Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Yes, I got up this morning with a few questions running through my head.
Has anyone here ever changed their political position because of an internet discussion?
Has anyone here ever convinced anyone else to do so?
Has anyone ever changed their mind about anything as a result of a confrontational attack from anyone else, be it internet, telephone, written communication or face to face?
My answers to all these for myself were, "No."
Which prompted this question, "What exactly are we doing here?"
It's going to take a bit more time for me to answer that question about myself. I suspect it might be because I don't especially want to know the answer....
Has anyone here ever changed their political position because of an internet discussion?
Has anyone here ever convinced anyone else to do so?
Hi Richard, on and off I have been following these conversations, and for my own part I would say yes. But any change in someone's position comes with time and patience. I think what happens is the things people talk about flag up issues which 6 months or 2 years down the line, are remembered. Maybe at a later time a person is can be more receptive to taking in new information. If people changed their position based on conversations taken at face value that wouldn't look too good.
I read with some interest your posts about the anit-trust laws and also appreciated the reference to climate change in some earlier posts, thanks for that.
Has anyone here ever changed their political position because of an internet discussion?
Richard, don't despair - your words aren't going unnoticed; none of the contributors' are.
My personal view at this point of my life is that reality is ever-changing and subjective. I try to keep an open mind regarding other people's world views and opinions and believe that my own has been influenced as a result.
I'll bore you with a personal story:
I was a troubled teen and sought the help of a professional. When I decided to pack up shop and immigrate to the US my therapist shared this story during our final session: (a story within a story!)
A professional acquaintance of his had a female client who had trouble reaching orgasm. After a few unsuccessful years she decided to stop therapy.
Some years went by and they ran into each other. She was happy to see him and confided that her problem had since gone away, attributing their sessions as the direct cause.
Surprised, he asked what exactly was it that helped.
Apparently the man had a habit of sneezing very loudly, and his ability to 'let go' and 'become the sneeze' made a huge impression on her and she was able to overcome whatever mental block was preventing her from climaxing.
quote:
Which prompted this question, "What exactly are we doing here?"
Before all the war crime accusations came about, I thought this was a great thread that was laying quite a few conspiracy theories I've heard to rest.
Yes, I got up this morning with a few questions running through my head.
Has anyone here ever changed their political position because of an internet discussion?
Has anyone here ever convinced anyone else to do so?
Has anyone ever changed their mind about anything as a result of a confrontational attack from anyone else, be it internet, telephone, written communication or face to face?
My answers to all these for myself were, "No."
Which prompted this question, "What exactly are we doing here?"
It's going to take a bit more time for me to answer that question about myself. I suspect it might be because I don't especially want to know the answer....
Hello Richard,
Your comment, quoted above, assumes that the purpose of this (or any) discussion or debate is to convince others to change their opinion or position about politics or anything else under discussion. Speaking for myself, I do not accept your premise (at least as I understand it). Speaking strictly for myself, I engage in these discussions and debates to present the topic under discussion in as objective a framework as possible, at least as I understand it. I am not out to propagandize or change opinions. I do attempt to provide balance to opinions and positions that seem to me to be on the fringe. That is my purpose for engaging in these discussions and debates. I am not out to "change minds." Once I have registered my position, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I do not consider these discussions and debates a "beauty contest." If nothing else, I at least will have provided an alternative view to consider. If I can do that, I will have succeeded in my purpose, whether or not anyone agrees with me.
It seems to me that the the more positiions and opinions expressed in this format, the better anyone considering them will be able to make up his own mind regarding his position. It is not a matter of "changing" minds; rather, it is a matter of providing as many opinions and positions as possible, in order for anyone reading them to make up his own mind regarding the issue under discussion.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I have greatly profited from internet discourse; it has helped me find solutions to guitar problems, exposed me to music and artists, helped me get into a pena and eat fried, bony anchovies...
I do not think it is a bad thing to hear and even confront differing perspectives in politics. I am glad to hear of the arguments from all sides, even if it is sometimes painful. I do not talk politics at all in "real life", as it usually ends up a vituperative (thanks, Steven) exchange of bumper-sticker one-liners, and I only think of good things to say after the argument is over. The best arguments have both sound logic and supporting evidence, and account for the complexity, nuance, paradox, and uncertainty of the real world. I have not actually witnessed someone changing their minds due to an internet discussion, although I certainly could have said "I told you so" a few times in the last several years. :)
Your comment, quoted above, assumes that the purpose of this (or any) discussion or debate is to convince others to change their opinion or position about politics or anything else under discussion.
Sorry if I gave that impression. The first question was meant to cover the objective you state. If I may paraphrase, it would be to provide information, allowing others to form, reform or confirm their opinions based upon the information provided.
The next questions address modes of discussion I observe frequently, and which occur in this thread: to convince via persuasion, and whatever the purpose of a confrontational attack may be.
I see these as a variety of motivations for discussions such as these. I was wondering whether any of them, including the presentations you provide, had any effect on any of the participants.
Upon consideration I would add one effect which has actually been useful to me. That is, having had my position challenged, to respond by thinking it through more carefully, and to look for information that may support or further challenge my position.
As I said, I got up this morning with the questions I listed running through my head. I was curious about the response to what I saw as at least three distinct modes of debate, presumably with differing objectives.
What you see here from me is very seldom the result long consideration or polished writing. It is usually a quick respoinse, but usually based on years of examining the opinions expressed. It is what gets written almost instantaneously, with only one read through to correct spelling, and to correct any obvious ambiguities or complete lack of clarity.
It's more like a face to face conversation, which usually takes a little back-and-forth to arrive at clarity. So I'm not surprised that you saw a different meaning than the one I intended.
But that does not mean that those who continued to carry out U.S. government policy were any less admirable and honorable, and devoted to both the U.S. national interest and the interest of the countries involved. We all make our decisions and commitments, and in most cases one is neither more nor less admirable and honorable than the other. And I'm sure you will agree that there can be multiple legitimate takes and ideas on the best course of action the U.S. should pursue as well.
Indeed. When baited by the CIA station chief, I refused to characterize the U.S. Government as evil. What I said was that we were working against our stated objectives, and in the course of that doing evil.
I suspect that a large difference in my perspective and that of the station chief was due to the differing information available to us. In my training at Infantry Officer School, in Special Forces training and more importantly at the dinner table in a military family from the time I could more or less understand what was being said, the importance of a certain kind of information was emphasized. My father quoted Eisenhower as saying, "You want to get inside your opponent's head."
I think Ike meant at least two things by that. He wanted his opponent to have a mental picture of Ike, Ike's forces and Ike's country that Ike intended, and that promoted Ike's objective of victory. The other was, you want to understand who your opponent is, why he is fighting you, and why and how you ought to defeat him.
My perception was that outside the jungle, in Managua and Tegucigalpa, and certainly in Washington, we were failing to get into the other guy's head on both counts.
Our opponents saw us as the bad guys, aiding and abetting centuries of oppression by the white elite, not the fighters for freedom the U.S. Government saw us as, and as it presented us to the world at large.
My perception was that the Somoza regime knew that oppression by the elite was an accurate picture, and that they played upon the U.S. intention to limit communism. One of their tactics was to portray the collectivist attitude, characteristic of all Indian communities I knew about, as the result of communist infiltration that had to be stamped out by the force of arms.
The second aspect of Ike's dictum, to know who our opponents were, seemed achievable only at close quarters, interviewing prisoners, observing their tactics, going through the ruins of the villages we destroyed, finding no sign of the Cuban and Russian cadres that the Somoza regime reported regularly to Washington. They did have Russian and Chinese made AK-47 rifles.
My conclusion was that the people we were killing were just trying to defend themselves against attack by the regime. Their tactics were defensive. We lost casualties to ambushes, but otherwise we were fired upon only when we approached a village. They were correct when they concluded that an approach by us very likely indicated an assault would take place.
I could find no indication of armed hostilities having started due to anyone but the regime, attempting to suppress political dissent. Over and over I was told not only by prisoners, but also by scouts and spies working for us, that the Russian and Chinese arms arrived only after Nicaraguan forces had attacked villages suspected of opposition to the brutal and oppressive regime. Despite constant pressure from us, none of our scouts and spies could produce evidence of foreign cadres, despite the constant drumbeat of stories from Managua about Cubans and Russians fomenting revolution among the Indians.
My conclusion was that we were being used as tools of oppression by the Somoza regime, who were defrauding the U.S.A. with their stories of communist insurgency.
Did the Cubans and Russians plan to take advantage of the situation? Of course. But the Central American regimes were the cause of their own opposition, and we were quickly making matters much worse.
So we were working against our own interests, and we were killing people who found themselves in a situation beyond their control. Surrendering would do them no good. The regime would continue its persecution. All they could do was to try to defend their wives and children from us.
I won't say anything about what we did in combat. I follow the lead of my father and eight uncles who fought in WW II. You can't tell someone about armed combat who hasn't experienced it. It's like trying to describe the Alaska Range to someone who has never seen mountains, or telling about the world of a coral reef to someone who has never dived or snorkeled on one. But that's indescribable beauty. Combat is indescribable horror. I was fairly good at it. In my youth I was fearless. I was well trained. What my father and uncles were doing was right, horrific as it may have been. What we were doing was wrong.
Of course our actions radicalized people, who eventually banded together and conducted an effective offense against our "allies", the Nicaraguan regime.
But people outside the actual fighting were insulated from this information. The Somozas simply lied. They had plenty of experience. My reports to my superiors and the CIA staff were ignored or heavily filtered. When I reported we could turn up no evidence of foreign cadres, I got the "RHM" speech: "Row harder, motherf**ker!", not "Hmm, maybe there aren't any. But where are they getting the AK-47s?" They hadn't detected the arms shipments coming into the Mosquito Coast, but from the presence of the arms, they concluded there had to be some Cubans or Russians in there somewhere. My job was to find them, not to cast doubt on their existence.
I assume that as the Sandinistas built up numbers and military power, and it became safer for the Cubans to come into Nicaragua, that they did. But i never saw hide nor hair of them--even after I got a few people killed looking for them.
So I quit. But I quit based on information that people above my level didn't have. I wasn't the only American at my level who did quit. I knew of at least a dozen others. I was among the first group of six who quit when we rotated back to Managua for R & R (rest and recuperation).
Thus I cast no aspersions on the integrity of anyone beyond my immediate superiors and the CIA people in Central America. Even they couldn't see what I could. They weren't there to see it, and it went against what they believed.
It wasn't the first time such a thing happened, nor was it the last. Kennedy was told that the Cuban people would rise up en masse against Castro, in immediate response to the invasion at the Bay of Pigs. The exact opposite happened. The Cuban Army and the people rallied to Fidel and the cause of the Revolution. It was a bitter lesson to Kennedy. The CIA wasn't lying. They were just flat-ass wrong. They had no effective spy setup in Cuba, at least none whom they believed. The people they spent their time talking to were the ones who left Cuba because they were pissed off about the revolution.
In my career as an engineer I was involved part time in technical intelligence. There were long running battles over the interpretation of actual measurements of Soviet Anti Ballistic Missile tests. The position of one side or the other would make it into official intelligence estimates. About half the time these were proven wrong by subsequent Soviet tests.
There are two main reasons that your intelligence estimates are among your most carefully guarded secrets. You don't want to endanger your sources, human or technical, by giving your enemy information that could reveal them. And you don't want your adversary to know how wrong you are, because your intelligence estimates are always wrong about something. Once in a while it's something really important.
I do not think it is a bad thing to hear and even confront differing perspectives in politics. I am glad to hear of the arguments from all sides, even if it is sometimes painful. I do not talk politics at all in "real life", as it usually ends up a vituperative (thanks, Steven) exchange of bumper-sticker one-liners, and I only think of good things to say after the argument is over. The best arguments have both sound logic and supporting evidence, and account for the complexity, nuance, paradox, and uncertainty of the real world. I have not actually witnessed someone changing their minds due to an internet discussion, although I certainly could have said "I told you so" a few times in the last several years. :)
Speaking for myself, engaging in discussions and debates may not result in changing my mind, but it very often causes me to rethink my premises and arguments, and to review the evidence upon which they are based. And it sometimes results in a broader and deeper understanding of the issue than I had when I entered into the discussion.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I guess you are having fun with down playing "a SPIEGEL article" I read somewhere but can't find. That was not just one article as you certainly recognized but reports over the course of years.
I have just been trying to find something on the US plunder fellowship, but such is really unreal under means of dial-in conncetions.
What I came accross is however the kind of answer your political fraction released as motto, in case of the taboo of USSR looting was to be dealt with. That answer you have been reluctant to bring forward.
Here is a greatly illustrating example of the classical mixture of facts and disguising paintings that the conservative world floats on:
For me personally-and for a number of younger analysts more influential than me in later years-an important learning experience was the "Saga of the KGB Money." In mid-spring 1992, early in the Yeltsin regime, a retired colleague visited me to report that the international detective firm for which he now worked had been hired by the Yeltsin- Gaidar government to find vast sums essentially stolen by the KGB on behalf of itself and the CPSU and deposited abroad in bank accounts and front companies. Might not U.S. intelligence help to recover this money for the benefit of Russian reforms?
Our specialists on the KGB had, indeed, observed such activity since the late 1980s.10 Subsequent evidence reveals that it stemmed from top-level CPSU instructions in the mid-80s. Using semi-private cooperatives, the KGB sold cheaply acquired Soviet commodities abroad at world prices, putting the proceeds into disguised foreign accounts and front companies, including, according to many public sources, the later notorious Nordex. Initially the KGB objective was simply commercial cover. But the program evolved into operating businesses for off-budget revenues, and from there into avenues for squirreling away funds for the safe retirement or political comeback of embattled communist leaders. Lines of business came to include money laundering, arms and drug trafficking, and other plainly criminal activities. Before long, intelligence, business, politics and crime blurred indistinguishably into each other. What sums were involved? Some in the U.S. intelligence community estimated about $20 billion. But there was a wide range of uncertainty; one private analysis I learned about later estimated $4-6 billion; Russian press speculations ran to $100 billion. By all reckonings the amounts were very substantial. Could U.S. intelligence help find the money? Specialists in collection disciplines informed me that we could indeed help, although at some risk to our sources, should, for example, court cases expose them. It would be rather similar to tracking money in pursuit of drug traffickers. But should the U.S. Government render such help to Russia? For a policy decision, the late Ed Hewitt, then running Soviet affairs on the National Security Council, assembled officials from State, Treasury, Defense and the intelligence community. The answer was no. Some worried about risk to intelligence sources. But the main rationale was the following: Capital flight is capital flight. We can no more help Russia retrieve such money than we can help Brazil or Argentina. If they get the economic fundamentals right, the money will return. I can not remember whether anybody put it so explicitly, but the implication was clear: It doesn't matter who has the money or how it was acquired, even if by theft; so long as it is private, it will return to do good things if there is a market. About a year later, my retired colleague updated me on subsequent developments. On its own, his company located substantial funds expatriated by the KGB. It informed its client and suggested approaches for recovering the funds. By that time, however, the Russian government no longer seemed interested. Obviously, top officials and organizations had found ways to access the funds that did not require, indeed would be disrupted by, official efforts to repatriate them. When some while later I read an interview in which Pavel Borodin, the long-time quartermaster of Yeltsin's 10 The most extensive analysis of this widely reported phenomenon I have found in an unpublished manuscript by Richard Palmer in collaboration with Vladimir Brovkin, The New Russian Oligarchy: The Nomenklatura, the KGB, and the Mafiya [check spelling]. It contains unique documentation of high-level CPSU sponsorship of this operation as well as new details about its execution in the field. Kremlin, proudly reported that he managed several hundred private companies to bring in off-budget revenues, I had a feeling I knew where he got his start-up capital. I also felt I knew more about the suicide of Central Committee money handler Nikolai Kruchina after the aborted August 1991 coup. He obviously feared the most severe punishment at the hands of the post-communist regime. This tale conveys several lessons: The great Russian rip-off began not under Yeltsin but under Gorbachev. It set the course for what accelerated after him. This should put into perspective the clamor of Russia's communists about corrupt reformers and comprador capitalists: Are they outraged by the crimes committed by their former (and some present) associates, or by their failure to get a share of the loot? It should also give pause to those who pine for the lost opportunities of perestroika. While Gorbachev pondered the "500 Day Plan", his minions were already plundering Russia. When the KGB was energetically moving money west and south, Primakov was a very influential advisor to Gorbachev on security and intelligence affairs, and Maslyukov was head of Gosplan. Did they not know what was going on? Later heading the SVR11, Primakov inherited control over the funds. Yet, reportedly, he urged closing down the Supreme Soviet investigation into what happened to them. It would now be a nice gesture, at least, to include a fresh look into this matter among the current Russian government's anti-corruption measures. Washington's part in purveying in Russia the dogma that markets will triumph over all, that the ownership and source of wealth matter not so long as it is (or seems) private, began not in the Clinton administration but under President Bush. I confess some chagrin for not making more of a fuss at the time. If the KGB's theft of Russia's money in 1985-91 was capital flight, then so was the smuggling of Nazi gold in 1945. The crime spree that began under Gorbachev and the dogmas about Russian economic reform that began in Washington under Bush had a similar fate: they both escalated to do more damage under their successors. The burden of the foregoing is that American intelligence analysts and policymakers should have known about the Russian crime and corruption problem as a threat to reform and as a challenge to our grasp of Russian realities. Indeed, a fine analysis was done by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research in April 1992. But subsequently, neither American intelligence analysis nor American policymakers adequately appreciated the crime and corruption problem. Why was this? One source of trouble was what we call "politicization", the warping of intelligence analysis to fit political agendas. James Risen's New York Times' article alluded to above charged that the Clinton administration's Russia hands did not want to hear about Russian crime and corruption, especially that involving top figures, because this whole theme would complicate on-going policies and tarnish the images of those Russian and American officials who were partners in reform and a new strategic relationship. Risen's article cites unnamed policymaking officials as objecting that reporting about the corruption of high Russian figures was vague; it contained no "smoking gun"; and it was felt to imply that the United States should not deal with reportedly tainted figures. These objections constitute, in my judgment, admission to the charge, affirming that policymakers did resist this information and seeking to explain why they thought they should. But such rebuttals were and are entirely beside the point. This analysis aimed not to support prosecution of, or estrangement from, the foreign officials being analyzed, but to inform American decisionmaking about their interests and the context in which they had to operate. The recipients evidently did not want to hear this. Their disdain for analysis about corruption of Russian politics and their Russian partners did, indeed, have a chilling effect on treatment of these topics, especially during the critical years 1993-96. Friends in the foreign service tell me that the same syndrome crimped reporting, especially on economic reform, by our embassy in Moscow. But there were other culprits than "customer sales resistance" at work. Intelligence analysis brought its own vulnerabilities to the table, first, in the form of a post-Cold War agenda that has become ever more operational (i.e., supportive of daily business) rather than focusing on understanding the big picture; and second, a management code that prizes above all serving-which can easily degenerate into pleasing-the customer. Our policymakers did not much want, and our intelligence analysts had little incentive to provide, a big-picture, long-term assessment of Russian realities. They mainly wanted to get through the next Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting, or the next quarrel about Russian missile dealings with Iran. Another difficulty was the tendency of a large bureaucracy to pigeon-hole a topic with many aspects into one, typically turf-conscious, organization. Needed, but lacking, was a multifaceted team effort bringing together perspectives on Kremlin politics, Russian business, privatization, banking, economic reform, intelligence, foreign relations and weapons proliferation. Meanwhile, the downtown customer community was fragmented by differing agendas, such as managing our diplomacy with Moscow, supporting economic reform, stopping proliferation, and thwarting international organized crime. The challenge to intelligence posed by Russian crime and corruption was in these respects similar to other topics on the post-Cold War agenda, such as weapons proliferation.
Essentially:
quote:
The burden of the foregoing is that American intelligence analysts and policymakers should have known about the Russian crime and corruption problem as a threat to reform and as a challenge to our grasp of Russian realities.
... But subsequently, neither American intelligence analysis nor American policymakers adequately appreciated the crime and corruption problem. Why was this? One source of trouble was what we call "politicization", the warping of intelligence analysis to fit political agendas. James Risen's New York Times' article alluded to above charged that the Clinton administration's Russia hands did not want to hear about Russian crime and corruption, especially that involving top figures, because this whole theme would complicate on-going policies and tarnish the images of those Russian and American officials who were partners in reform and a new strategic relationship.
So what do we have as an explanation of why the USA stood quiet beside the largest of material crimes and looting ever?
It was the US´s sacrifice for "politicization" in order to not endanger reforms and "strategic relationships". ... Which consequently ought to have been worth more than the trillions value of embezzlements. Letting aside ethics concerning the Russian population; - or what did you expect historically.
What havn´t we seen of US vehement operations and policies in the past 6 decades alone for much less of resource than that? Such unflinching bulldozering internationally and nationally, during unroling of the USR however rested meek for some woolly appeasement projection?
Look at the common ****. What "reform" has there been partnered on except of Russian people´s expropriation, mafia installation and establishing of caste society? What "strategic relationship" must we have been missing out on other than covering of pecuniary benefits on the American side?
I am sure that who is interested after some clicks through broadband can find names and numbers on the looting, but demanding proof as if US envolvement in the clearing away would be exceptional of US industry and leadership proceeding, that is stiff as poker tiring method.
Informed on past decades it would be only self-evident and simply unreal for US strategics partnered in the USSR to have been dissolving without in exchange for assistance ensuring own shares.
BTW, have you never wondered how the western allied intelligence never even attempted to detect nazi´s enormous undercover depots abroad ( of which fled underground nazis and their offspring fed on so well)?
Do you really believe that it would have been impossible to resurrect these funds and channel them back to a reconstructing Germany?
... What be the basic difference to a Marshall Plan, you say?
Well, the essential that marks official policy. Which is: Spendings through states budgets, earnings into private accounts. That is besides why you can hardly talk of nationalities when it is about international affairs. For, individual strategies depend on ways of spendings and earnigs in respective official and private regard, which again makes national pinpointing moot more often than not.
What my father and uncles were doing was right, horrific as it may have been. What we were doing was wrong.
The innocence of the better side of WWII allies ain´t as clear to me like it seems to you. I wouldn´t expect your uncles to have been aware about the shabbiness included in the US WWII policies, but you sound as if wholy convinced of the campaigns integrity.
As we have mentioned before, the shadiness starts with American industry like Coca Cola, General Motors and others who had actually been supporting early Hitler in hopes for new resources for free, next there has been initial toleration and ignoring of US official course of the ongoings with the KZs for just too many years, and finally with shabby policies during the war like bombardements of workers´ dormitories to prevent announced uprising against the regime / leaving the victory to the allies.
There is really much too little of intergity and sincerity with American history, and with international policies altogether, inherently as it has to with actions of governments who will not act on behalf of the people but for benefits of their directing oligarchy.
Trying to perpetuate international affairs of decency is just out of this world.
Rather consequential would be to look at where the money is, and understand that there is where the scepter will be as well. That is how it is and how it will stay until people may claim for transparency and sincerity of their representation.
Everything else will remain eyewash. -
Am I radical? Not at all. I am only looking at a radical world. A world of feudalism and capitalism that a majority does not realize as such, and which a minority does not want to be realized for good personal and however trivial reason.
Before all the war crime accusations came about, I thought this was a great thread that was laying quite a few conspiracy theories I've heard to rest.
My bad Che ster, I'm gonna ease off.
Back to conspirational stuff (even if i'm not a big fan of these rethorics), I found interesting to talk about Edward Bernays, the father of spin doctors and Sigmund Freud's nephew. All that is related with the already mentionned W. Wilson' CPI and George Creel commitee. And this problematical issue :How to convinced public opinion to approve and support US intervention in WWI.
Just to remember how and where modern thought control and propaganda was developped and used in the first place. Nowadays it's called Public Relation. Edward Bernays 1928 book's, PROPAGANDA
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
As jack nicholson would have said "where the hell does he get all those wonderful toys?"
Good mentioning about toys. The main gadget for me has been the SPIEGEL since teenage days. Missing copies rarely and consuming the magazines thoroughly, often to the last item. A one of a kind paper and first in the world for investigative incorruptibility. A one of a kind editorial that had seen its contests, assaults and hostilities from the establishment, including the storming and confiscation of the editiorial and arrest of its chief editor and owner, who besides was the most impressing part of this unique of journalistical ethics. The SPIEGEL folks had to learn the hard way about preparing themselves against all kinds of detrimental approach, entertaining their judiciary department to double check all details for wily waterproof before release.
Owner Augstein started out once with the American sector admins´ publishing permission in 1947 or so, at first trying to immitate ways of Time Life magazin ( still obvious in its front page layout), to later turn into model for the few of most serious and investigative editorials world wide.
Mr. Rudolph Augstein, a conservative who has my deepest respect, admiration and may I say love. - Which means something if you consider my highly critical stand towards conservative being. A publisher who was a historical person of integrity about equally to my old man, and when he died I actually felt a loss almost like when my father passed; eventhough having never met Augstein in person.
He was the symbol of pragmatism. Through and through a democrat, to such a degree that he would leave unconsidered his personal preference in view of entity. He would even employ left journalists just as right wingers in balance, trying to keep his office in weighing reflection of the world out there.
In the SPIEGEL of until over 20 years ago you could find deeply researched work like in no other press. And the most reputated of scientists and historians would be glad to have an article or a series published with them.
Unfortunately, this changed when Augstein started retracting due to age and relied on opportunist staff to carry on. Old warriors were fired and replaced by myopically trackeling pisa generation; and the sophistication, pride and ethics of the formerly unique publishing ended. These days the paper ressembles itself only by the frame design of its front page and the occasionally intelligent article, after mutation into a servile mouthpiece of the mighty which will only "reveal" the shallow that´s been declassified by the establishment in return for PR and loyality. There is since left no truely investigative editorial in Germany, and as I fear, in the world. ( With all due respect to papers like the NYT.)
But whoever consciously read through the decades of Augstein´s editorial won´t be mistaking goats for gardeners that soon anymore.
Little of contemporary happening have I seen as such a loss to the world like the chief´s unhand of the political magazine DER SPIEGEL. And lesser even such a loss of personality with the passing away of Rudolph Augstein.
I found interesting to talk about Edward Bernays, the father of spin doctors and Sigmund Freud's nephew.
Here's a BBC documentary about the use of Freud' theories in the mercantil society and Bernays' activities and achievements in such. : 'The century of the self'.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Also here's a quote from wikipedia about Bernays' role in Overthrow of government of Guatemala. "Bernays's most extreme political propaganda activities were said to be conducted on behalf of the multinational corporation United Fruit Company and the U.S. government to facilitate the successful overthrow of the democratically elected president of Guatemala, General Jacobo Arbenz Guzman."
That could maybe complement Bill's very detailed description of the events... http://youtu.be/ZW1h34bhyEE It's an excert from that bbc doc about Berneys underhanded work in Banana republic (term he invented).
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan Has anyone here ever changed their political position because of an internet discussion?
I have my share of discussions with one member on the foro. I would never start a political topic on a flamenco forum (waste of time IMO + too little interest), but always spent time when i thought i there was somebody with a genuine interest in a serious question regarding our current economy. Whenever capitalism was the topic of the OP and i chimed in, said member would change the topic to Russia. As soon as i said that capitalism was the topic of the OP and not Russia, he would change to China. As soon as i said that capitalism was the topic of the OP and not China, he would change to North Korea. After 5 changes and 5 times calling him out on it i would RAGE :D. But now i know the mindset behind that behaviour and im glad i approach discussions differently, which is in a way that allows me to learn something. I realized we have different interests in discussions. I will change my mind immediately if i sense i made a mistake somewhere. Think thats very healthy.
Long story short, the outcome of any discussion highly depends on the discutants behaviour. As i said people pursue different interests in them. For some it is enough to "have it written out there", as if that would be an achievement, others are content with funny remarks. Others want to learn and grow by it. Best is to not give too much F about it, something that I learnt from countless discussions. But yeah offline discussions are more successful in general, more risk of loosing face i guess.
It's weird to being registred as anti-patriotic or as anti-US if you dare to expose your critical views against the Foreign US policy...
Actually foreigners are the weird ones. Believe me I know cuz I am surrounded by them. Every once in a blue moon I am forced against my will and better judgment to burst forth with American pride...can't explain it. It's slightly amusing to watch the jaws drop.
Actually foreigners are the weird ones. Believe me I know cuz I am surrounded by them. Every once in a blue moon I am forced against my will and better judgment to burst forth with American pride...can't explain it. It's slightly amusing to watch the jaws drop.
I know what you mean. I'm no 'rah! rah! go team America' guy myself, but I get weary of all the constant dissing.
You gringos this, you gringos that...Oi Vey, spare me.
I think that is because unlike the majority of Americans, Ricardo and I grew up in and choose to live in an international crowd. Half my close friends are not American and I like it that way. I move in a group and have been in an international environment in my own country for so long that I am used to the politeness that one does not speak bad of other countries too much. When it becomes a constant harangue with any certain perpetrator, it's time to move to the kitchen and get a beer. Or go to the other side of the bar and turn your back on a real trouble maker. Which I do on occasion, but mainly to other Americans who don't get it that you just put them down because they talked poorly of another country or foreigners whom you really like.
Tell us a bit about how you built country palaces of slavery, invented the light bulb, cheated and slaughtered natives to take their land and exclaim it own, introduced conveyor belt production, burned down Vietnam or brought about teflon pans.
It is always interesting to hear of first hand experience.
Not that you would just be you and whatever be American be that on its own.
For, that´s how it certainly is with me. I have just as little or much to do with the place I was born in like anyone accross the globe and can only count in my personal whereabouts, which again would be how I´d do same if born in Honduras or China. If born there it would still not been me who wrote the nations great poems or comitted the individual histories crime.
As much as the locale may contribute to the coincidents that form me, little to nothing of the culture will have been formed by me. Me is all responsible by myself and Goethes crops stay his.
I love my birthplace ( and especially the way it used to be traditonally), but can´t take pride for anything that is not mine. Hence to me it is: Love, yes; pride or shame; no.
Patriots seem to schlepp something way too huge and distant for any shoulders. Must a spot to stand on without and just on one´s own be way too small?
Tell us a bit about how you built country palaces of slavery, invented the light bulb, cheated and slaughtered natives to take their land and exclaim it own, introduced conveyor belt production, burned down Vietnam or brought about teflon pans.
It is always interesting to hear of first hand experience.
Not that you would just be you and whatever be American be that on its own.
For, that´s how it certainly is with me. I have just as little or much to do with the place I was born in like anyone accross the globe and can only count in my personal whereabouts, which again would be how I´d do same if born in Honduras or China. If born there it would still not been me who wrote the nations great poems or comitted the individual histories crime.
As much as the locale may contribute to the coincidents that form me, little to nothing of the culture will have been formed by me. Me is all responsible by myself and Goethes crops stay his.
I love my birthplace ( and especially the way it used to be traditonally), but can´t take pride for anything that is not mine. Hence to me it is: Love, yes; pride or shame; no.
Patriots seem to schlepp something way too huge and distant for any shoulders. Must a spot to stand on without and just on one´s own be way too small?
Ruphus
Yet after all, you seem to WANT us americans here to denounce and admit shameful guilt for our "country's" past behaviors (how dare we have pride in other words) .... yet you yourself can't tell us WHO YOU ARE. (what country ethnicity genetic back ground etc...you seem elusive after all on this only we got you live in germany now saving dogs from horror). Love and pride go hand in hand...shame? Why aren't american's ashamed? WHy aren't any people of any country? Should all germans be ashamed of Hitler? Your issues with americans don't make sense... unless its because our country is still a super power? Its always easy to point fingers at them isn't it? Well simply cut our head off and replace it with ANY OTHER and carry your thought experiment out. The world is not fair and was never meant to be such. It is just what we make of it and we try to learn from the past. If AMericans hadn't learned anything we would not still be here. We wouldn't have only dropped 2 nukes, or pushed for equal rights, or any number of other changes which acknowledge that the past behaviors were WRONG. Who would have been best peoples to have invented nukes first? Better nazis, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Iran, soviet, india, austrailians??? Place it in the hands you feel most comfortable with.
Here is american pride...I sit and listen to tons of complaining by foreigners about AMerica...its laws, our politics, our "ignorance", our president(s), our young people, our old people, etc etc....and at the end they expect me to agree with them in away that points a finger at my uncultured self (being an American), and my response is simple ...."well, if you hate it here so much, then why not go back to YOUR FUking COUNTRY"... at least that is one example. I can't tell you how many people I have seen abusing the freedoms we have in this country, all the while saying they hate us.
Foreign policy...at the heart of the issue of people not getting along in this world is lack of respect and understanding of other peoples way of doing things. Its not literally skin color, it is about mannerisms and practices and beliefs that are simply "different". THe proper combat to this issue is complex and difficult to over come. First an individual needs to infiltrate the racial/religious/foreign gang by learning all about their culture and proving himself despite where he comes from, as an insider. THat in itself is difficult, but it can't stop there. once accepted, the individual needs to take things to the level of honest respect. That is really tough, but it can be done and can take years. Once respect is there amongst the most headstrong and top people a delicate and careful introduction to the individual's OWN different cultural aspects must be put forth. Again, not in an imposing way, but more careful and delicate way with some pride until there starts the seeds of a new found respect for "the other people" who ever they are.
Very few individuals I have encountered in my life are capable of all that...its sad, because even when intentions are good, a wrong move and "ok never mind .... time to nuke your ass!!!!!!!". It's easy to give up quick on stubborn mind sets. THe world is moving fast into a new era with tech and the globe coming together....there will inevitably have to be some global conscience if we are to survive evolutionary destiny of extinction. Living like the indians peaceful in the wilderness is blissful and more peaceful way to go extinct, but we've come to far and know too much to revert to that now. Some super power is gonna have to be the "bad guy" and take things forward despite fast grounded feet of old traditions and beliefs. It need not involve decimation of cultures .... but time is running out.
you seem to WANT us americans here to denounce and admit shameful guilt for our "country's"past behaviors
This is your perception who might not trust a stand alone ( = without national back up feelings ). Real instead is that I name things as they come without respect to anyone´s descent. You should be in a postion to associate about matters instead of entangling over nationality.
What if I am right with my claim that no imperium of modern history has ever been as sabotaging and underhand as the US post WWII; will you have to make suicide the minute due to acknowledge? - That would be totally off, I think. History will not considerate whether you´d prefer passed ethical tracks other ways around, because of your birth as American. Things remain what they are independently of our observing quality. And that should be the least of reason to understand the triviality of patriotism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Love and pride go hand in hand.
Superficially. For a thoughtlessness that thinks to love when admiring. But love is more than that, and means strong feelings regardless of the objects performing skills. You see parents who don´t give up strong feelings for their failing children, despite of despise? That is love. If you will: A wholy perception.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Why aren't american's ashamed?
Are they not? I met some and heard of many more Americans who introduced themselves as Canadians during their stays in Latin America. - And that wasn´t for me pointing at US foreign polcies or whatever. It was for their sophistication and conscience. The ones I met were of the sympathetic kind that confirms past ~ 20 years intellectual progress among the US population. ( To my impression and simultaneously of many European´s too who told me about their pleasent meetings with US tourists. - So different from the "I am not interested in politics" attitude that I experienced in the late seventies USA.)
Oh, and you should have seen how informed Americans were who backed me up during discussions after 9/11 and topics about US administration agendas. If patriotism means to fade out on nasty history they must have been "deserters" I guess.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
If AMericans hadn't learned anything we would not still be here.
Learning is relative. It can vary from Scandinavian societal sophistication, over the uneducated being of the US until ~ 20 years ago, down to what you may find in much of Near East today. The first 200 years of the USA weren´t really investigatively too fast. Racism, segregation, poverty, physical suppression of workers ceased not too long ago, and there are still remarkable rudiments in place like lowbrow weapon wearing, public hunting and legitimation to shoot people on one´s own ground, etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Here is american pride...I sit and listen to tons of complaining by foreigners about AMerica...its laws, our politics, our "ignorance", our president(s), our young people, our old people, etc etc....and at the end they expect me to agree with them in away that points a finger at my uncultured self (being an American), and my response is simple ...."well, if you hate it here so much, then why not go back to YOUR FUking COUNTRY"... at least that is one example. I can't tell you how many people I have seen abusing the freedoms we have in this country, all the while saying they hate us.
This one seems to comprise different situations. For one there won´t be progression of a culture without awareness and critisizm. So better keep the critiques. Secondly, on the other hand, I think to know what you mean. Looking at immigrants who import retarded customs to Europe to then complain about being not fully welcomed by native people. Cases might need individual evaluation to weigh uppon whether something being justified ciritique or outrageous being of foreigners.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
THe proper combat to this issue is complex and difficult to over come.
There exist objective conditions that will stay the same all over the world regardless of traditions. From there: No, this issue is not really that difficult.
After some decades of overdone culture hatching, we only need to understand that culture is subject to change just like any evolutionary element. And that a freeing from disproportion and stupidity may be just as desirable as a conservation of handsome / practical custom. It shouldn´t be too hard today to distinguish constructive or harmless traditions from cruel, absurd and injust ones.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Very few individuals I have encountered in my life are capable of all that...its sad, because even when intentions are good, a wrong move and "ok never mind .... time to nuke your ass!!!!!!!".
On the other hand, situated in one of the worlds most backwarded regions, I am pleased to say how surprised I am to see how people are taking pointings to inconsistency and superstition. Even when it be first time for them to hear of another view. So far it has been only with a handful of individuals who so to say blocked up / neglected right away, whereas the majority though surprised figured plausibility in unheard perspectives and fell into thinking.
This eventhough the jump has been uncomparbaly steeper for them than for instance for people in Central America who showed even more open to new shores.
To me the question of progress or stiffness depends on the starting point. And with the potential news facility for Americans it could be about time to wave good bye to simplicity aids of patriotism. - Just don´t rely too much on the kinds of FOX TV ...
The bombing of Dresden is an interesting example of human behavior in war.
The originators of terror bombing were the Nazis in 1937, destroying the defenseless Basque town of Guernica, in support of their fascist ally Franco. This was followed shortly in 1938 by the Japanese Empire's terror bombing of Chongqing in China. Although advocated previously by strategic thinkers of both of the eventual sides of WW II, these attacks were generally seen as less effective at breaking the enemy's morale than predicted.
At the beginning of the Battle of Britain Hitler showed restraint. His objective was establishment of air superiority prior to an invasion of Britain. Attacks were concentrated on port facilities, coastal shipping and airfields. The Nazis were nowhere near as successful as they had been in the Polish blitzkrieg. Still Hitler reserved the authority to bomb British cities to himself personally, and did not exercise it.
The British responded with bombing attacks on German factories and military installations. Incapable of the high altitude precision bombing of their eventual American allies, the British attacked at night from lower altitude. According to British accounts, one such raid went wrong. Intending to attack military targets near Berlin, when they arrived the target area was covered in clouds. Bombs fell across the city.
It's not difficult to imagine how the Germans saw this, nor to anticipate the subsequent controversy over the true intentions of the British. Hitler ordered attacks on English cities. The terror bombing of the London Blitz, the destruction of Coventry, and the unbending morale of the British under these attacks are classic stories of WW II, which I heard at the dinner table, parties at the Officers' Club and picnics when I lived in Washington DC on a street with 14 generals in the early 1950s. Many of these men had personal experience.
The stated objective of bombing Dresden was to impede the retreat of the Germany Army from the Eastern Front, to give the Red Army a chance to destroy more of them in pursuit. The British war council punctiliously determined that such an attack would be in accordance with the Hague Convention prohibition against attacking undefended cities. There were antiaircraft installations and German airfields at Dresden, though the Luftwaffe had been rendered much less fearsome by their losses in the Battle of Britain.
The British had already created a firestorm by bombing Hamburg, and seemed to embrace this tactic from the beginning. The American 8th Air Force declined, at least at first, to participate in the terror bombing of Dresden, insisting on industrial and transportation targets using their classic high altitude daylight "precision" bombing.
This might be seen as an exercise in restraint parallel to Hitler's early conduct in the Battle of Britain. The 8th Air Force suffered 46,000 casualties, 27,000 of them fatal.
I knew personally Carl "Tooey" Spaatz and Nate Twining, both commanders of the 8th Air Force. Twining was eventually Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were captains and majors when my father was a young lieutenant at Brooks Army Air Field, San Antonio, Texas. As was ordinarily the case, we lived at the same place from time to time afterwards, and were friends with Twining's kids our own age.
But this American compunction over terror bombing at Dresden seems a little odd, taking into account Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than the two nuclear attacks combined. Twining was commander of the strategic air forces attacking Japan. I never knew what his role may have been in deciding on the terror bombing tactics. The decision to use atomic weapons was President Truman's, though the momentum behind such a decision had been building before the death of Roosevelt.
The terror attacks on Japan were carried out very effectively. According to diaries of members of the Japanese Imperial Household, published after their deaths at the end of the 20th century, the atomic bombs finally convinced the Emperor to surrender, which many of his military and civilian advisors had been counseling for a year.
So the Americans and British were not the originators of terror bombing. They were just better at it.
I have read accounts by survivors on the ground at Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I knew well one of the survivors of Tokyo. None of these people regarded terror bombing as commendable behavior, under any circumstance.
W.H. Auden
"September 1, 1939
Accurate scholarship can Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago made A psychopathic god: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return."
Kurt Vonnegut (an American prisoner of war during the Dresden raid, author of "The Children's Crusade" about WW II, and many other famous books):
"And so it goes..."
RNJ
As I write this I am listening to wonderful lute sonatas by Sylvius Leopold Weiss, Bach's friend, played by Robert Barto: beautiful examples of sublime sanity in an often deranged world.
I have spent my entire adult life involved in foreign affairs and national security policy, first in the U.S. Air Force, subsequently as a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service, and now, in retirement, as a consultant with both the U.S. Department of State and a Department of Defense contractor. As a result, I have seen U.S. foreign policy development and implementation from the inside, and the perception of U.S. foreign policy held by those on the outside in countries to which I have been assigned. Moreover, like many here, I engage on various issues with many of my own countrymen here in the U.S. My experiences have given me insight into several issues under discussion in this thread.
The first thing that must be acknowledged is that we all know the United States (and its Capitalist, private enterprise economy) is not perfect. It has made mistakes throughout its history, But our system of government, with its democratic election process and checks and balances provided by the three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), have been pretty effective in righting the wrongs that have occurred in our history, from slavery and policy toward Indians to civil rights, gender equality, and foreign adventures. It is still not perfect and, no doubt, never will be. What country or society is?
Nevertheless, the United States has accomplished much good during its 236 years of existence, including the post World War II period up to the present. There seems to be a certain type of individual who delights in condemning the United States and constantly running it down, completely denying that it has been a force for good. When I look at the historical record of empires and hegemons, I do not see one that equals the U.S. in its relatively benevolent (relatively benevolent compared to other historical hegemons) treatment of foreign and domestic affairs.
Would one choose the Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire (which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor much of an empire!) The Ottomen Empire? The British Empire? French? Dutch? Spanish? The Soviet Empire? The Japanese Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere? My question to those who constantly criticize the U.S. is this: Given today's world and the foreseeable future, in which there will certainly be one country that is a hegemon, who would be your preference to supercede the U.S. as hegemon? Russia? China? Do you think that either Russia or China would come close to meeting the relatively benevolent domestic and foreign policies of the United States?
I have heard more times than I care to remember that the U.S. is responsible for the political and economic underdevelopment in many parts of the world. I cannot count how many times foreign friends (and many U.S. citizens as well) have pronounced with absolute certainty that U.S. imperialism and multinational banks and enterprises are responsible for much of their countries' underdevelopment. Both my foreign friends and U.S. citizen interlocutors completely ignore those obstacles to development that many countries erect themselves: A history of nationalizing banks and other enterprises, which, unsurprisingly, leads many in those countries to ship all of their wealth out of the country; a history of income tax avoidance but budgets that reflect expenditures that, unsurprisingly, lead to rampant inflation; High tariffs that lead to much more expensive consumer purchases; obstacles to direct foreign investment, thus depriving the country of much needed foreign investment that creates income and jobs; and on and on.
Two issues have been mentioned above that i would like to specifically address: The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and American citizens who hide behind a Canadian identity. Many criticize the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan without the slightest understanding of the context in which the decision was made. We had just suffered horrendous losses in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and there was no evidence at all that the Japanese were serious about a surrender. Prince Konoe's trip to Moscow to get the Russians to intercede is often used as evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender. They are wrong. Prince Konoe offered nothing in return for a cessation of hostilities (not a surrender).
The Japanese High Command and the War Cabinet were expecting an American and allied invasion of the Japanese home islands, and their plan was to continue fighting to make it so difficult for the Americans that we would accept something less than unconditional surrender. We know that the Japanese surrender terms, were any to be put forth, would have included continued Japanese occupation of Manchuria, as well as some other conquered territories, and no allied occupation of Japan. This would have been ludicrous coming from an aggessor who ran rampant over Asia, not to mention the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In short, the atomic bombing of Japan definitely shortened the war and therefore saved countless thousands of lives, both American and Japanese. And this does not even factor in the number of Asian lives it saved who would have continued to be under Japanese occupation during the death throes an invasion would have entailed.
On the issue of Americans abroad masquerading as Canadians, in order to hide their American citizenship. I have met some, and I know that a number of Americans abroad follow this practice, presumably because they are either ashamed or afraid to be seen as Americans. I have always thought they represent the lowest form of cowardice--intellectual and moral cowardice. If one does not approve of American foreign or domestic policy, then register disapproval as an American. If a foreign interlocutor criticizes one for the mere fact of being an American, that reflects on the interlocutor, not on the American citizen. Everyone has a right to his opinion. I have the highest respect for Canadians, and I respect Americans who disagree with U.S. policies. But to hide one's American identity in the guise of a Canadian, in order to avoid unpleasant encounters, is intellectual and moral cowardice.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Actually foreigners are the weird ones. Believe me I know cuz I am surrounded by them. Every once in a blue moon I am forced against my will and better judgment to burst forth with American pride...can't explain it. It's slightly amusing to watch the jaws drop.
Ricardo I can understand your frustration. As a foreigner, I could try to give you my POV on this matter. Take it for what is it, just a personnal view and therefore a subjective one. I'm gonna follow my previous posts' logic and based my argumentation on what I already stated.
I don't know if you've watched the BBC doc I linked above. Anyway here's the link. It's a long doc divided on 4 part (4 hours), long but it's an interesting one and if you have time, it's worth to have a look. I've already watched the first 2 parts. http://youtu.be/OmUzwRCyTSo Eventually, It will not be listed as leftist with chomskian perverted / distorted views since it was approved by the bbc...
Sorry for the long introduction, but before entering this thread, I wasn't aware of that guy named Ed. Bernays and his huge influence on the 20th american society. So basicaly, my answer to your remark about pride/patriotism/americanism vs weird behavior of foreigner is that we haven't been exposed to his doctrine on the same intensity scale.
I mean myseflf as a foreigner but influenced by the American Way of Life, I was obviously exposed to Bernays's methods. However it's peanuts in comparison to what american society is exposed since nearly a hundred years. His methods were experimented, improved and developped since WWI era. Again, have a look at the bbc documentary. The interiosation of the pride or patriotism is (for what I understood) a long term project. It's not a behavior that appears out of nowhere. The vehicle with what this behavior emerged and strengthened was by the inoculation of FEAR in the public debate. Fear is what what leads the manipulation of U.S. public opinion to coincide with the Administration interests. A thread that could be follow until nowadays for foreign policy .
You cannot complain that foreigners awareness is not as high as the american one. Maybe one day our fear perceptions would be uniform and equally intense, but for the moment I'd said that Edward Bernays sofware is inside our head but not at the same level. Also the shift between proclaimed ideals and reality made difficult to believe in such rethorics from a foreigner POV. But as the documentary well stated, U.S Administration cannot claim clearly his real goals in the Guatemala intervention for example.
Maybe what I'm talking about sounds foolish for you, but think about it. In democracy the governement needs a minimum of consent to justify outside war. Totalitarian regim do not have to face this problem, they claim an official dogma to follow and whoever desagree publicly with it receive some serious sanctions. In democracy the mecanisms to reach the consent are distinct, but it won't mean they not exist.
Also speaking about hegemonic, don't forget that all hegemonies in the past history were provisional. NO ONE last forever. There were some fools that have stated that after the end of USSR, History has reached to his end. That the liberal capitalism camp win, and from now on we gonna to assit to the development of this particuliar system ad vitam eternam...and I'm sure there are a lot of people who actually believe that theory!
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Just to clarify my attitude toward the atomic attacks on Japan:
Two of my uncles were at Pearl Harbor. They escaped injury. They were later at the Battle of Midway, a major turning point in the war. One of their ships was damaged, the other sunk. One of them spent hours in the water, observing the death by sharks of less fortunate men.
One of my uncles served aboard the destroyer Nicholas. It was the most highly decorated ship in the U.S. Navy: sixteen battle stars and two Presidential Unit Citations. My uncle was awarded the Silver Star and two oak leaf clusters. (Each oak leaf cluster represented another award of the medal.) We never knew why, because he wouldn't speak of the war at all. When Admiral Halsey organized the fleet to sail into Tokyo Bay to receive the surrender, he asked that Nicholas be assigned to his command. He put her at the head of the fleet, the first American ship to enter the bay, in the place of honor.
One of my uncles was in the Navy "Seabees", the Construction Battalions who built roads and airports on Pacific islands, often under enemy fire. He was lightly wounded twice, but returned immediately to duty.
The only real family casualty was my uncle who was in the Marine Corps. He was a high school football hero, valedictorian of his class, voted, "Most Likely to Succeed." He was in the battles for Kwajalein, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After the war the only jobs he ever had were at charitable institutions like Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and so on. I recently ran across a letter he wrote to my mother, in the 1970s. These lines were in it: "It seems very difficult for me to write a letter, so please excuse the brevity of this. It would probably take a whole team of psychiatrists to straighten me out, but I haven't gotten along with them very well. I just try to keep my head down and mind my own business." He once said to me that the war had pretty well wrecked his faith in humanity.
My father commanded a bomber wing attacking Japan from the Marianas. He was heavily involved in the planning and execution of the fire bombing of Tokyo. After Japan's surrender, he commanded the first ship load of occupation troops to go to Japan from the U.S.A. and served on MacArthur's staff during the Occupation.
The closest my father ever came to commenting on the war was his account of arriving at Yokohama aboard ship. He said the dock facilities and warehouses behind the wharves were intact, "...just as we planned. From there on back, you could see clear to the Imperial Palace. Everything was gone." He wasn't boasting of his accomplishments. He looked utterly composed, but I could see the tears in his eyes. By then he had Japanese friends.
The fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in my humble opinion, great evils. But as Bill points out, they were the lesser of evil choices. All those men were poised for the invasion of Japan. As a young boy, I knew it. I knew of the Japanese ferocity, skill and devotion to their Emperor and homeland. I also knew of their cruel torture of prisoners of war, the Bataan death march, the rape of Nanking... Not only were the planners of the invasion counting on U.S. casualties in the millions, they anticipated having to utterly lay waste to all of Japan, costing the lives of millions of Japanese, in order to bring the war to an end.
When I read and understood the newspaper accounts of the atomic bombs and the surrender, I breathed a great sigh of relief and gratitude to the men who designed, built and deployed those bombs.
I still feel the same way.
And I still agree with the words of W. H. Auden, as I understand them.
Sorry to not agree with you gentlemens but since when going to war is synonymous of state territorism? More than 200 000 victims! to save soldiers lives*. Wow that's leave me some bad taste in the mouth sorry.
Leo Szilard "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
Radhabinod Pal "This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War."
Mark Selden "Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known... The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc... They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization."
*Churchill's quote There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…
(1 000 000 US + 250 000 brits = 1 250 000 soldiers lived saved! I wasn't aware that these army were so numerous btw!)
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH the atomic bombing of Japan ... saved countless thousands of lives
... if anyone ever wondered why Americans might be not so popular Yes it leaves a bad taste, but it is not any bit more crazy or off than say theories about equilibrium prices, which nobody on this planet ever seen one. But yeah ive always wondered how you can reason such a barbaric act like nuking two heavily populated cities. To save lives, who would have known. But now i wonder... if nuking American cities could save lives... would he be really in favor of it???
I'm not clear why it was necessary to invade Japan and kill off the civilians to end the war. Wouldn't destruction of offensive military materiel be sufficient to accomplish that task?
But whoever consciously read through the decades of Augstein´s editorial won´t be mistaking goats for gardeners that soon anymore.
Little of contemporary happening have I seen as such a loss to the world like the chief´s unhand of the political magazine DER SPIEGEL. And lesser even such a loss of personality with the passing away of Rudolph Augstein.
What an incredible man of heart and intellect.
Ruphus
But a capitalist, no? He became quite wealthy out of his ownership of Der Spiegel, through the alienation of his employees' labor. He left the business to his employees, like several capitalists I know or know of in the USA, but under the employees' collective ownership they didn't live up to your standards.
Not a critique of employee ownership, by any means. The employee owned company that I was a member of is still a great place to work, according to my friends there, and they contribute nicely to my retirement.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread