de responsabilité concernant les Forums : Les opinions exprimées sur les forums sont propres à leurs auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l'opinion du propriétaire du site et/ou des modérateurs. Si le lecteur considère un message comme offensant, il doit déposer une plainte auprès du modérateur du forum concerné. La plainte devrait être traitée dans un délai de 24 heures. Cependant, veuillez prendre en considération le fait que le modérateur puisse se trouver dans un fuseau horaire différent. L'utilisation des forums implique votre acceptation des règles relatives à la publication sur les forums.
Language, Literature, Arts, Religion, Other 
TC Mobile |
Paramètres forums |
Connexion
Répondre
Citer
Modifier
Supprimer
