The difference between them and US

bblight · Mar 28, 2004

I drop by the Rx periodically to read a few posters whose sports opinions I value.
I'll then read through this forum to see what the grass roots and the extremes from both sides are saying about the political topic du jour.
As a Vietnam Veteran and an individual with a conservative bent, I tend to give more credence to the "right" side of the arguments; but that's my only opinion.
The point I want to mention here is the "real" difference between, what I percieve as, the two major groups opining themselves in this forum; the "Eurocentrics" and the "Cowboys".
Although the worldwide rhetoric tends to be subjective to the extreme, I don't see a lot of difference in the two sides other than this;
The Euro's that follow the French and German lead tend to be very Catholic in their thinking in that they believe in two major tenets above all else:
1. From each according to his abilities - to each according to his needs.
2. If you give the other guy what he wants, he'll be satisfied and leave you alone - a kind of version of turning the other cheeek.
Those individuals that follow the "Cowboy" lead tend to have a more "Protestant": point of view for the same two issues as follows:
1. God helps those who help themselves.
2. If your enemies are dead, they can't kill you, a kind of version of "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye."

That's it!
Everything else that comes out of these debates is based strictly on the best interests of the particular nations espousing those views - DeGaulle said it best "There are no National Allies - only National self-interests".

Me - I'm a Cowboy - I think we should kill all terrorsts and replace all of those governments that support terrorism with puppet governments - no more Saudi Arabia and Wasabiism.
I'd also boycott everything from France while working to buy UK; Italian, Spanish, and Eastern European.

jointpleasures · Mar 28, 2004

Hang em' high

DarrylParsons · Mar 28, 2004

Nice commentary and the civil style is much appreciated. It makes it very easy and enjoyable to respond...

I've been accused of being in the Euro group you mention but I also believe in the two "Protestant" ideals you mention. If you want to place a label on my position on things the most suitable would be "pure Darwinian". This is the ultimate in right wing -- more like anarchy. The "tit-for-tat" strategy in life has been shown to be extremely successful by game theorists and so it is no accident that it is programmed into most living creatures to various extents.

If I were American I surely would agree with the "kill the terrorists" philosophy. It is a position I can truly respect for it would surely get rid of the threat and deter future attacks by others very effectively.

Why, then, does America not do what to me is the obvious thing ... ie. recruit thousands of American Muslims who have the right look to go undercover and find the high-ranking Al Qaeda officials, and when the conditions are right, take them out one by one!!?? Surely with such a huge national defense budget such operations could be made to succeed!? Why instead do they bomb regimes that are only loosely related to Al Qaeda, or at best guilty by association??

It looks as though it doesn't matter who is attacked as long as someone is. That's not exactly the "an eye for an eye" approach. It's more like "an eye for another guy's gerbil"

bblight · Mar 28, 2004

I'm not saying that the American government is making all of the right moves in this "thing"!
The beauty of our "US of A" form of government is that the two parties are so accrimonious toward ewach other, that nearly nothing gets done (Thank God for that!).
Bush has some policies I agree with completely, and other policies I disagree with - but he more closely represents my thinking than does Kerry or Nader. - I might've voted for Lieberman (an honorable man in the wrong party), but that isn't a quetion I have to consider any more.

We're all social capitalist demcracies or Capital socialist democracies - really not much difference when looking at all of the other alternate forms of government.

jointpleasures · Mar 28, 2004

Darryl,

We don't need muslims in the American military. This is a religious war to a large extent and the risk of traitors among the so called "American muslim soldiers" would be too great.

bblight · Mar 28, 2004

JP - I gotta disagree -
I agree that Muslims should be given a choice whether to serve and/or fight in those Muslim countries - but that's it.
I remember in '68, there were riots in the black neighborhoods of Washington DC, where I was stationed; I was given a choice to carry arms and patrol, or assist in other ways - I had a lot of black friends and some brethren (militants) from Vietnam who lived there, so I chose not to carry arms and patrol; I ended up helping to build a tent city on the Washington Mall. Interesting times, those were.

I know it's not comparable, since an oath was given to bears arms against foes, both foreign and domestic, that oath should be adhered to as much as possible -

DarrylParsons · Mar 28, 2004

bb,

OK point taken. Just thought I'd get that off my chest anyway

It's hard to be Darwinian in a democracy so I have to agree that there is not much difference there.

jp,

I wasn't suggesting to enlist them in the military. The CIA is more along the lines I was thinking. I think secretive, undercover methods of war should be used in favor of conventional warfare against an enemy like Al Qaeda IMO. But you are right that the risk of defection is high. Probably that's why it's not being done. It sure sucks to have voters in your country who aren't really dedicated to defending it, doesn't it? I think you either trust people, or you don't. If you trust them, let them serve in the CIA (or the military). If not, don't even give them citizenship at all. Anything else seems kind of schizophrenic.