NR on what not to believe...

Post #9,918 by marlowe 9/20/01 4:11:47 PM 9/20/01 6:27:11 PM Reply	NR on what not to believe... and why not to believe it: [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment092001b.shtml\|War Myths] [Edited after the fact to put in HTML linkage] [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Edited by marlowe Sept. 20, 2001, 06:27:11 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #9,941 by Ashton 9/20/01 5:14:07 PM Reply	Heh.. strange bedfellows First, Rush (!) speaks common sense without waffling for his er off-the-wall supporters. Now NR cuts through a certain amount of cant - and backs its assessment with as little jingoism as I can recall. And since the current US executive folk are quite likely to subscribe to NR (and the Economist - another pithy editorial linked below) - maybe some of these points may survive to.. temper the excess of noise from all quarters. Nice 'find'. Damn, Marlowe - your meds are working! :-\ufffd A.
Post #9,949 by JayMehaffey 9/20/01 5:52:49 PM Reply	Some important, some spurious. 2, 3, and 6 are quite accurate and important. Point 5 has an excessive US bias, but the fundamental point that the other nation won't provide any substantial support is probably correct. Point 1 rather over states the case. Many Arab groups do have legitimate gripes with the US, but no amount of irritation could justify this sort of attack. And to blame their hatred on envy alone is to simplistic, there are probably as many different reasons as their are terrorists. Point 4 is the only bad one. It compares to different things, military wars and guerrilla actions. Military wars can be won because you can point to the enemy and attack him directly. Guerrilla actions are not so neat. The history of success by anybody against a guerrilla action is very poor. They also make the dangerous assumption that we can force the powers of the middle east to stop supporting terrorists with military force. But this is very likely to cause those governments to either side with the terrorists or be overthrown and replaced with a religious dictatorship made up of terrorists. Jay
Post #9,959 by marlowe 9/20/01 6:22:41 PM Reply	The problematic ambiguity of envy It can be an ad hominem dismissal, or it can be simply the truth. I've seen it used both ways. I've seen people dismiss animosity toward Microsoft and simply envy, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is ad hominem at its worst. I've also seen people who live and think in such a way as to bring trouble on themselves and each other, and who cope emotionally by blaming the less incompetent for all their problems. Again, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This neatly snips off the feedback loop that would make learning from experience possible. Thus abject stupidity defends itself from the antibodies of the reality principle. Both of these dynamics are ugly to behold. The former leads to Objectivism, callousness, paranoia and rampant cruelty. The latter leads to mindless violence, substance abuse, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism and chronic systemic poverty. And I do believe, from the preponderance of evidence, that hatred of the US is mostly envy and wounded pride. And at least two-thirds of anti-Semitism stems from this as well. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #9,992 by dmarker2 9/20/01 9:18:35 PM Reply	Re: I am a believer in the envy syndrome Partly through having felt it as mentioned in an earlier post, but also from a purely logical point of view. Noone would dare argue that the US is not seen as a wealthy country. This image goes back decades if not to the begining of the 1900s. When anyone becomes the target of envy, it also becomes a target to criticise and that criticism can be come finicky and intense. I can recall how hyped up I felt the first time I visited the US. Conditioned by years of hollywood I like so many people believed that life in US was way beyond the simple reality. When I 1st arrived there I discovered it was not unlike whaere I was living (Australia). The people were very friendly & lived ordinary lives. Hollywood was just fantasy. I know that this is also how many eastern people see US. Consider the Ayatolla's 'Great Satan' - who ? - the US - the people ? - the president ? - the senate ? - you tell me who he was referring to - I could never quite work it out. In reality he was attacking the concept of a free country where people had to take responsibility for their lives to a greater degree than many other countries & religions allow. If we take a country like India, 900 or so million people, because it is not wealthy, few people take the time to criticise its bad practices and there are many. Nobody feels threatened by India's wealth because there is none. If India were as wealthy as the US then its class system would be globally despised and attacked. Its religious bigotry would be despised & attacked. Its treatment of women would be also more widely atttacked etc: etc: etc:. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #10,039 by Ashton 9/21/01 2:32:04 AM Reply	Wealth isn't about better toys only; power ..over others' lives, and at the level of US power today: influence of the direction of whole world - though we are <5% numerically. Clearly envy is mixed-in - some don't see the 95/5 ratio as 'bad' in itself; these just wish They were in the 5%: that's envy. Just don't think the other mixtures of attitudes towards US are this simple. Different groups focus upon ways in which our preferences + the power to institute them, gore their favorite ox. (Muricans neither know nor care - they had an ox they liked). Note the locals harassing people who look Arabic - typical. (May take the heat off the other minorities we semi-despise, but feel guilty about doing so). For all the magnanimous gestures (Marshall plan, etc.), there are equivalent ignorant ones (supporting anti-democratic weasels, etc.) and we tend to be brash, ignorant of most customs not like ours - and disdainful of those, however we give lip service to "welcoming diversity". (I've lived here a long time - that's BS, especially when the Puritan sanctimony comes out) So it ain't that simple. But in present case it also isn't important about the balancing act: These young, ignorant sociopaths are Nazis, wouldn't recognize the idea of 'dialogue' if it bit them in the ass. We will likely skip the dialogue attempt and go directly to ass. (Dunno about putting an ex-gov, a pol and Pres's buddy as - Grand Czar of Coordination. Far better in that slot, someone expert in terrorism.) I see a huge minefield.. A.
Post #9,976 by dmarker2 9/20/01 7:31:43 PM Reply	Re: In general - these points make sense Can't really disagree with them. A good read. Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!