Thank you everyone for your comments regarding where this blog should go for the new year. To begin, I will address a topic suggested to me by "agga". This is a short post for me, but I look forward to explaining my points further in the comments section.
America's new counterterrorism strategy needs to be one that reverts back to the "soft power" of the Carter years. Military intervention in the pre-emptive fashion has been largely disproved and we need to stay away from that. The seeds of resentment against Western might were sown in the Middle East because of the scores of military bases the US keeps there. Meddling in the foreign affairs of sovereign nations has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths, demonstrations, and political unrest in that region. We need to finally realize that stability will come through economic investment in infrastructure and not through occupying countries. I can point to the many failures of the past including Iran, 1953, Iraq, Lebanon and Israeli-Palestinian peace, but it is the successes that need to be evaluated.
The first major success has not to do with terrorism, but the defeat of another radical idea. Many lessons can be learned from the defeat of communism and the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. The Marshall Plan was largely responsible for this victory. Billions of dollars were spent to rebuild countries that were destroyed by war. There was great risk that these countries would go Communist, but through economic investment- not military occupation- Capitalism triumphed. In the countries of the Middle East, this lesson can be applied in such a way that will bring about the stability that will hopefully help our cause. America and international lending institutions are notorious for lending money with strings attached, so we should now lend money that is targeted at creating jobs and building countries, not tearing down governments and putting into power people that the West approves of. Stability and, hopefully, democracy will be a product of development.
America as a whole needs to realize that most people resent our involvement in their country's affairs. After all, that was one of the main causes of our own revolution. Change will take time, but it will come. A more recent example of success is Lebanon. Through the Doha Accords, a tentative stability has been reached-without the help of America. Now there is a Prime Minister who rules a country still very aware of the many crises it has been through, but with hope of leaving that period in its past. Peace came without the help of America. That is the point that needs to be drilled through the heads of those who would consider military involvement in other countries that run the risk of falling into turmoil.
Many Middle Eastern countries do not want to become Westernized. They have a much longer history than America and wish to hang onto it. So instead of pushing our relatively new values and ideas onto them, we should stand back and watch them create their own stability in a way that suits them. Like I've said before this will take more time, but the benefits will be more than worth it. That being said, if a country does happen to collapse, and innocent lives are being lost by the hands of a tyrant, then the US and the West will certainly be ready and willing to stand and fight on the behalf of the oppressed. Unfortunately, however, after the Iraq debacle, the world doesn't look at the West as a force for good anymore, so to push that onto people as we have done would be a grave mistake.
25 comments:
I extremely disagree about your comparison of Communism ant the corrupted religious governments. Communism was a modern idea and people holding it in the eastern Europe were fairly civilized ( Not like North Korean Communism which does not matter how much money you give, they just make new bombs anyway). you want to lend Money to Saudi? Or the lent money to Pakistan is going somewhere? Lebanon is a success??? Hezbollah has more rocket, more troops, and more money to fool people more than ever.
They have longer history, so what? Now it's 21st century, global economy and new values, sometimes old and new cannot co-exist. US and West are never going to be ready to fight for the oppressed, never has happened and will never happen. No one go to a deadly war simply to help, there are always interests to protect. It is not about good or bad, it depends where the interests are, and what is needed to protect them. Do you suggest that the pacifism is a solution even if a group pose an immediate danger to your values?
I like the comparison of the former Soviet Bloc to the modern Middle East. Communism and Islam as ideologies are quite different, but in reality both are used as political tools to support dictatorships. Starving a dictatorship of money is an effective strategy. Of course in this case that will mean breaking the Western dependence on oil.
Ironically, the current recession will do more to handicap the Iranian, Saudi, and Venezuelan dictatorships than any military presence. With the price of oil so depressed, they're going to have a hard time paying their bills, and their populations are going to get pretty pissy. Notice you haven't heard much boasting from Ahmadinejad and Chavez lately?
The communism analogy is also borne out by looking at China. No, China hasn't become a democracy - far from it. That change will happen slowly, as more of the population goes abroad and gets higher education. But China has become much more capitalist, and that has integrated the Chinese economy with the rest of the world. The last thing the CCP wants now is a war with the West, or even a US recession. Economic integration works.
I think every American bomber should be employed to rain books down on the Middle East. Any other kind of aid can usually be stolen by dictators, but ideas can't be controlled for long. Sure, most of the books would probably be burned. But if even 1% survived, there would be a whole new world of thought opened up.
Rain book and people start reading? People who are looking for book know where to look for it. Middle-east is not like North Korea, it's not a black hole.
It is not comparable in this case because we are talking about two different geographic location and the big difference in cultures. Communism and Islam offer two different future and that is why we never saw European communists aimlessly throw rockets at innocent people or blow themselves up. Vietcong approach to defense is not comparable to Hezbollah or Taliban. Not a single American was abducted in the Cuban revolution, except few in the very beginning by Raul which were returned immediately. Now Journalists are being beheaded for being a foreigner in Iraq. However, when Communism went to more primitive people like in Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, it was very horrifying. I want to say, different approach for different time, different culture, different people and different personal interests.
Yes this fall will handicap those dictators but what would be the use of it for the west now? Without any reasonable alternative in the region I don't know who is going to replace them! it would mean an unstable middle-east with possible revolutions and political unrest. Flow of oil disrupting is very dangerous now. Saudi might fall into a much more conservative regime and look at Pakistan. Wow this state is corrupt no matter what. west should also help in creation of alternative groups but without military support and presence, the totalitarian regimes will just feel safer and easier. American troops out of middle east and things can get much worse.
Looking weak is always a very dangerous things, specially for a nation that is the dream of the most educated and open-minded people in the world.
Stephan- There is a fine line between looking weak and being tyrannical, and I'm afraid we've crossed it. Yes the tactics in each struggle were different, but you have to look at the root, and that is that people who are being oppressed will resort to any means at their disposal in order to bring harm upon the perceived enemy. So in reality the VietCong and Middle East terrorists aren't all that different.
Agga- I like your comment about droppong books. Ideas will surely spread stability far better than military might. That is why, through soft power, the US and West can succeed. The internet, MacDonalds, WalMart and other Western ideals will get through and eventually bring about change.
VietCongs were not Barbaric, they never blew up a night club with few poor kids in it. It make a very big difference for me.
The opponents are 2 completely different kind of people and you should first know them to propose ways to deal with them. Vietcong resistent was a national issue for the people of Vietnam but in the Middle-east it is Jihad against infidels now. This again makes a huge difference.
My position here is that I don't know what to do in this situation and in each region, but I do not see wars out of the picture. The idea of pouring books is childish, in urban areas people have access to internet and books fairly easier than grab the one that is falling from the sky, and in rural areas people never read. Mark, with all due respect I think you should do some research on history of the middle-east, different cultures of different regions, Islam and its branches, Main religious text books, Mullah's speeches, famous ayatollahs and their position, and Muslims of different regions plus particular culture of each part. Maybe what you will conclude will be dropping books but before doing the above I will just say it is an unrealistic approach.
I think deep research is needed before defining an approach. Zimbabwe should be different to Somalia,Iran different to Afghanistan and... Sometimes Military is the solution and sometimes political and economical means are the solution. I am against the generalization and expanding one approach to all areas of the map.
Stephan, I think you overestimate the availability of controversial books in the Middle East. Pelting Iran with The Satanic Verses would have an effect. What access to Afghan villagers have to The Declaration of the Rights of Man? Anywhere outside the blackmarket in Riyadh, I really doubt that average Saudis have access to Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan. Books that teach people how to logically question authority are powerful tools.
Ideas are powerful, and people read things that are dropped from planes. Sure, maybe some of them would have access to The God Delusion, if they knew about it and wanted to look. But if you scattered 100,000 copies over Northern Pakistan, a lot of people who would otherwise never have thought to question their mullahs might start.
Or you could just keep dropping hellfire missiles on Aspirin factories. That's been a real hit so far.
It looks like your argument boils down to: Middle Eastern people are primitive, and the American military needs to be there to scare them into behaving.
There would be nothing dangerous for America in withdrawing military presence from the Middle East. If America cut their military budget in half, they could spend 50 times more on homeland security.
Stephan- You're right, I don't know what the Mullahs are saying, but it makes no difference in this regard. This is a struggle such as there has been throughout history. terrorism is being used as a means in a desperate struggle and the idea of fanatical Islam must be defeated. The best way to do this is through soft power. History is full of examples of ideas being more resilient than military occupation- it will take soft power.
As far as the VietCong- they were famous for doing the same things that we're seeing now. they strapped bombs to men, women and children- didn't matter. And yes it was a national issue for the people of Vietnam, but they were a culture all their own, and the Muslim Arabs have a culture all their own. Therefore I think this can work.
Good luck giving Dawkins's book to North Pakistanis. In many areas people have difficulty understand Donald duck stories. Take a trip to Pakistan and then you will see what I mean. Poor Indians are not even given a green light to defend themselves. no I don't think anybody should watch anybody to behave. There is oil over there and stability is needed to keep it flow until an alternative energy source is discovered.
Hearts and minds program has not given much results either. People danced for few days, destroyed Saddam statue and then tribal wars began. The horror of civilian casualty does not even let the American soldiers to defend themselves. Without American troops the Afghan government won't last a day. In Iraq civil war can become a serious human tragedy. Iran's model can spread North and South easily. Hezbollah in Lebanon is completely out of control and is being pumped with thousands of rockets daily. In Turkey extremists are getting stronger by day. These are the concerns of an strategic region which is vital to the world economy.
What would be the solution if Iran was months before making Atomic bomb?
I've heard Iran has bought S300 anti aircraft system from Russia. Wouldn't be to easy to drop books off here.
Stephan, why do you feel so threatened by people that you believe can't even understand Donald Duck stories?
And how exactly should India go about defending itself? By attacking Pakistan? No, I don't think we want any green lights for an all-out war between two nuclear nations. Defense starts at home, not by invading the hometown of your attackers.
Hearts and Minds programs haven't had much effect because everybody knows that they're currently hollow promises. Know how many Iraqi refugees America accepted in 2003? 500. Meanwhile in the last 5 years, over a million have gone to Jordan. It's so clearly hypocritical for America to claim that it cares about the people of the Middle East, when it's obvious that policy so far has been directed at establishing military presence and dominating oil supply.
What "solution" do you expect to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb. They're going to build one, nothing short of an all-out invasion will stop that. Just like the Soviets did during the 1950's, the Chinese did in the 1960's, and the North Koreans did in the 1980's. All 3 had sworn to wipe America off the map - but nuclear war never happened. So don't get your panties in a knot.
Is it really unreasonable for Iran to want a nuclear bomb? Look at what happened to the 3 countries in Bush's so called "Axis of Evil". North Korea had the Bomb - no invasion. Iraq didn't have the Bomb - invasion! What would you do if you were running Iran?
That said, I in now way support the current dictators of Iran, and I hope to see a radical shift to a more progressive governemnt. But that shift will have to come from the Iranian people if it's going to work.
And that's the crux of the issue. America simply can't force the Middle East to be progressive. The ideas and opinions of the people have to change, and you can't do that with bullets.
You mock my suggestion of dropping books. I think you underestimate individuals, and overestimate their freedoms and access to information.
What's your great idea?
Of course each area is different. Zimbabwe is a waiting game - wait for Mugabe to die, or for his inner circle of cronies to turn on each other.
Your comparison of Al Qaeda with the Vietcong is shallow and innacurate. The Vietcong never blew up nightclubs full of civilians because there were military targets everywhere. Islamic terrorists target civilians because they don't have the capability (usually) to target military bases, especially those with heightened security.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban particularly are fighting a psychological battle, trying to control through fear. You can't win in Afghanistan by being scarier than the Taliban, because the Taliban are local and not going to leave. Fear won't work - it failed the Soviets in Afghanistan.
I am scared of anyone who is looking for shortcuts to heaven. Less educated and more primitive gets more scary. I rather keep my defense up when somebody calls me infidel.
Defense start at home. This is not a saying that I accept. Of course it is hypocritical for America to claim it cares. Did I ever mention caring and niceness? Military presence is needed to keep the oil flow and also keep the hub safe for now. If there was not such overwhelming interests directly related to the stability of the region, then it was possible to pull out and see if it is less human loss without America, I bet tribal wars will kill much more. So many of those Arab governments also want American Army there out of the fear for Iran and Iraq.
Soviet and Chinese wanted to wipe America off the map? I can't recall them mentioning anything like that. VietCong never threatened to target all the American citizens all around the world and never said foreigners and infidels should go to hell. Is that me, or British born bombing of Britain is just crazy weird. The clash against Communism is totally different to face a primitive heaven based ideology. You guys underestimate the vast differences between a modern ideology and a primitive one.
Soviets failed in Afghanistan because US was backing Taliban militarily. Without those FIM-92 Stingers, they would not stand a chance. It was a mistake, because I think a bad alternative was chosen. Unfortunately beast is out of the cage but needs ways to deal with it.
There are groups in middle-east, most of the times a minority of educated people like Secular Palestinian, Kurds and also many people and the government in Lebanon that are going to be dead if the situation gets more unstable. They expect America to help. They either have to gain more power themselves with financial and military aid or have a strong back up that does not let them get massacred. If Hezbollah feels a little bit safer, they will claim full power in matter of days and my position is that this should be prevented by all means and casualties. The groups closer to America also need to feel safe.
If I were running Iran I would want a bomb as if I would want the bomb if I were the king of Britain. It's never about fairness. I find my interests in a strong America and for personal reasons I do not want to see otherwise.
The country that have gained nuclear power, now have more option to bully. No body wants to face Pakistan for that fear even though everyone agrees all the mess is coming out of there. India is getting bombed and can't even react.Atomic Iran in this situation means another dangerous bully, it should not happen.
My answer is I don't know what to do in each country, but you don't know either. You can't generalize one approach to every situation. I have no fixed solution but I see a dangerous world economy and weakened western values that also need protection. For example now in Gaza I think Israel should go forward. I can't possibly ask Israel to take rockets on daily basis and not to react.
I loved what Obama said; “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing”. I think he is showing some guts.
Its pretty obvious that military force has not worked for us in the past, so I'd have to agree with Mark and agga on that. Change certainly comes from within - we will never be able to force other cultures to accept our ideologies and western culture, and why should they? Many cultures are unique and beautiful in their own ways, from small towns in Pennsylvania (and even Ohio), to cities in the middle east. Unfortunately, the global spread of corporate capitalism is a destructive force to those cultures (the McDonalds, Walmarts and all the other bullshit). The last thing we want is a world of all the same places.
But ideas are certainly the way to go. Why do all tyrannical governments control education, freedom of speech, and books? Because they know that ideas are more powerful than any missle or nuclear bomb. Once ideas spread far enough and people begin asking questions and demanding answers, change will happen.
Bombs and guns don't change people; they only force them to live a certain way, or kill them.
Very well said- and I couldn't agree more with JMichael- except for the condescending Ohio remark haha.
Here again we are not talking about niceness and make changes in people. Flow of oil currently cannot be disturbed. Not a chance, and you will see how nasty things can get when it comes to survival. Even European moralists will vow for war if the factory they work in stops working.
Fascism was defeated militarily.
Craziness of Japanese as well. Arabs forced Islam militarily and it worked up until now. Alexander's Hellenic era caused a lot of progress. British Imperialism did not always turn bad for the host country ultimately. Churches supremacy was defeated with multiple different violent encounters such as in the French revolution. Cold war and American military interference in different countries caused a lot of damage to soviets. Military However, it is not always the approach. There are endless examples of nice orange revolutions, turns and slow but steady progresses, I don't deny that. If we are talking about results and sometimes the unfavorable ones, I can give you endless examples of how military can give it. Military presence can also scare bullies back. Let them grow stronger and they will become a bigger problem like this Hezbollah, Hamas, and Taliban. All America and Israel's fault, now this craziness is all caused by the false thoughts that Gaza would be ready for an elected government. I am not drawing any conclusions anyways, different times , different people and different cultures. Sometimes orange, sometimes black.
You cannot have a generalized approach. Different region, different culture, different climate, different opponents, different interests should end in different tactics.
Why exactly global corporate capitalism is a bad thing? What is wrong with corporates? Walmart and McDonald don't make the world the same. I don't find many similarities between London and Chicago, except that there are a lot of job opportunities, fairly decent economies, opportunities for the people who actually want to work and live in freedom. Plus a much better social service than countries which do not want corporates and shout that all of their people are happy.
A group of people(sometimes majority and democratically elected) rule a country with violence an tyranny, sometimes Hutus want to kill Tutsis in millions because they are the majority. Sometimes big bullies in a big group want to hurt your few friends, what would be the best choice? It is not true that everyone in the region hates America. And it is because of the strong American presence and enforced Press is that the more educated minority don't get prosecuted and killed as much as it could be. My question is do we always have to respect a democratic or popular choice even if its a bad value? I understand though, when there is no interest nobody would want to do the right thing and it is perfectly natural. And now, in this situation, it seems the interests are keeping the dictators for an stable middle east. I think it is a very bad choice because things can get easily out of hand. These people are sometimes very quick and it will just increase the casualties of a possible future conflict. i have no way of calculating the odds for making the right choice though.
People never change. You can argue with this. And nothing in real politics is about making changes or doing the nice things. you, by defending them and sympathizing with them feel superior and protective of them and I basically say it is all about the natural struggle for power, like the everyday life of an American. There is always a big difference between someone like the head of Microsoft and an average employee. Bill gets to talk, he shuts up. The rest of the ethical issues are a nice delusion. Back there is a complete chaos. I tell it by the experience of spending few hours with one of those powerful men. The way they talk about people and employees, it's cruel buddy! I openly admit that I'd like to be in the winning side. Maybe never happens but the struggle remains open. In the middle east, ultimately all sums up to an struggle for power between Mullahs and dictator, and Western politicians and influential people (many of them heads of corporates that want to sell their products or enforce Copywrite, or in contrary buy oil and need stability). People are just dangling in the middle until they get hungry. As Stan couldn't choose between the Douche and the Turd. How you are going to defeat the opponent, that gets a whole lot of research to choose the strategy.
ideas are powerful but sometimes they get killed before they flourish.
No, a culture, like when girls can't go to school or get killed in Afghanistan, or gang rape in Pakistan, Stoning in Saudi, or when Hijab is forced and women can't drive, is not beautiful in its own way. Beautiful is the promised land, as long as we are here; There is a reality. That is why no body in his right mind would want to move from US to Pakistan, there is a reason for the direction of the flow of immigrants.
'Once ideas spread far enough and people begin asking questions and demanding answers, change will happen.' Just like that? It's just too easy, isn't it? There are an unbelievable number of influential factor to the state of a society. I would like to see you handing in and explaining books to individuals; Just remember missionaries get killed over there. I've heard that Iran has bought the S300 anti aircraft missile defense system from Russia. Even throwing books with bombers might not work.
My whole point is: Lets discuss matters realistically, methodically, objectively and scientifically.
The question that: 'Is military an option?' is not a valid question. 'Is military an option against North Korea? might be a valid one. Then we can discuss the cause and effect, culture, history, casualties, people, possible resistance, personal interests involved, long term effects and etc individually. Then we can get closer to have a constructive discussion and calculate the odds and have a better answer for a specific situation. It takes a lot research to study the whole aspect of a situation but other than this it will be a hippie religious-like discussion which is based on some undefinable concepts of morality and has no basis in experiments, statistics, reality and odds.
The point isn't to never use military force - I am not espousing pacifism or even non-violent resistance in all situations. I am merely saying that you cannot change someone, or another culture, through 'top-down' military force as though they were a piece of clay you can mold into whatever you want, as long as you put enough force into it. Sure you can make them do things, and control them for short periods of time (in the realm of history) but eventually the people will rise up and return the balance.
Even the French revolution, which you bring up, began with ideas. Sure those ideas led to incredible bloodshed, but change has to begin from within a culture, and within people. The same process occurred with the american revolution, the cuban revolution, and countless others.
The point is that we will never be able to 'westernize' a country, or 'democrasize' a country or really change anything with military force. Especially with military force that is only geared towards resource attainment and setting up a (so-called) democratic government and neo-liberal society that we will directly benefit from. If change does happen in conjunction with military force, its because the people are ready for that change, and the force is only helping, or acting as a catalyst for that change. No one becomes democratic because you point a gun in their face, or occupy their country and set up surrogate governments that aren't even democratically elected.
I will certainly agree with you that there are incredibly ugly aspects of culture right now in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but there are beautiful aspects of Arab culture as well - to deny that would be ridiculous. Every culture has horrible and beautiful things, examining the current tumultuous situation in the middle east and saying there is nothing beautiful about their culture ignores rich histories and cultures. Not all Arabs believe in the inferiority of women, or the fundamentalism of Islam.
As for why the globalization of corporate capitalism is a bad thing? Take a look at wal-mart or McDonald's employee practices. Take a look at their business practices. Take a look at the Chinese factories wal-mart out-sources. Take a look at anytime any group of employees tries to unionize.
More corporations? Take a look at Chevron and Texaco in Ecuador. Even IBM during WWII assisted Nazi germany, with full knowledge of the situation (why: money). The Betchel Corporation privatizing water in Bolivia, making it illegal for the residents to even collect rain water is another horrifying example - many people were unable to buy food, or medicine because they had to buy water from that corporation (they eventually rebelled and took back the rights - again, the ideas led to violence, which led to change). Note that none of these corporations (and the people running them) have ever REALLY been held responsible for their actions.
The problem with corporate capitalism (and this is an incredibly short list of 'wrongs') is that corporations are so incredibly powerful that even governments are unable to control them. Corporations now operate as trans-national economic governments, with almost no legal responsibility (excepting the payment of fines in exchange for lives lost or killed in 'accidents'). Sure, were talking about a lot of different kinds of corporations, but the bottom line is always the same - money. Corporations are not interested in helping people out, and never will be until it is economically advantageous. They will act in complete disregard for human life, human rights, or any kind of morality to meet the bottom line, because that is how they are designed.
Your right, Chicago and London are not the same. But take a road trip through small town Pennsylvania or Ohio, and look at the downtown areas before and after a wal-mart was put in, before huge chain restaurants were built, and before fast food joints opened. You will see a vast difference - before there was a beautiful local culture of small, locally owned shops and even support for local farmers. Now? The downtown looks like a deserted war zone, small business owners are unable to compete with global corporations and are shut down (this, actually, is the goal of corporations like wal-mart). When I say everything is the same, I mean everywhere you drive there is a homogeneous set of 'cultural icons.' Individual culture is lost, like indigenous languages (take a look at gaelic).
I guess I just see corporate capitalism as another form of subversion. How can it be that if we live in a democratic and free society, that workers who are trying to unionize and collectively demand their rights as human beings are all fired, the plant shut down, and nothing happens. How can we stand by and let major corporations economically invade other countries and effectively steal oil, or water, or anything else at the expense of the people of that respective country? And we have supposedly come so far? We respect human rights and stand up against abuse? Corporate capitalism, as it stands today, is no more of a solution than pointing a gun at someone and demanding they become democratic. Sure, it will change things for a while and make them seem better, but the problems have only faded into the background, the shackles and chains have only become invisible. But at least the myths of freedom and democracy will shine in the air like two blinking neon signs saying 'everything is okay, just continue on as normal.' Oh, and that gaping void you feel sometimes, deep inside? Fill it with shopping.
Again, nothing in there is about making changes. It's all about power and money unless you don't want to see the reality. And about change: If you get scientifically into it, even changes in Brain, neurons and synapses can happen through reinforcement learning.Actually reinforcement learning is the most powerful, most studied way of learning. Some scientists believe it is only through this that species learn and some disagree. However, this is not the point. As I stated the field is just too complicated and there are too many factors. It is up to the situation and interests that the approach and outcome will be decided.
Your point being people jobless is better than working for Walmart? Who is going to be paying for those social services? A soviet system? I used to hold the same opinion until I saw Starbucks gives a better coffee,better and faster customer service. And also I don't see much difference between an employee in small local shop or a chain except that they are better off working and dealing with a more lawful option. Boss is the boss, employee is the employee. Yes small local shops are dying because they can't compete, the fitter survives. You want to change the law of nature, then go for it. Google started small and they managed to pull themselves up against a big bully like Microsoft. If they can outsmart and come up with fresh ideas, they get big too and naturally they become bullies themselves. If power hungry smart people wouldn't create those corporation, simple people would not have a job, scientific progress could not happen(Good scientists also want better life and better money) and economy would fall. To prevent the big side effects of this natural struggle and to protect themselves, other powerful people will come out with rules to limit each others power and keep the progress steady which can result in the constitutions which can only be written by elites. Smarter the rules and everyone would be better off. That is why corporations are better in civilized America than third world Bolivia. Yes those powerful people are not always held responsible, do you wonder why? You want to see justice, you are in the wrong specie.
I wouldn't care if a language dies, some will as it has happened before. if some people care enough about it, it won't, if they don't it will. Why exactly should I care? It will make my communication easier with them if they speak English. With internet, Media and the changes in the world, we are living in a very global world. Changes will happen. Civilizations might clash more, some survive and some die. Some values cannot co-exist. Somebody might not like it, but this is the way things will go.
There is an evolutionary incentive for shopping, I suggest more reading on the subject. starting point could be the last Economist. The void people feel is a natural things, there has always been a void with everyone, it is not only in the 21st century, and that is why people who can't cope with that gap, believe in god. This void will even get bigger if someone cannot adapt to an inevitable change.
Stephan,
Why do you continue to talk about looking at this scientifically? Dealings with people are anything but scientific. It is an art. If it were a science we wouldn't have anymore wars or struggles because someone would've figured out how to solve them scientifically i.e. the rule works every time. Pre-emptive warfare doesn't work. Iraq has proven that. And yes, things seem to finally be coming around, but remember WWII was over in 5 years and we conquered a whole 3 separate countries. Iraq isn'y finished in 6 years.
'Dealings with people are anything but scientific'. In my opinion it's a dangerous perception of humanity.
There is also the possibility Iraq isn't finished because America couldn't finish it, it wasn't because it is impossible to finish. From the very first minute of it, it was full of mistakes because of an incredibly dumb administration which was capable of considering Putin a nice man by looking into his eyes.
Post a Comment