Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
............Again, you can't talk about present without examining the past, so you are cutting your own discussion short.
Examining the past is fine. But too many people take personal ownership of some past event and shape a portion of their lives over some event that never happened to them personally.
An Irishman upset because of the potato famine; a black person upset because blacks used to be slaves in America 150 years ago; an American Indian upset because of loss of property in 1885; a Chinese American outraged because Chinese were used as forced labor in 1880; a Japanese American demanding retribution because his grandfather lost a business in 1941....
There are probably many more examples of people distorting their own lives and losing the opportunity to live happily and peacefully by taking ownership of the past.
????
I have to say I have hard time understanding you; language is a part of a problem, I'm sure, so try to explain yourself better please.
You're worried about enforcing American ideology: views, values, etc. Is this bad for ordinary people? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's definitely bad for the national elite which loses control over their subjects. Their people cease to obey traditions and religious rules, demand a new law. How could a national elite resist? By raising nationalism, xenophobia, etc.
It has been written a century ago:
Quote:
But capitalism also began to develop in the Eastern states. Trade and means of communication were developing. Large towns were springing up. The nations were becoming economically consolidated. Capitalism, erupting into the tranquil life of the nationalities which had been pushed into the background, was arousing them and stirring them into action. The development of the press and the theatre, the activity of the Reichsrat (Austria) and of the Duma (Russia) were helping to strengthen "national sentiments." The intelligentsia that had arisen was being imbued with "the national idea" and was acting in the same direction.... But the nations which had been pushed into the background and had now awakened to independent life, could no longer form themselves into independent national states; they encountered on their -path the very powerful resistance of the ruling strata of the dominant nations, which had long ago assumed the control of the state. They were too late!...
In this way the Czechs, Poles, etc., formed themselves into nations in Austria; the Croats, etc., in Hungary; the Letts, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, etc., in Russia. What had been an exception in Western Europe (Ireland) became the rule in the East.
In the West, Ireland responded to its exceptional position by a national movement. In the East, the awakened nations were bound to respond in the same fashion.
Thus arose the circumstances which impelled the young nations of Eastern Europe on to the path of struggle.
The struggle began and flared up, to be sure, not between nations as a whole, but between the ruling classes of the dominant nations and of those that had been pushed into the background. The struggle is usually conducted by the urban petty bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation against the big bourgeoisie of the dominant nation (Czechs and Germans), or by the rural bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation against the landlords of the dominant nation (Ukrainians in Poland), or by the whole "national" bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations against the ruling nobility of the dominant nation (Poland, Lithuania and the Ukraine in Russia).
The bourgeoisie plays the leading role.
The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its "own," its "home" market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.
But matters are usually not confined to the market. The semi-feudal, semi-bourgeois bureaucracy of the dominant nation intervenes in the struggle with its own methods of "arresting and preventing." The bourgeoisie – whether big or small – of the dominant nation is able to deal more "swiftly" and "decisively" with its competitor. "Forces" are united and a series of restrictive measures is put into operation against the "alien" bourgeoisie, measures passing into acts of repression. The struggle spreads from the economic sphere to the political sphere. Restriction of freedom of movement, repression of language, restriction of franchise, closing of schools, religious restrictions, and so on, are piled upon the head of the "competitor." Of course, such measures are designed not only in the interest of the bourgeois classes of the dominant nation, but also in furtherance of the specifically caste aims, so to speak, of the ruling bureaucracy.
But from the point of view of the results achieved this is quite immaterial; the bourgeois classes and the bureaucracy in this matter go hand in hand – whether it be in Austria-Hungary or in Russia.
The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, repressed on every hand, is naturally stirred into movement. It appeals to its "native folk" and begins to shout about the "fatherland,'; claiming that its own cause is the cause of the nation as a whole. It recruits itself an army from among its "countrymen" in the interests of ... the "fatherland." Nor do the "folk" always remain unresponsive to its appeals; they rally around its banner: the repression from above affects them too and provokes their discontent.
Thus the national movement begins.
This is simplification - to reduce all ruling elites to the bourgeoisie and elite reasons to the market. But it looks close to reality in other respects.
What I suppose I am arguing is that there is a baser "nature" that gets shaped and covered up by the "nurture" vis-a-vis societal constructs. Change the constructs or remove them entirely and the baser "nature" is allowed to come through.
It is so obvious I see no reason to even bring it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The distance and seeing the impact matters. A crew on a bomber flying at 36,000 feet...the're just pulling triggers. Same thing for artillerymen and crews on ships, etc. However, when you are standing face-to-face there is little difference between pulling a trigger or using your hands. You see the reaction to your action. Same goes for seeing the results of otherwise 3rd party actions. In the napalm scenario, think of the radioman who calls in the airstrike and then walks through the village and sees the burned bodies and then the next day has to call in anothe strike. If you don't think these are things soldiers grapple with, then
Okay, I take the liberty to suggest if it was necessary you could have proven that American soldiers as a subset of people are as sadistic as Wahabi terrorists as a subset of people. You really have a talent in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
You implied "inherently"
I never implied that either. You are either mistaken or made it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
When I proposed an environmental explanation you tossed it aside as being invalid because of the cultural perversion.
I don't remember that explanation. Do you have a quotation of yours at hand? Anyways, culture is a part of your environment. America and Saudi Arabia have two totally different environments (culture, religion, form of government, history). I strongly believe the one that tries to convert all the world to Islam is wrong. Bring a child from SA to America, raise him outside of his indigenous community and he is going to become a brand new man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
My main issue with your line of thinking here is that it leads down the road to thinking that "Group A" is superior to "Group B". Taking that further I also feel as if you think the cultural inferiority of "B" is unfixable and so that the "A's" have a necessity to control and/or resist the "B's". My argument is that we are all "B's" given the right circumstances.
I neither said nor implied 'superior'. Less cruel or sadistic doesn't equal superior.
Last edited by Origin of Symmetry; 07-19-2013 at 01:06 PM..
Yes, a lot of innocent civilians were killed. This is bad. However, what is your suggestion on how America had to calm down the insane enemy? Do you think it would have been a good idea if America had dispatched several millions of innocent Americans to fight and die in Japan?
Japanese were looking for the ways to surrender before (and between) A bombings. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. A-bombings served mainly 2 purposes: 1) live weapon test, 2) warning to USSR and other potential competitors (unwilling and incapable of further large scale fighting anyway), everything else comes as #3, 4, .... Just study the rush to A-bomb before citing some obscure "Institute for conservative studies" disproving all the above. US leadership rushed A-bombings because it was afraid Japan might surrender first.
Vietnam war was fought mainly over "national prestige" as demanded by realpolitik. Domino of communist menace, Vietnam mineral resources, etc. come as distant 2, 3, 4.... Realpolitik demanded to squash Vietnam audacity to settle their own issues on their own terms (with little regard to American wishes and concerns) otherwise many more 3rd world domino pieces might have attempted the same thus threatening the neocolonial edifice.
I'm just curious if there are serial killers, maniacs and rapists like Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, John Gacy in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states in Asia? If yes:
1) How often do that kind of crimes happen compared to the States?
2) What is the punishment in those countries?
I'm just curious if there are serial killers, maniacs and rapists like Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, John Gacy in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states in Asia? If yes:
1) How often do that kind of crimes happen compared to the States?
2) What is the punishment in those countries?
Well, there was that famous family of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay...
But as far as I have noticed, rape is seen as a moral failing of the woman in Muslim countries.
I'm just curious if there are serial killers, maniacs and rapists like Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, John Gacy in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states in Asia? If yes:
1) How often do that kind of crimes happen compared to the States?
2) What is the punishment in those countries?
Rape is widespread in these sexually repressed countries. Just check out the recent notoriety given the attacks on women in Egypt and India. In some, but not all, Muslim jurisdictions, it is the woman victim, not her attacker, that gets the blame, while the man walks away free.
The Japanese couldn't figure out how to surrender??!!
Even the Japanese would be insulted by that remark.
Japanese were ready to surrender under one condition - Emperor' life and institution of monarchy to be spared. Guess what? That's exactly what they got ... after 2 A bombings. Japan is a constitutional monarchy. Emperor Hirohito died in 1989 as an Emperor. In 1975 Hirohito made a visit to the United States. How about Hitler making a visit to the United States in 1975? The point is - Japanese monarch avoided all the responsibility for WWII while remaining the nominal ruler of Japan until his death in 1989.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
