The War on Britain's Jews

[ChaosZon]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26201_Video-_The_War_on_Britains_Jews&only

As far as I can tell UK Channel 4 is one of the more conservative-leaning television stations in Britain, and I've watched a lot of documentaries they've done about this kind of thing, the political alliance between the Western Far Left and the Islamic Right and the radicalization of Britain's Muslim population, but this one was the most depressing, especially Part 6 where he interviews the young Jewish man who says that he thinks that there is nothing in Britain for Jews and that the people don't want them there and the Jews of Britain should go somewhere else.

Just what is behind this weird convergence of arch-feminists and arch-misogynists? Between alleged pacifists and anti-imperialists and Islamic imperialists? How could a self-described "progressive" even consider going to a march set up with the intent of showing solidarity with and support for a group like Hezbollah?

There are a few of you Communist types around here, would you go to an anti-war march made up mostly of people who were justifying terrorism and saying things like "We are all Hezbollah"? Do you have any insights into this? Is it the same sort of thing the way I would say that American alliance with dictators during the Cold War was ultimately morally justified because of the threat to freedom globally posed by the USSR?

[lammas]

Too bad Iam going to sleep now so I cant watch all those and comment this but a few things you wrote caught my attention:

There are a few of you Communist types around here, would you go to an anti-war march made up mostly of people who were justifying terrorism and saying things like "We are all Hezbollah"?

What does it matter who you march with and who has made the demonstration up? Antiwar is always good. I dont know exactly what you mean with "justifying terrorism". Perhaps you use it with its standart rightwingmeaning ie. "trying to understand the reasons of terrorism"? In that case Iam totally for justifying terrorism and I have no problem at all going marching with such people. People shouting "we are hezbollah" is diffrent thing... if they were drunk it'd be ok.

Is it the same sort of thing the way I would say that American alliance with dictators during the Cold War was ultimately morally justified because of the threat to freedom globally posed by the USSR?

No. And your logic is like from 1984? It is right to destory freedom because this way we can maintain freedom? But this means that you dont believe that if something is wrong to USSR it is also wrong to USA? So ultimate moral justification is based on denying categorical imperative? BTW not like it was only during cold war?

[Icarus]

Britain is weird. Can't believe anti-semitism is still a problem. I wish they'd give both sides of the story, because This jewish hate thing just doesn't make any sense. It's real sad because over the course of history they've had a real hard time settling down anywhere. They keep getting persecuted or kicked out.

Although the idea "we are all hizbullah" is totally wrong, I think their point is is that in the middle east, no one is innocent, which I believe. But I don't think it'll be very hard to distinguish which side is least innocent.

Shouldn't this go in the member's lounge instead? it doesn't really spark intellectual debate.

[ChaosZon]

Britain is weird. Can't believe anti-semitism is still a problem. I wish they'd give both sides of the story, because This jewish hate thing just doesn't make any sense. It's real sad because over the course of history they've had a real hard time settling down anywhere. They keep getting persecuted or kicked out.

What other side to the story is there? I think they handled the other side of the story with the interviews of some Muslim leaders and those leaders didn't come off looking too well with their replies at least in my opinion.

Although the idea "we are all hizbullah" is totally wrong, I think their point is is that in the middle east, no one is innocent, which I believe. But I don't think it'll be very hard to distinguish which side is least innocent.

I don't believe that that is their point at all. I believe that they really think that Hezbollah is a moral organization because it opposes 'Zionist US imperialism.'

Shouldn't this go in the member's lounge instead? it doesn't really spark intellectual debate.

Well it certainly can if you think about it, it raises all sorts of questions regarding political alliances and moral principles and the like.

What does it matter who you march with and who has made the demonstration up?

Well seeing as how Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah has stated that his intent is to destroy the legitimate State of Israel and kill all the Jews in the world and his organization is blatantly anti-semitic and such, I would hope that it would matter just who your "allies" are if Hezbollah is one of them.

Antiwar is always good.

Always? Even against, say, Hitler? Or Stalin? How about Ghengis Khan or Attila the Hun or Alexander the Great or Imperial Japan or the Romans or any other number of history's great imperialist warmongering dictators / nations.

I dont know exactly what you mean with "justifying terrorism".

Claiming that terrorist attacks - which are war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity - are justified in some way.

Perhaps you use it with its standart rightwingmeaning ie. "trying to understand the reasons of terrorism"?

Understanding the reasons for terrorism are simple. It is a military tactic used by a military force that has not the strength for stand-up combat. It is used as all tactics and strategies in war are, to further political ends.

In the case of Islamic terrorists the political ends are Islamic imperialism, anti-semitism, mass murder, religious and ethnic repression, no free speech, misogyny, finishing what Hitler started, the list goes on and on I'm sure you're well aware of it.

In that case Iam totally for justifying terrorism and I have no problem at all going marching with such people.

So you would say that Hezbollah's political goals, which include genocide and the institution of repressive shariah law, are moral and politically supportable?

People shouting "we are hezbollah" is diffrent thing... if they were drunk it'd be ok.


Why?

No.

Why? Because it really is, or because your politics say so?

And your logic is like from 1984?

1984? My logic is that it is right to wage never-ending war in order to keep the populace in an artificial state of crushing intellectual and material poverty so they never have a chance of rising up?

Where'd you get that from?

It is right to destory freedom because this way we can maintain freedom?

Two quotes from Orwell, both a little longish:

But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered."

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

Both a little longish. But that doesn't really answer your question, does it?

The moral distinction, for me, in the case of American support for dictatorships in the Cold War and overthrowing of various governments, is that governments with close ties to the Soviet Union and revolutionary socialistic governments, as far as I know, always became either Soviet puppet states or forward operating bases for Soviet imperialism.

Also, once a country came under the Soviet sphere, its chances of being anything but a mass-murdering police state were lowered to effectively nil. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary, invaded Czechoslovakia, threatened to invade Poland and nearly did, they put up the Berlin Wall, they helped North Korea invade South Korea, they sent arms to Cuba and helped Cuba try to set up Communist rebellions throughout South and Central America, they tried to overthrow the governments of Greece and Turkey and Italy immediately after World War II, they broke the WW2 Yalta agreement about holding free elections in Eastern Europe...

From 1917 to 1991 the Soviet Union was nothing more than a nakedly transparent imperialist police state. Any country that fell under its sway became a nakedly transparent police state whose main purpose in existence was fulfilling the economic, diplomatic, and military needs of the Soviet Union as they pertained to that nation's goals as an imperialist police state.

The United States did not support right-wing dictators or overthrow any governments out of any particular fondness for right-wing dictators or overthrowing governments. We did so because right-wing dictators didn't turn their countries into forward operating bases for Soviet imperialism and because left-wing governments in Third World countries had a disturbing tendency of turning into Soviet puppet states. I don't like the idea of turning German and Japanese cities into rubble and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians either, but I don't piss and moan that somehow the Allies were morally equivalent or even morally inferior to the Axis.

If you think that the United States and the Soviet Union were morally indistinguishable or that the United States was actually somehow inferior, you're quite frankly insane. Just the same as if you think that Israel or the US is morally equivalent or inferior to Hamas, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, or the Iraqi insurgents, I think you're nuts.

But this means that you dont believe that if something is wrong to USSR it is also wrong to USA?

I believe it was wrong for the USSR as those actions were undertaken with the intent of expanding the Soviet Union's borders. As the Soviet Union was a mass-murdering police state and most historians now attribute most of the blame on the Cold War to Josef Stalin, I view the actions of the United States taken to prevent the spread of Soviet barbarism as generally justifiable if not always moral and not always justifiable.

So ultimate moral justification is based on denying categorical imperative?

I somehow think that Immanuel Kant would be shocked and angered by you using the categorical imperative like that.

And you seem to be mistaking the categorical imperative for the golden rule, and completely ignore causality to boot.

Here is the imperative:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

I, acknowledging that humans aren't perfect and consequently unintentional mistakes and intentional bad deeds will be done, think that the United States' actions during the Cold War in the effort of beating the USSR would be what I would want any freedom-loving nation to do faced with a similar situation.

BTW not like it was only during cold war?

By the way, did the countries of South and Central America and the Carribean turn out better or worse than the former African and Middle Eastern colonies of Europe? Were they or were they not protected for over 150 years by the Monroe Doctrine from European re-colonization after they won their independence from Spain? Did the United States turn them into colonies?

It was inevitable that some world power or another was going to snap up Hawaii and the Philippines, from the Hawaiians and the Spanish respectively. Do you think that the Philippines as a Japanese colony would have been better off than they were as an American one? Would Hawaii have been better off as a Japanese or British colony than an American one?

You can't just say "No one should have colonized them at all." That's unfortunately not the way the world works.

And how could the United States claim to be a moral nation if it refused to do anything in the face of the imperialism of the Soviet Union after just fighting the greatest war in history against two other imperialist totalitarian (well Japan was more of an authoritarian) states?

The Soviet Union deliberately killed millions, shot millions, tortured millions, political purges, all parts of life regimented and ideologically controlled as much as possible, entire ethnicities forcibly moved from their ancestral homelands to Siberia and Kazakhstan, persecution of religion and the religious... the USSR was a less emotionally-driven bloodbath than Hitler's Germany, but that's about the only distinction worth making.

[lammas]

Well seeing as how Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah has stated that his intent is to destroy the legitimate State of Israel and kill all the Jews in the world and his organization is blatantly anti-semitic and such, I would hope that it would matter just who your "allies" are if Hezbollah is one of them.
Funny curiosity: ex israel primeminister commented "we should cut their [ non violent peaceactivists] balls off". Anyways doesnt change the point that its correct to march for right thing even if some criminal happens to agree with you in this opinion.

Why?

Obv cause if your drunk you can shout many things and no-one cares ^^

So you would say that Hezbollah's political goals, which include genocide and the institution of repressive shariah law, are moral and politically supportable?

What the shit? By marching on antiwar demonstration that is also taken part by a rapist I show my support to raping people? btw israelis politics have traditionally been based on racism and even if it never became a real genocide the israeli comments about "the final solution to the demographic problem" are quite scary.

Understanding the reasons for terrorism are simple. It is a military tactic used by a military force that has not the strength for stand-up combat. It is used as all tactics and strategies in war are, to further political ends.

Yes and why do they choose to use such tactics?

most historians now attribute most of the blame on the Cold War to Josef Stalin,

Most historians? What percentage of historians? What study did you get this information from?
I believe it was wrong for the USSR as those actions were undertaken with the intent of expanding the Soviet Union's borders.
Which actions exactly?

As the Soviet Union was a mass-murdering police state

USA is mass murdering police state too. USA has massivly supported genocides (turkey) and committed mass murders too (indochina)

I view the actions of the United States taken to prevent the spread of Soviet barbarism as generally justifiable if not always moral and not always justifiable.

That is a common myth. We can easily do 10 pages about cold war and I dont feel like going 10pages pointless arguing so you can just read "Memories from cold war" by Chomsky and list the factual mistakes.

I somehow think that Immanuel Kant would be shocked and angered by you using the categorical imperative like that.

I somehow think that you can hardly tell us what Kant would think of something.

And you seem to be mistaking the categorical imperative for the golden rule, and completely ignore causality to boot.


Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

If USA does interventions to prevent democracy it has to accept that everyone else has a right to do interventions to prevent democracy. I ignore causality because it has nothing to do with this.

I, acknowledging that humans aren't perfect and consequently unintentional mistakes and intentional bad deeds will be done, think that the United States' actions during the Cold War in the effort of beating the USSR would be what I would want any freedom-loving nation to do faced with a similar situation.

Yes indeed. I would also want any freedom-loving nation to slaughter 2 million peoples when there seems to be a risk that democracy is taking over. I also would like this freedom-loving nation to ship massive amount of weapons to countries that are known to do ethnical cleanings. Love of freedom should go so far that this country supports turning a whole country into a massive jail like done in palestine and I would also love to see this country supporting terrorists all around the world.

By the way, did the countries of South and Central America and the Carribean turn out better or worse than the former African and Middle Eastern colonies of Europe?

Dont know about the African but yes, horribly worse than eastern Europe.

[/quote]Were they or were they not protected for over 150 years by the Monroe Doctrine from European re-colonization after they won their independence from Spain? Did the United States turn them into colonies? [/quote]

This is some joke? You are trolling right?

The Soviet Union deliberately killed millions, shot millions, tortured millions, political purges, all parts of life regimented and ideologically controlled as much as possible, entire ethnicities forcibly moved from their ancestral homelands to Siberia and Kazakhstan, persecution of religion and the religious... the USSR was a less emotionally-driven bloodbath than Hitler's Germany, but that's about the only distinction worth making.

USA was not any better.

1984? My logic is that it is right to wage never-ending war in order to keep the populace in an artificial state of crushing intellectual and material poverty so they never have a chance of rising up?

No your logic was double thinking. Dont know the english term for sure, only read finnish translation.

[singo]

By the way, did the countries of South and Central America and the Carribean turn out better or worse than the former African and Middle Eastern colonies of Europe? Were they or were they not protected for over 150 years by the Monroe Doctrine from European re-colonization after they won their independence from Spain? Did the United States turn them into colonies?

Cuba, Nicaragua, Santo Dominigo. All three were forced to become effectively protectorates of the US during the first few decades of the twentieth century. Okay a protectorate is not technically a colony, but it may as well be.

most historians now attribute most of the blame on the Cold War to Josef Stalin

Not really. The cold war was pretty much everyones fault. It didnt need to happen.

Of course since it did happen I am quite glad that the West came out on top.

Yes and why do they choose to use such tactics?

Money and power. Same as everyone else.

[Gunmonk]

thats scary, my best friend is jewish (messianic) and just hanging out with him I've met people who hate jews. But I know that the situation over there is propabally much worse than that seeing as how fascism has always been a problem in europe and south america. The EU is just as scary tho. I dunno any europeans that might be able to enlghten us?

[singo]

Well, fascism has hardly been a problem in Europe recntly, there are probably much less hardline rightwingers in Europe than elsewhere, its just that, given what has happened in the past (1939-1945) it gets rather more media coverage.

I dont think I have met anyone who dislikes Jews.

And whats scary about the EU? I'll grant annoying and mostly incompetent with an option on corrupt, but scary?

[Gunmonk]

they are scarrier than you think wanting to make a singular currency and mandating everything over sovereign countries almoist lie an over zelous UN. Yes fascism or its ramifications I should say are the problem. in short I'd watch out for something like the eu in the americas. The EU and the UN want control of everything and I honestly think that they dont mind anti smeetic thought being passed around

[singo]

Yes, best watch out for a federal government somewhere in the americas...oh, wait.

There really is nothing wrong with a single currency. Actually, its bloody useful if you do a lot of travelling, as is the lack of border controls.

And since some of the major players in the EU have actually outlawed fascism, or at least aspects of it (Germany and Austria, for obvious reasons I suppose).

The problem with the EU is its incompetence and corruption, not right wing ideology, if anything its slightly too far left for my liking.

[Gunmonk]

okay so they are more communist than what I'm thinking. I'd still be afraid of them. Heck I'm scared of the government here in america the day they took away our rights to own our m16s and AK47s is the day we lost our freedom. In short austrailia is about the safest nation to live in and hey are anti semetists either. also I seem to recall the EU condeming israels actions against hezbollah

[3Vee]

Heck I'm scared of the government here in america the day they took away our rights to own our m16s and AK47s is the day we lost our freedom.

I'd argue a couple points here:

1) If we had a right to own our M16s and AK47s, which can be argued, (and if you're worried about it, what are you doing with a commie weapon like an AK47? ;)), it wasn't taken away, we gave it away. The USA is a country founded on representative principles: if we really had a problem with it, we'd vote out the gun-control types and find us politicians who would let us have our explosive goodies back.

2) Gun-control laws vary by state, with a few exceptions, and state legislation is certainly within the original frame of the Constitution, and probably within the current amended frame. Most states (all, as far as I know, but I'm being careful) still allow some gun possession, with a permit.

3) As far as I know, there's no really conclusive evidence that legal gun ownership is linked to much except the ability to resist a military coup. The framework of our military really discourages the personal cliques necessary to plan and carry out such actions, so I'm not really worried on that score.

Not really. The cold war was pretty much everyones fault. It didnt need to happen.

Of course since it did happen I am quite glad that the West came out on top.

Something like the Cold War was bound to happen: Soviet-style dictatorial "communism" is antithetical to Western European/American representative government. Admittedly not as antithetical as once thought, given the current socialization rampant in Europe and catching on over here especially in Canada. But it would be hard to deny that the Soviet Union was expansionistic and therefore perceived as the greatest threat. I'd argue that it was in fact the major threat to the Western democratic states, while not necessarily condoning methods used against it.

The Soviet Union deliberately killed millions, shot millions, tortured millions, political purges, all parts of life regimented and ideologically controlled as much as possible, entire ethnicities forcibly moved from their ancestral homelands to Siberia and Kazakhstan, persecution of religion and the religious... the USSR was a less emotionally-driven bloodbath than Hitler's Germany, but that's about the only distinction worth making.

USA was not any better.

This seems an odd sort of statement to make. Now, I don't expect anyone to do anything resembling an unbiased evaluation of the Cold War era for at least another fifty years. Trying to sort out all the conflicting forces at work is beyond us: even in identifying the "larger patterns" we may be mistaken.

I even see where you're coming from. The Soviets, for all their propoganda, were fairly blunt about what they were trying to do, and did their own dirty work. We - meaning the US, which is where I'm from - relied largely on the almighty dollar and its purchasing power to "help" other - less powerful - nations "combat communism". Given the very mixed, if not netting to the bad results, you can argue that it didn't work.

But the US, along with its own national interests, at least thought - popular opinion, anyway, I have no idea what the politicians thought privately - it was trying to promote liberty, democracy, etc. There really wasn't any true popular government in the Soviet countries, at least that I know about.

Now, if you want to argue that we (US) are no better now than the Soviets were then - you'd have a fairly solid case.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with the Jewish question.

What other side to the story is there? I think they handled the other side of the story with the interviews of some Muslim leaders and those leaders didn't come off looking too well with their replies at least in my opinion.

The "other side" is that the Israeli state was pretty much imposed on a Muslim Middle East after WWII, and they're still sore about it. The Middle East has a long memory. Normally, when a country gets conquered, it either revolts and goes its own way again, or adjusts eventually. It doesn't disappear for 800 years and then get put back on the map by somebody else who shouldn't have any real interest in the area.

I think at this point, it's unrealistic to expect the removal of Israel, or do anything except learn to deal with it. The anti-semitism of the Middle East, and other areas, which seems to be growing, is something to be ashamed of. There are reasons to dislike people, but things they can't help aren't good ones. On the other hand, the Israelis tend to be hella stuck up about being Jewish. Not more so than anybody else is about his or her country, probably, but I can sort of understand the complete identity, nation and race, irritating people.

So I disagree with Hezbollah's methods, and I think it actually harms their international image (speaking of the terrorism, not the peaceful rallies) in this day and age. I have no sympathy for the lack of racial tolerance, very little for the religious intolerance. But I can entirely understand why they think they have a case for war.

And yes, in case anybody is wondering, I think there is sometimes a case for a "just war". I can look up the standard definitions if somebody really wants, but at some point I believe it is necessary to fight to defend yourself against aggression and remove the threat. Starting a war, being the agressor, I would tend to say categorically is wrong, but probably somebody would come up with an awkward example, so I won't. :P Quite.

[ecyor0]

...the day they took away our rights to own our m16s and AK47s is the day we lost our freedom.

Two words: "Virginia Shootings"

Read the first section of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre)

Then have a quick skim of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre)
(Just to get an idea of the magnitude)

Incidentally, here in New Zealand, to get the caliber of guns the guy used in the shootings would take a minimum of 18 months of getting gun licenses (you have to hold a basic license for a minimum amount of time before you can get a license for semi-automatics), not to mention being a registered member of a gun club and not have any gun-related felonys against your name.

[singo]

Something like the Cold War was bound to happen: Soviet-style dictatorial "communism" is antithetical to Western European/American representative government. Admittedly not as antithetical as once thought, given the current socialization rampant in Europe and catching on over here especially in Canada. But it would be hard to deny that the Soviet Union was expansionistic and therefore perceived as the greatest threat. I'd argue that it was in fact the major threat to the Western democratic states, while not necessarily condoning methods used against it.


Quite a few misconceptions there. Right on the point about about communism being antithetical to capitalism (As always of course, compromise was the way forward however)

But, the Soviet Union was not expansionistic. At least not beyond eastern Europe. The soviets wanted a "wall" between them and everyone else, not having the luxury of a couple of oceans to do the job of isolation they settled for sattelite states controlled from Moscow.

Certainly a threat, but not expansionistic. The threat was in somewhere like Korea being escalated (which MacArthur wanted to do, he wanted to glass china end to end at one point) and the Soviet Union having to respond in kind because otherwise they would look weak and all the communist nations they had "encouraged" would gather round to put the boot in. Which might have been fun.

[Gunmonk]

if we really had a problem with it, we'd vote out the gun-control types and find us politicians who would let us have our explosive goodies back

you cant vote out other states senators. I actually am beggining to wonder if Russia isnt behind all this crap PUtin has bvecome a tyrrant in recent months. and has offered nukes and or nuclear reactors to saudi araabia and Iran

[3Vee]

you cant vote out other states senators. I actually am beggining to wonder if Russia isnt behind all this crap PUtin has bvecome a tyrrant in recent months. and has offered nukes and or nuclear reactors to saudi araabia and Iran

Dude... you've watched Conspiracy Theory once too often or something. Probably more than once too often. As far as I know - and someone please tell me if I'm wrong - gun control laws beyond the level of "No, you cannot have your own personal LAW rocket, 'k?" are up to the states. Which I think I said once before, but maybe you missed it. What do "other states' senators" have to do with it? Unless you're concerned that the Federal government is going to pass - with power to enforce at the state level - stringent weapons-control legislation, with a majority of public opinion behind it. If there isn't a significant majority, a Court challenge would be almost guaranteed, quite possibly resulting in the legislation being struck down. If it does happen, and you don't agree with the majority, move to Angola or something.

I don't see Russia worrying about our gun control laws. I don't see Putin calculating anything weapons-related other than the fact that the US, not to mention traditional allies such as Great Britain, has a possibly larger and almost certainly more effective standing armed force, equipped with weapons that are at least technologically equal to whatever the Russians have. Putin is trying to rehabilitate Russia's status on the international stage as a superpower, and so far he's succeeding magnificently. Of course he's going to be courting countries traditionally opposed to or wary of the US. He's also going to be taking advantage of any developments he can, and the US is his best target: we're unpopular b/c of arrogance and perceived belligerance.

As far as US international issues, the evidence is pointing to something: terrorist organizations like Al-Quaeda, which have sympathy in major areas of the world, are effectively mobile. Countries ideologically committed to defensive and retributive action, like the US and Israel, are not. Same thing the Romans found out about the Gaulish raiders 2500 years ago, really. I think in the end, terrorist activity as much as the oil need is driving the US towards imperialistic foreign policy. Which seems kind of stupid on the terrorists' part, really, but then the Roman Empire did fall eventually, right?

In this case, there are other major powers - Russia, China, India, the EU as an opinion bloc - that could benefit from a degrading of US status. There is no good answer, as far as US policy is concerned. There's almost nobody apart from a few small countries like Israel and Taiwan that I can think of who really need us. The two major rising forces are the Muslim Middle East - not as anything like a unified power, but as a similarized cultural and racial unit - and the Asian powers, especially China. It's making everybody nervous, and the official clampdown on racism etc. is starting to break under the pressure. Foreign nationalities living inside another country are going to be especially loud, one way or another.

Sorry everybody - I realize this was mostly off-topic for the thread, but there were a few connections brought to mind by 'monk's post.

[lammas]

I even see where you're coming from.

What does that have to do with anything? Finland was never part of Soviet Union?

to "help" other - less powerful - nations "combat communism"

Yes that is the view western people prefer to choose. Other view is that USA used commie invasion as an excuse to violently prevent democracy and to make sure that no harmfull ideologies (like those supporting human rights and fighting against poverty) would take over. Like in Nicaragua for example where USA organised massive terror campaign against democratically elected government. You can hardly call that helping?

Given the very mixed, if not netting to the bad results, you can argue that it didn't work.

Jugding if it worked or not requires us to decide what was its goal. If it was to maintain USA's hegemony all over the world it worked quite well in my opinion.

it was trying to promote liberty, democracy, etc.

Can you give examples of this?

Indeed this topic has absolutely nothing to do with cold war but because you want to discuss it, why not ^^

[Gunmonk]

I don't see Russia worrying about our gun control laws. I don't see Putin calculating anything weapons-related other than the fact that the US, not to mention traditional allies such as Great Britain, has a possibly larger and almost certainly more effective standing armed force, equipped with weapons that are at least technologically equal to whatever the Russians have. Putin is trying to rehabilitate Russia's status on the international stage as a superpower, and so far he's succeeding magnificently. Of course he's going to be courting countries traditionally opposed to or wary of the US. He's also going to be taking advantage of any developments he can, and the US is his best target: we're unpopular b/c of arrogance and perceived belligerance.


I never said that russia is worried about our gun control laws. I was commenting I think that Putin is behind the funding for alqaida. I even read the artcle on msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19761840/site/newsweek/) so putin is becoming a tyrrant and has been known to help fringe countries develop weapons to harm us that was all I was commenting on

[3Vee]

Yes that is the view western people prefer to choose. Other view is that USA used commie invasion as an excuse to violently prevent democracy and to make sure that no harmfull ideologies (like those supporting human rights and fighting against poverty) would take over. Like in Nicaragua for example where USA organised massive terror campaign against democratically elected government. You can hardly call that helping?

The account I've always heard - and I am a US citizen, so I admit possible bias - is that the "democratically elected government" was the result of faked and/or bought elections. Note that I am not at all attempting to defend US actions of that period. I don't know enough about it to debate specifics.

(By the way, my use of quotation marks in the first post would usually be read as implying that I recognize what I'm saying is represented as the truth, usually, but may not, even probably is not, the case. I hope that didn't confuse you.)

Jugding if it worked or not requires us to decide what was its goal. If it was to maintain USA's hegemony all over the world it worked quite well in my opinion...

Can you give examples of this?

My initial point was that, regardless of actual political intent, public opinion (apart from the very vocal "left-wing" minority) was that the US was actually involved in protecting democracy, liberty, etc. I guess I could go search internet archives or something for articles showing this, but it is my own history... And yes, there was maintenance of US interest. I am not going to go into - here - the amount a government should ethically spend worrying about it's own good vs. global good.

I've learned a bunch from your posts which I'd like to look into at some point - fairly soon - but until I have I'm not well enough informed to debate any of the points you're bringing up. If you could recommend some sources (esp. books) I'd appreciate it. But this wasn't the original point of the thread, so shall we let it drop for now?

[Gunmonk]

The account I've always heard - and I am a US citizen, so I admit possible bias - is that the "democratically elected government" was the result of faked and/or bought elections. Note that I am not at all attempting to defend US actions of that period. I don't know enough about it to debate specifics.

(By the way, my use of quotation marks in the first post would usually be read as implying that I recognize what I'm saying is represented as the truth, usually, but may not, even probably is not, the case. I hope that didn't confuse you.)



My initial point was that, regardless of actual political intent, public opinion (apart from the very vocal "left-wing" minority) was that the US was actually involved in protecting democracy, liberty, etc. I guess I could go search internet archives or something for articles showing this, but it is my own history... And yes, there was maintenance of US interest. I am not going to go into - here - the amount a government should ethically spend worrying about it's own good vs. global good.

I've learned a bunch from your posts which I'd like to look into at some point - fairly soon - but until I have I'm not well enough informed to debate any of the points you're bringing up. If you could recommend some sources (esp. books) I'd appreciate it. But this wasn't the original point of the thread, so shall we let it drop for now?


Any of Ann Coulters books are good for this sort of thing. Pertainging to the government intervening I'd go with "slander" first then work your way up from there. I'd also look at various government doctrines too and then apply them to what has happened, mainly the "truman doctrine" and/or the "marshal plan". All these posts I believe are relevant to the topic because while I believe that allot of this antisemetism is from russia I must admit that we americans are not totaly innocent either. Largely I blame the truman doctrine as a whole. Because of the truman doctrine and the marshall plan we have given weapons to terrorists, trained bin laden, given money to bin laden and terrorists, allowed warlordism and binladen to continue in afganistan, gave weapons to Iran, and given countlss other aid to other countries that have allowed us to become the worlds weekly allowance (driving us into a massive debt that will only be fixed by the fairtax I might add). By NOT letting russia deal with iraq, afghanistan, and any other coutry we will be incvading in the future. We have allowed peopel who hate jews (because of a family dispute dating back to abraham) to spread and create anti american sentiment too. I dare say that if the truman doctrine were invented there would be allot less life lost and september 11th may never have happened. I pay no attention to the maniac that has a milllion nukes but I worry about the maniac that has only one. All this to say confrontation with russia is easily avoided at a summit there is no dealing with terrorsits

[singo]

Maybe for the Truman Doctrine, although it did get misused. Threat of massive retaliation does not make playing silly buggers compulsary.

But the Marshall plan was the best thing to happen to the Post War world. Lets be honest, if Western Europe had not been rebuilt, odds are most of the continent would have gone over. May well have done anyway had the CIA not rigged a load of elections.

[lammas]

My initial point was that, regardless of actual political intent, public opinion (apart from the very vocal "left-wing" minority) was that the US was actually involved in protecting democracy, liberty, etc. I guess I could go search internet archives or something for articles showing this, but it is my own history... And yes, there was maintenance of US interest. I am not going to go into - here - the amount a government should ethically spend worrying about it's own good vs. global good.

I've learned a bunch from your posts which I'd like to look into at some point - fairly soon - but until I have I'm not well enough informed to debate any of the points you're bringing up. If you could recommend some sources (esp. books) I'd appreciate it. But this wasn't the original point of the thread, so shall we let it drop for now?

I adore your attitude. Anyways Id recommed Chomsky (Ann Coulter too so you get 2 views). Some of his books and articles are avaible on internet www.chomsky.info "Year 501" and "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" are good for beginning :)

[Gunmonk]

Maybe for the Truman Doctrine, although it did get misused. Threat of massive retaliation does not make playing silly buggers compulsary.

But the Marshall plan was the best thing to happen to the Post War world. Lets be honest, if Western Europe had not been rebuilt, odds are most of the continent would have gone over. May well have done anyway had the CIA not rigged a load of elections.


However the marshall plan was directly related to the truman doctrine. I understand your point but what you are missing is the fact that the marshall plan has ended up going not for the rebuilding of europe but other countries as well. I believe that rebuilding europe is a great thing however, we cannot be welfare for other nations. Including the UN