Expert Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 1752 Bergabung: April 13, 2007 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 16, 2009 6:57 AM
Where are alll the white supremacists? I have not seen one in real life.
There are white supremacists all over the US. They mostly aren't the skin-head, neo-Nazi type, but are rather nice-looking, suburban middle class people. Ask any white girl who has ever introduced her black boyfriend to her parents and you'll get a lesson on what white supremacism is really like.
Expert Bahasa ibu: Polish, English Jumlah entri: 2909 Bergabung: September 13, 2008 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
I don't think this is really white supremacy: some parents would object to anybody, even that somebody is from a different town or region, that somebody's shoes don't shine enough, that the person has too long hair, or no hair, that he does not make enough money or is not a doctor, or a pediatrist instead of being a cardiologist, that somebody is not a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian.
Expert Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 1752 Bergabung: April 13, 2007 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 16, 2009 8:34 AM
I don't think this is really white supremacy: some parents would object to anybody, even that somebody is from a different town or region, that somebody's shoes don't shine enough, that the person has too long hair, or no hair, that he does not make enough money or is not a doctor, or a pediatrist instead of being a cardiologist, that somebody is not a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian.
More parents object to the blackness of their children's boyfriends/girlfriends than object to the shininess of their shoes, Liliana. Moreover, the vehemence of the objections are not equal. Many of the factors that you point to may also be legitimate concerns, especially a concern that a daughter's potential husband will not earn enough money to support her.
Veteran Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 148 Bergabung: March 23, 2007 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
I truly find it incredulous that Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov can say that she doubts the existence of white supremists because she has never seen one. The only thing that would be more astounding would be if Ms. Boldaz-Nekipelov said that she never met one, and therefore because she has neither seen one or met one, such white supremists surely must be a figment of a nation's collective imagination.
I have never seen in person or met an Apache. I have heard about them, but since I have never met one or seen one, Apaches must not exist. Ditto a Comanche. Ditto a Cree. Ditto a person from the Isle of Man or the Isle of Wight. Good gosh, I've never seen in person or met someone from Iceland. So I guess that because I have never seen any of these people in person or met them, they must not exist.
Surely Ms. Boladz-Nekipelov must be joking. Surely she must be. Perhaps she is too young to recall the phrase "Hey, I have nothing against Negroes. Some of my best friends are Negroes". And since she claims that she has never seen a white supremist, I gather that she does not watch TV newscasts or documentaries; that she does not read a newspaper or news magazine; that she has never seen films like "The Defiant Ones" or "To Kill A Mockingbird" or "Mississippi Burning" or even "Gone With The Wind". No, Ms. Boladz-Nekipelov, names like Nathan Bedford Forrest and Theodore Bilbo and David Duke are all fictitious names given to fictitious people, and likewise organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Councils. Skokie is merely the name of a quiet town in Illinois. known best as the one-time headquarters of Allstate Insurance Company. Brown v. Board of Education is the name of a case brought by Mrs. Brown against a local Board of Education for back-pay. It was adjudicated before a town magistrate....right?
But if you would like, Ms. Boladz-Nekipelov, I shall be most happy to introduce you to a former Attorney-General of the State of Michigan (an ardent Democrat, no less), and have him enlighten you on his views about dark-skinned people, particularly those who trace their ancestry to the African continent. Of course, Mr. former Michigan Attorney-General doesn't limit his views about who is superior or who is inferior just to those of African ancestry. He includes among the inferiors (Untermenschen, if you or he prefer) those given the designation of Hispanic (irrespective of whether they originate from Argentina or Uruguay or Perú or Panamá or Cuba or the Dominican Republic or - oh, my gosh - Puerto Rico).
So, my fair lady, if you would like to meet one white supremist, let me know and I shall be most happy and honored to arrange an audience with the aforementioned former high official of the Great and Sovereign State of Michigan. (He also has some "interesting" views about people of Slavic background.)
Expert Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 1812 Bergabung: February 1, 2008 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
... and the point of this thread was... ??? Speaking out about "white supremacy" is like "taking a stand" against child abuse or nuclear war. It costs nothing. But so what ?
[Diedit oleh John Bunch pada June 17, 2009 1:35 AM]
Expert Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 1812 Bergabung: February 1, 2008 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
I found this interesting. An ex-US Navy Seal commander, who turned against war (after tours in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and now speaks out and works for Peace). I can't say I totally agree with him, but no one can deny the authenticity with which he speaks:
------
Media Reviews
mykawartha.com
Article: Giving peace a chance, May 5, 2004
by: Clark Kim
Former U.S. Navy SEALs commander and author Jack Schropp has come full circle; war 'is like winning the heavyweight boxing match while suffering major brain damage'.
When Jack Schropp and his Navy SEALs team returned to southern California in between tours of Vietnam, anti-war activists held up two fingers, greeting the uniformed men on their way for additional sniper and guerrilla training.
In return, they saluted the hippies with their middle, index and ring fingers up in the air -- a hand gesture that meant "F--- peace."
As commander of the Navy SEALs who served three tours in Vietnam, Mr. Schropp never saw the legitimacy of the anti-war movement and numerous, often violent, peace rallies held on American soil through the 1960s into the early 1970s.
"I looked at them (protesters) as just college kids," says Mr. Schropp more than three decades later at his Lakefield cottage home along White Lake.
"They didn't know what the hell they wanted to do with their life."
But that view took an abrupt about face, shifting all at once, after he participated in a transformational workshop that ultimately led to his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1982.
After spending 24 years' specializing in abductions, ambushes and P.O.W. rescues, Mr. Schropp became a man standing firmly for peace with an insight into the true reality of war which only experience can provide.
Kyle Griffin/This Week
SERENITY: Jack Schropp, a former U.S. Navy SEALs commander and Vietnam War veteran, stands on the dock overlooking White Lake behind his Lakefield cottage home. An outspoken peace activist, he's enjoying success with his self-help book Unbeatable.
His transformation first involved cutting down on his two-pack-a-day smoking habit. He then focused on building a better relationship with his parents.
That, in turn, resulted in his being able to tackle the big issue in question during his time in the war-torn southeastern Asian country: Whether that conflict was worth the casualties suffered on both sides.
"I was fighting an illusion," Mr. Schropp came to realize.
"I never met any Vietnamese that I disliked. I was fighting people just like myself.
"I found out that I was a guy who'd always spot a threat and if I didn't, people in the government who didn't know anything about wars, they'd spot one for me. And like a dumb-ass, I'd run off fighting and not complain about it."
At that point, Mr. Schropp says he denounced the idea of fighting wars to attain peace.
"It's like winning the heavyweight boxing match while suffering major brain damage. Where is the win? All wars are the same from one perspective -- it's a breakdown in communication."
With the current war in Iraq, Mr. Schropp isn't surprised at the strong local resistance against U.S. occupying forces and the decision to invade the country under the rule of Saddam Hussein .
"Each generation is more concerned about their current war or the one just fought," notes Mr. Schropp, adding society has almost grown accustomed to being in continuous conflict.
But after the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001 that left a nation demoralized and in mourning, Mr. Schropp felt compelled to contribute in some manner.
The end result was Unbeatable, a self-help book he wrote from his experiences as a transformational speaker of 16 years; a book that provides readers with the attributes to possess an unbeatable attitude.
"The only way they're going to get me out of here is they're going to have to kill me," he says, citing one of the chapters in his book.
He also shares secrets learned from his experience as a former commander of the Navy SEALs to help both men and women attain the qualities to succeed in business, family and romantic relationships.
Mr. Schropp took his own advice and got married this past November to Shari Darling , a food and wine critic and the author of several best-selling books. They met at a leadership course in California, where Mr. Schropp was speaking, and started dating four months later.
"He's one of the good guys," says Ms Darling, who grew up in Toronto but lived in California to help Mr. Schropp with his book.
"He's really straight. He doesn't beat around the bush. He's just honest."
She recalls during their five-year courtship that Mr. Schropp always called her at a specified time, no matter where he was in the world as a transformational speaker and or in which time zone was in. As they pondered their future, they eventually decided to settle down north of the border.
"We moved to Canada because both Shari and I wanted to live by the lake in the woods," says Mr. Schropp, who's always home and at peace near the water.
"It is quiet. It's nice to be awake at 6 a.m. with Canadian geese flying over."
For more info: www.jackschropp.com
[Diedit oleh John Bunch pada June 17, 2009 5:34 PM]
What about counterinsurgency? The fundamental ethical question is no different today than when the theologian Paul Ramsey posed it forty years ago in a classic Vietnam-era essay: “How is it possible, if it is indeed possible, to mount a morally acceptable counterinsurgency operation?” Can a counterinsurgency effort “abide by the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate military objectives while insurgency deliberately does not”?
Military scholar Edward N. Luttwak is among those who believe that it is not possible to successfully conduct a morally acceptable counterinsurgency strategy. In a provocative 2007
article in Harper’s, he argued that the “methods and tactics of counterinsurgency warfare” in the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual constitute nothing less than military “malpractice.” (The Field Manual, published in late 2006, was written by a team working for Army General David H. Petraeus and Marine General James N. Mattis; it applies to both the Army and the Marine Corps.) Reviewing a draft of the Field Manual, Luttwak considered it profoundly misguided and argued that who, advertently or not, shelter the insurgent forces.the only surefire way of defeating an insurgency—indeed, an “easy and reliable way of defeating all insurgencies everywhere”—is to use conventional forces to terrorize the civilians
who, advertently or not, shelter the insurgent forces.
To make his case, Luttwak cites historical examples of conventional forces that crushed insurgencies. The Turks of the Ottoman Empire, for example, controlled entire provinces “with a few feared janissaries and a squadron or two of cavalry.” These forces didn’t have to hunt down rebels; they simply demanded their surrender from locals. According to Luttwak, “massacre once in a while remained an effective warning for decades.” Before that, imperial Rome with a mere 300,000 soldiers could not disperse its infantry throughout all of the empire’s cities, towns, and hamlets. “Instead, they relied on deterrence, which was periodically reinforced by exemplary punishments. Most inhabitants of the empire never rebelled after their initial conquest.” And during the Second World War, “terrible reprisals to deter any form of resistance were standard operating procedure for the German armed forces.” Luttwak thinks that this willingness to out-terrorize insurgents is a “necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation.”
For Luttwak the choice is stark. If counterinsurgency is to be effective, it must necessarily resort to direct and intentional attacks on the civilian population as a means to deter insurgents. ...
Luttwak acknowledges that Americans are not willing to fight insurgents using this method, a refusal he calls “principled and inevitable.” This acknowledgment speaks to the extent to which the requirements of just warfare—the principles of discrimination and proportionality and of noncombatant immunity—have become internalized in the war-planning and war-fighting doctrine of the U.S. defense establishment. And indeed, those just war principles are at the core of the newly emerging American counterinsurgency doctrine. The protection and security of, and the provision of basic goods and services to, the civilian population—the waters in which the insurgent fish swim—is the very essence of the strategy presented in the Field Manual. ...
Whom Does International Law Protect?
....While the United States is devising ways to ethically mount counterinsurgencies, insurgents who employ terrorist tactics are receiving new protections under international law.
Take, for example, Protocol I, a 1977 treaty that contained amendments to the Geneva Conventions. Most controversial is its Article 44, which relaxed the traditional Geneva standards requiring combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by wearing a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” Under Protocol I, combatants are required to be thus distinguished from civilians only when they are actually engaged in an attack, or find themselves in military preparation for an attack. Although 168 nations have ratified or acceded to the Protocols as of late 2008, the United States has consistently refused to ratify the treaty. President Reagan articulated the fundamental reason in a 1987 message to the Senate:
Protocol I is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called “war of national liberation.” Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one’s view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war’s alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to “wars of national liberation,” an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. ...
Expert Bahasa ibu: English Jumlah entri: 1812 Bergabung: February 1, 2008 Lokasi: United States
RE: ...and war
You beat an insurgency by getting the villagers on your side, and to like you and dislike the insurgents. Plain and simple. Deliver medicine, help people, sit down and drink tea and listen. Be respectful, ask questions. Explain your side and what you want.
What you don't do is what Blackwater did in Iraq, which is what you described.
[Diedit oleh John Bunch pada July 2, 2009 8:23 PM]
Sanggahan Forum: Pendapat yang dinyatakan di dalam forum adalah pendapat penulisnya dan bukan berarti pandangan dari pemilik situs dan/atau moderator. Jika pembaca menganggap sebuah entri dianggap mengganggu, ajukan keluhan ke moderator forum yang terkait. Keluhan akan ditanggapi dalam waktu 24 jam, namun ketahui bahwa moderator mungkin tinggal di tempat dengan zona waktu berbeda. Penggunaan forum merupakan bentuk persetujuan Anda dengan Aturan Pengiriman Entri Forum.
TC Seluler |
Setelan Forum |
Masuk
Balas
Buat Penawaran
Edit
Hapus
