Islam on a collision course

[Muslimwoman]

Some people are too sensitive about having their own culture criticized, even when the criticism is valid.

Salam Nick

I accept what you are saying and I find a lot of Americans in particular seem to be overly sensitive and unable to accept their wrongs .. isn't that a contributing factor in the US foreign policy?

I also accept that if we all stayed home and got our own house in order before we critizised anyone else all sorts of attrocities would be going on in the world but it would be nice to see everyone, not just Americans, hold their hand up and admit their wrongs .. maybe then we could move forward?

I am reminded of the Vatican and their decision in the 80's or 90's (memory fading fast) to confess the world is not flat. How many people have died throughout history because people won't admit when they are wrong?

 

[iBrian]

It's hard to keep your own house in order when certain other countries insist on trying to do it for you, in their own interest.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

"How many people have died throughout history because people won't admit when they are wrong?"

This is a scary thought.


But, kali-yuga's quality of making everything logical into "Superman's Bizarro World"© . . . this makes me wonder if the above quote means the opposite.

Who now needs to admit wrong doing?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

"How many people have died throughout history because people won't admit when they are wrong?"

This is a scary thought.


But, kali-yuga's quality of making everything logical into "Superman's Bizarro World"© . . . this makes me wonder if the above quote means the opposite.

Who now needs to admit wrong doing?

i am often wrong

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Irish Nuns to sue Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley
12 Aug 2010
Three groups of nuns are leading a £3.2m lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley.
http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/1727737/nuns-sue-deutsche-bank-morgan-stanley


Iowa Nuns sue State Street bank on investment loss
Apr. 8, 2009
The Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, based in Dubuque, Iowa, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. They said they have lost more than $1 million.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2009/04/08/20090408biz-NunsLawsuit0408.html


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
IOW, speculative "gambling" to earn monies through unknown third party transactions = gambling.

Gambling = 'not a sure thing'.

Let us aim for "sure things" and not heed wrong-headed advice.

 

[Saltmeister]

The problem with this topic Dogbrain is that so many of Britains foreign policies are built solely to support the USA, even when we object to them., so as a nation we feel very aggreived about being forced into the Iraq war based on lies and Bush's god complex.

This is just shameful! Have people forgotten about the British Empire? What happened to the condescending pride of the British? The British should hold up their middle finger to Uncle Sam and give him a slap in the face. What happened to the sovereignty of the British people? Britain is not the 51st State of the USA! Just over two hundred years ago the British dominated North America. Now they are kowtowing to the USA.

but Blair had to please Bush so off to war we went

I could say the same for Prime Minister John Howard over here in the Southern Hemisphere.

Then why are you criticizing Americans? Hypocrisy is such a popular hobby.

Why should people not criticise Americans? They seem particularly willing to criticise a skit on an Australian variety show (the Jackson Jives incident, a skit on the Hey, Hey it's Saturday! show) as racist without actually understanding what racism is really like in Australia. It was not a question of whether or not there was racism in Australia, but Americans assuming that this was an example of racism in Australia, based on their experiences with racism in their own country. What they did not understand is that this was not one of those examples.

It is hypocritical to ask people not to criticise Americans because Americans have criticised other countries before.

There are a couple more important aspects of criticizing another person's culture. Some people are too sensitive about having their own culture criticized, even when the criticism is valid. We all need to take a look and see if we are too sensitive about being criticized.

It's great if you can offer criticism that is valid. What is annoying is when someone gives criticism that is not valid, as in the case of the Jackson Jives skit, especially when they think they are right. This can have disruptive consequences if the people in the country giving criticism have power over the country that is the target of that criticism. Imagine if the Americans invaded Australia just because of what they saw in the Jackson Jives skit to get rid of the "perceived racism" seen in the skit that supposedly permeated Australian society.

Imagine if your boss made incorrect assumptions about you as an employee and started making unrealistic demands of you because he had beliefs and assumptions about you that were wrong. That would really disrupt your career. Invalid criticism is disruptive when a person with power and authority can act on it.

To explain the incorrect assumptions Americans made, I will describe what I believe I learnt about racism in America. Racism in America is about the colour of your skin and hair, the shape of your eyes and your habits. Racism in America is also about saying something offensive and being insulted by it because of someone's race.

That is not the case in Australia. In Australia, the colour of your skin or hair and the shape of your eyes does not matter. Racism is also not a matter of being offended or insulted. Australians generally do not consider themselves as belonging to a particular race. I used to think Americans were just Americans but apparently there are different kinds of Americans -- African Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, Arab Americans, Mexican Americans, etc. But Australians are just plain Australian. We don't add a prefix to identify someone's ethnicity. It's considered irrelevant.

Racism in Australia is not a matter of colour or facial or bodily features. It is about your country of origin, how you got here and whether you are a threat to mainstream society. A common racial insult is that you got here illegally. You are told to "get on a boat and sale back to your own country -- the country being your place of origin or that of your ancestors. Racism here is about whether you deserve to be here. Racism in Australia is much simpler than in America. In America you have dozens of different races. In Australia it's really simple. You are either one of us (Australian), or you are not (you are a foreigner). You either co-operate with mainstream society or you get out and leave (get deported).

Nobody was told to "get on a boat and go home" in the Jackson Jives skit and this is why Australians did not consider it racist. Americans simply assumed that because a bunch of people painted their face black and did something offensive that that was racist. It was a reminder of the way African Americans were humiliated and oppressed by white Americans. Stopping the blackface minstrel shows were a way to put a stop to the humiliation. It was an American solution to an American problem.

Sorry, but in a different culture people have a different way of expressing hatred, malice and humiliating, oppressing, bullying and harrassing others. This was not one of them.

 

[Saltmeister]

It's hard to keep your own house in order when certain other countries insist on trying to do it for you, in their own interest.

Exactly! Why do all the world's problems need an American solution?

But some countries are bigger on it than others, hence attract comment.

Ah, yes, everyone has an opinion about Buddy Holly, but who remembers Willy the Wino on a streetcorner?

In addiction, the other person has to be just as open and willing to discuss his/her own culture (and many people are not willing to do this). It is unfair for a person to criticize, yet be unwilling to be criticized. We may say, "I won't let you criticize my culture because your culture has negative traits too," which is unfair. Such two-sided discussions are possible (but very difficult).

If your country is a superpower nation or a major power and has a lot of influence, it is hard to not criticise because the power that you wield has many, often huge consequences. With power comes responsibility.

The USA has the world's most powerful military and the largest economy at US $14.3 trillion. It has a population of 310 million people. The People's Republic of China (PRC) had the third largest economy in 2009 at US $4.99 trillion with a population of 1.3 billion people. If your country attracts too much criticism, it's your fault for living in a big country (and I mean that in a friendly, not a hostile, malicious way).

Japan has just been overtaken over by China as the second-largest economy. Before the collapse of its asset/property bubble, there were fears of it taking over the world. Japan was an expansionist military power in World War II and I am sure that many people feared it might repeat its ambitions for world domination.

Criticism against China is more or less about the nature of its political system. The government has too much power and too little restraint. Agents of the ruling party infiltrate key organisations and this is how it maintains control. In its efforts to grow economically, China needs more influence and many people believe it has agents posted to foreign countries on a mission to influence world events in its favour.

With 1.3 billion people versus America's 310 million, China has the potential to develop an economy 4.2 times the size of the USA's. Increased economic power leads to increased political power and the question is what China will do with such enormous political power. How will the world hold it accountable, especially if its own people cannot hold its government accountable? Where is the public scrutiny that leads to accountability?

When it comes to the USA, what makes me cringe is a superpower nation with so many problems. America triggered the global economic crisis by lending huge amounts of money to people who had little to no means of paying it back -- particularly people who were unemployed. People lived beyond their means. Many have now lost their homes due to unemployment, leading to foreclosures. Its public education system I am told is a shambles and it is far behind many developed countries. There are other things that make me cringe like not having strict gun laws or a compulsory voting system. Its voluntary electoral system allows extremists to decide who gets into government.

When Bush persued his totally unjustified and catastrophic invasion of Iraq, our peace group in Bath loudly and vehemently opposed it and our country's involvement in it.

The problem with the War on Terror is that the idea of invading two countries just to get to a bunch of terrorists is just ridiculous and absurd. There are so many other terrorist groups out there in the world. Many of them do not target America. The world has had to fight against terrorism for decades.

The Bush administration was never interested in catching all these other terrorist groups. They just wanted the ones who flew two planes into the World Trade Towers. The Bush administration wanted to catch them because they attacked Americans. They would not normally have gone on the offensive against the terrorists. This is selfish. The kind of force the Americans used to hunt down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda was far more than they normally used to hunt down other terrorist groups.

When America did decide to hunt down the terrorists, it involved excessive force. It involved invading two countries. They never found Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and nor did they find Osama bin Laden. What was the point? Did they really think they could find bin Laden so easily? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a waste of resources. More people died in Iraq under the Americans than under Saddam Hussein.

America's War on Terror set a bad precedent. They actually made the situation worse. There were more terrorist attacks around the world. I am sure recruitment in terrorist groups surged. Attacks against Israeli civilians from Palestinians increased. What the Americans did was provoke the terrorists and cause more people to join them. According to the people who joined them, it was the Americans who were the terrorists.

My opinion has not changed that America generally is in terminal moral and social decline, and, as a nation, has no right to tell any other nation how to live.

Jamie Oliver has to go to the USA to get its kids and adults off eating fast food and junk food. Why does it take a non-American to lead a fight against obesity? What happened to this country of talent and enlightenment? There are less graduates in science and engineering each year. The USA is experiencing a brain drain. America is going down.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Its voluntary electoral system allows extremists to decide who gets into government."

--> I am reminded how Winston Churchill once said that representational democracy is a horrible form of government -- but all of the other types are worse. (Does anyone have a quote on that?)

"America is going down."

--> America will fade as the number one world power, just as Britain, France, Spain, Holland, etc., did before it. I am just surprised that it is fading so quickly. For example, it is now said that the middle class in America is quickly disappearing; this comes as a huge shock to me.

 

[Dogbrain]

Exactly! Why do all the world's problems need an American solution?

Because the rest of the world demands we do so. We did not want to get involved in Yugoslavia, but Europe whined and puled until we did.

If your country attracts too much criticism, it's your fault for living in a big country

If your country gets casually crushed, it's your fault for living in a small country. If your country gets ignored or pushed aside, it's your fault for living in an inconsequential country.

America triggered the global economic crisis by lending huge amounts of money to people who had little to no means of paying it back

But to not do so would have meant that America was a "heartless capitalist system" and inferior to countries with plenty of handouts, like Greece. Look how wonderfully Greece is doing.

Its voluntary electoral system allows extremists to decide who gets into government.

Name one liberal democracy that does not have a voluntary electoral system. Compulsory voting is a hallmark of a dictatorship that wants to present a good face to the world.

The Bush administration wanted to catch them because they attacked Americans. They would not normally have gone on the offensive against the terrorists. This is selfish.

You are so typically two-faced and dishonest. First, you say that it's wrong for America to solve everyone's problems, then you say it is wrong for America to concentrate on its own problems.

Jamie Oliver has to go to the USA to get its kids and adults off eating fast food and junk food. Why does it take a non-American to lead a fight against obesity?

Ever hear the term "publicity stunt"? Oliver has led NOTHING in America. His little side-show got very little attention in the USA. It was to boost his image in the UK.

There are less graduates in science and engineering each year.

Why might that be? I attended an "enlightened" and "progressive" college. The social pressure was against science and engineering. That's because those of us who studied science and engineering were "less moral" than those who studied humanities and social sciences. We weren't as "moral" as people who "wanted to make a better world". Since we wanted to study the natural world and find more efficient ways to do things, we were morally and socially inferior to people who majored in "peace and global studies"--yes, that was a high-status major at my school. The right might care about nothing but making money, but at least the leadership of the right is merely indifferent to science and engineering. The left in the USA is outright hostile to science and engineering. Our ideas like genetic inheritance and systems analysis are dismissed as "patriarchical" and a product of "dead white men".

The USA is experiencing a brain drain. America is going down.

We had a "brain drain" in the 1950s, according to the doomsayers.

 

[Saltmeister]

Because the rest of the world demands we do so. We did not want to get involved in Yugoslavia, but Europe whined and puled until we did.

I don't think the world asked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But to not do so would have meant that America was a "heartless capitalist system" and inferior to countries with plenty of handouts, like Greece. Look how wonderfully Greece is doing.

Capitalism is supposed to be heartless. That is why the Western world needs to find an alternative. Capitalism is about private and personal ownership of property. It is about what you keep and accumulate for yourself, not about what you share with others. This was an attempt to use "capitalism" to give people opportunities in home ownership.

But whatever "home ownership" people got was just an illusion. You can't own what you haven't earned. So much money went into giving people this dangerous illusion. It would have been much better to put the money into social security benefits and public education. This would have been much cheaper. The excess money could have been spent on other things.

Name one liberal democracy that does not have a voluntary electoral system. Compulsory voting is a hallmark of a dictatorship that wants to present a good face to the world.

Australia has a compulsory voting system and it is also a liberal, secular democracy. It is far from being a dictatorship.

You are so typically two-faced and dishonest. First, you say that it's wrong for America to solve everyone's problems, then you say it is wrong for America to concentrate on its own problems.

Look where America had to go to solve the problem of terrorism. In its attempts to fix the problem it created problems for the countries it invaded. This is not a case of me being two-faced and dishonest. I would agree that a country should be allowed to fix its own problems, but this does not include cases where fixing your own problems involves creating problems for others.

Ever hear the term "publicity stunt"? Oliver has led NOTHING in America. His little side-show got very little attention in the USA. It was to boost his image in the UK.

Jamie Oliver appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show. My impression is that the show is pretty popular in America. This would have been a major event. Jamie Oliver was invited to appear in the show of one of America's greatest celebrities.

The social pressure was against science and engineering. That's because those of us who studied science and engineering were "less moral" than those who studied humanities and social sciences. We weren't as "moral" as people who "wanted to make a better world". Since we wanted to study the natural world and find more efficient ways to do things, we were morally and socially inferior to people who majored in "peace and global studies"--yes, that was a high-status major at my school. The right might care about nothing but making money, but at least the leadership of the right is merely indifferent to science and engineering. The left in the USA is outright hostile to science and engineering. Our ideas like genetic inheritance and systems analysis are dismissed as "patriarchical" and a product of "dead white men".

If there was social pressure on you to not study science and engineering, then it must mean there are too many of these people. You should rebel. If you are one of those people who can find more efficient ways of doing things, then you may be in a better position to avoid energy and resource wastage.

You can't have too many people studying humanities and social sciences. What good are these people going to do for the world? What kind of work will they do? Will they work in factories? Will they conduct research in a laboratory? Will they design more fuel-efficient cars? Will they make light bulbs more energy-efficient? How are they going to find better methods of recycling?

People who study humanities and social sciences are likely to find silly things to do because they are not tech savvy. They are likely to take more holidays rather than working on a machine that will really benefit humanity. They are likely to go shopping more often to buy things that will make them feel more alive -- rather than designing and making it themselves. They will buy a new television set or computer because it is more fancy, despite not having a practical need for one.

Many of them are just too lazy to do the maths to make the world a better place. Talk about being morally superior. Kudos to you for going against the trend.

 

[Dogbrain]

I don't think the world asked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the rest of the world whine until the USA gets involved when the USA doesn't want to, then they must put up with the USA getting involved when the rest of the world doesn't want them to. They can't have one without the other, and only an idiot or a lunatic would not see this.

This was an attempt to use "capitalism" to give people opportunities in home ownership.

No, it was an attempt to impose socialistic ideas.

But whatever "home ownership" people got was just an illusion. You can't own what you haven't earned.

A newborn heir has earned nothing but still owns his inheritence should the parents die soon after the birth. The illusionary status of home ownership was that it was really just renting from government. If you must pay property taxes, you are paying rent to the true owner.

Look where America had to go to solve the problem of terrorism. In its attempts to fix the problem it created problems for the countries it invaded. This is not a case of me being two-faced and dishonest. I would agree that a country should be allowed to fix its own problems

You are two-faced and dishonest. Either we are the world cop or we are not. Either we are free to ignore the rest of the world's problems and stick to ourselves or we are not. Since Eurotrash and the rest whined until we bombed Yugoslavia at their behest, they have no right to complain if we meddle on our own behest. Pay the piper, grow up, and quit whining.

Jamie Oliver appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show.

So have a lot of other people. Oprah tapes about 200 shows a year, with 2-5 guests per show. She has been doing it for decades. Oprah is only one of dozens of daytime show hosts in the USA, all of whom tape hundreds of shows per year, with several guests per show. You are obviously utterly ignorant of the USA. Why do you pontificate about it? Are you just extremely proud of being ignorant?

My impression is that the show is pretty popular in America.

Yeah, among unmarried-for-life, middle-aged women.

This would have been a major event. Jamie Oliver was invited to appear in the show of one of America's greatest celebrities.

Uh, Jamie Oliver appeared on Oprah? SO WHAT? Speaking as an American, instead of an ignorant non-American, I can tell you that, among us Americans, appearing on Oprah is nowhere near as important an event as some ignorant, uneducated, half-baked non-American might make it out to be.

If there was social pressure on you to not study science and engineering, then it must mean there are too many of these people. You should rebel.

I did rebel. The people who were against science and engineering were the same ones who were so "progressive" and demanded that the USA must listen to the rest of the world. Indeed, according to them, studying science was part of the problem. People who studied science were imperialist, right-wing, and isolationist.

You can't have too many people studying humanities and social sciences. What good are these people going to do for the world?

The will spend endless hours lecturing us on how the USA needs to listen to the rest of the world--at least that's what they do in the USA.

Will they work in factories? Will they conduct research in a laboratory? Will they design more fuel-efficient cars? Will they make light bulbs more energy-efficient? How are they going to find better methods of recycling?

Laws, laws, laws, laws, laws, and more laws. That is the progressive/leftist way in the USA. Enact yet another a law, and it automatically fixes everything.

People who study humanities and social sciences are likely to find silly things to do because they are not tech savvy.

Obama studied social sciences. Indeed, every US politician who is beloved in Europe studied social sciences. And THEY are the people that the Europeans wish ran all our affairs over here?

 

[Quahom1]

DB,

Back off on the personal critisisms. You can make your points without getting personal with the individual. This is your second warning.

v/r

Q

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

If the rest of the world whine until the USA gets involved when the USA doesn't want to, then they must put up with the USA getting involved when the rest of the world doesn't want them to. They can't have one without the other, and only an idiot or a lunatic would not see this.

This is totally specious. You claimed that the USA only got involved in conflict at the request of Europe. You were then challenged with the examples of Afganistan and Iraq, where the USA led the assault, disproving your original assertion. I think it is entirely reasonable to wish for a USA that comes to the aid of its friends but does not act like a schoolyard bully.

No, it was an attempt to impose socialistic ideas.

You can't be serious!! This was a cynical plan to gain a fast buck at the expense of the poor. Lending to people who you know can't afford the payments is not doing them a favour, as it inevitably ends in eviction. This was bankers playing a game among themselves to see who could earn the biggest bonuses before the bubble burst.

I did rebel. The people who were against science and engineering were the same ones who were so "progressive" and demanded that the USA must listen to the rest of the world. Indeed, according to them, studying science was part of the problem. People who studied science were imperialist, right-wing, and isolationist.

We will always need scientists and engineers. But a country where the arts, music and literature are no longer deemed worth studying is a country no longer worth living in.

 

[Saltmeister]

No, it was an attempt to impose socialistic ideas.

It was not socialism. Socialism is about sharing. Capitalism is about owning. The underlying "system" was capitalism because the underlying concept was ownership. Thousands and perhaps millions of people were given the opportunity to own a home and enjoy the dangerous illusion of home ownership.

Home loans were used to finance these dangerous illusions. The people the big banks allowed to enjoy these dangerous adventures into home ownership were owed huge mountains of debt. They were locked into an obligation to make regular payments to pay off their home loans that would persist for several years, maybe even decades. These home loans were basically financial parasites that would suck up whatever income they received.

This wasn't socialism. This wasn't about sharing. This was about owning. The people who bought the houses wanted to own them. The big banks who leant them the money wanted the profits. They wanted to maximise the size of their assets (which leads us back to "ownership"). The scheme was driven by greed.

I am sure a lot of people would like to call it "socialism" because it's about making generous offers and giving people "wonderful opportunities." But it was really a thinly-disguised form of capitalism. It was a wolf-in-sheep's clothing.

You are two-faced and dishonest. Either we are the world cop or we are not. Either we are free to ignore the rest of the world's problems and stick to ourselves or we are not.

This isn't about being a world cop. The USA embarked on a war in the Middle East because a bunch of terrorists attacked Americans on their own soil. The USA wasn't being a world cop, although it made that the excuse for going to war. The main motivation was not being a world cop, but in retaliating against the terrorists. The terrorists destroyed American business assets and cost American businesses millions of dollars. They also killed innocent Americans. They wanted to get the terrorists back for the damage they did.

This was an American problem, presented to the world's governments as a problem for the whole world. It was America that was complaining here and asking for help. America was begging the world to help it find the terrorists and they deceived themselves into thinking they were doing the world a favour.

Helping America led to other terrorist attacks around the world. It led to the Madrid train bombings, the July 2005 London bombings and the 2002 Bali bombings. There were numerous suicide bombings within Iraq during the Iraqi war and numerous attacks on Israel. America caused a lot of anger in the world of Muslims and Islam and I am sure membership of terrorist organisations surged. I wonder if it was really worth it.

Since Eurotrash and the rest whined until we bombed Yugoslavia at their behest, they have no right to complain if we meddle on our own behest. Pay the piper, grow up, and quit whining.

The governments in the Middle East were not asking America to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

I did rebel. The people who were against science and engineering were the same ones who were so "progressive" and demanded that the USA must listen to the rest of the world. Indeed, according to them, studying science was part of the problem. People who studied science were imperialist, right-wing, and isolationist.

Many of these people would have been content to buy cheaply manufactured products from China. They were likely to be the ones who would support the "sweat-shops" and polluters in that country -- and then . . . without understanding why, to complain about them. Because they are too lazy to study and understand the maths, they don't know how to make what they buy. I would argue that the ability to buy cheap imports is a form of imperialism and these lazy social science students are guilty of it.

The will spend endless hours lecturing us on how the USA needs to listen to the rest of the world--at least that's what they do in the USA.

I'm not so concerned about the USA listening to the rest of the world, but of Americans telling us how and what to think, believe and behave.

Obama studied social sciences. Indeed, every US politician who is beloved in Europe studied social sciences. And THEY are the people that the Europeans wish ran all our affairs over here?

Maybe it's because studying social sciences makes a President less likely to be a war monger. It seems like the Europeans don't like war mongers. Americans have finally voted for a President who isn't a war monger. Good move.

 

[Dogbrain]

Maybe it's because studying social sciences makes a President less likely to be a war monger. It seems like the Europeans don't like war mongers. Americans have finally voted for a President who isn't a war monger. Good move.

Bush studied social sciences, too. You're indulging in the exact same academic bigotry that I encountered. "Social sciences good. Natural sciences bad." Social "sciences" try to convince people that social engineering can be done with the same levels of certainty and scope as real engineering is done. This attitude leads to things like the Cultural Revolution, Year Zero, and Juche.

My college once polled its faculty on the statements "Natural sciences are less moral than social sciences and humanities." The social science and humanities faculty all lined up in a row to agree, wholeheartedly. They even pointed out that Nazis used chemistry to kill people. A chemistry professor pointed out that Nazis would never have thought to use chemistry to kill people if it hadn't been for philosophers like Nietszche (who invented ideas like Uebermensch and Untermensch) or historians like Gobineau, the Nazis wouldn't have had the ideas that led them to do such things in the first place. The social science/humanities professors dismissed the chemistry professor's point as juvenile, as trivializing the "real" issue.

 

[Dogbrain]

Maybe it's because studying social sciences makes a President less likely to be a war monger. It seems like the Europeans don't like war mongers. Americans have finally voted for a President who isn't a war monger. Good move.

So, you consider Bill Clinton to be a war monger. You consider Franklin Pierce to be a war monger. You consider EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT before the Holy Savior Obama to be a war monger. Typical, very typical bigotry.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Helping America led to other terrorist attacks around the world. It led to the Madrid train bombings, the July 2005 London bombings and the 2002 Bali bombings. There were numerous suicide bombings within Iraq during the Iraqi war and numerous attacks on Israel. America caused a lot of anger in the world of Muslims and Islam and I am sure membership of terrorist organisations surged.

May I just add the spreading of Al Qaeda, which the US and UK had to admit were NOT in Iraq until after the "war on terror" began.

The US desire for retribution, over 9/11, at any cost has created havoc in the world, killed countless numbers and spread terrorism. Good job America!!

 

[Saltmeister]

Social "sciences" try to convince people that social engineering can be done with the same levels of certainty and scope as real engineering is done. This attitude leads to things like the Cultural Revolution, Year Zero, and Juche.

If this is the concept that the "social sciences" represent then I have little interest in them.

"Social sciences good. Natural sciences bad."

Study of the so-called "social sciences" and natural sciences are good for some things but not others. I was just disgusted at Americans not studying as much of the natural sciences and not trying to be mathematically knowledgeable -- when the USA is supposed to be a country of talent and enlightenment. It was about Americans and America falling short of my expectations. How can a superpower nation also be a country of mediocrity?

At the same time I was disgusted at Americans voting for a war mongering President. I just thought someone who studied the social sciences would be better at diplomacy. I was not advocating social engineering as something the general population should adopt -- just people who want to be diplomats.

George W. Bush seemed quite hopeless at diplomacy. I think Barack Obama would make a good Secretary of State. It's too bad you can't vote for a Secretary of State. I don't know how Obama measures up in other policy areas as a President, but he seems like a good diplomat. We could see more rational foreign policy and less war mongering.

My college once polled its faculty on the statements "Natural sciences are less moral than social sciences and humanities." The social science and humanities faculty all lined up in a row to agree, wholeheartedly. They even pointed out that Nazis used chemistry to kill people. A chemistry professor pointed out that Nazis would never have thought to use chemistry to kill people if it hadn't been for philosophers like Nietszche (who invented ideas like Uebermensch and Untermensch) or historians like Gobineau, the Nazis wouldn't have had the ideas that led them to do such things in the first place. The social science/humanities professors dismissed the chemistry professor's point as juvenile, as trivializing the "real" issue.

That's just tragic. The people who labelled the natural sciences as "less moral" were idiots. Natural sciences do not have a moral position on anything. This doesn't make them "less moral." Morality is irrelevant to the practice, teaching and exploration of the natural sciences. Natural sciences can help people make moral judgments, but the theory itself is agnostic to morality.

So, you consider Bill Clinton to be a war monger. You consider Franklin Pierce to be a war monger. You consider EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT before the Holy Savior Obama to be a war monger.

No, not at all. By "war mongering," I was talking about the last two terms of the U.S. Presidency under George W. Bush. Bush was in power for about eight years. That's almost a whole decade. Imagine having almost a whole decade of war mongering by the U.S. That is a fairly long time. What does that say about America? Americans had a chance to vote him out in the 2004 presidential election but they chose not to get rid of him. They chose to support a war monger.

Like you said, America under the Clinton administration was reluctant to intervene in the war in Kosovo/Yugoslavia. I was not talking about the preceding decade.

Just like Vladimir Putin said, the U.S. in the last two terms was "like a madman running around with a razor blade, waving it around."

You're indulging in the exact same academic bigotry that I encountered. Typical, very typical bigotry.

I think this is a misuse of the term "bigot." I am against war mongering but that doesn't make me a "bigot." A real bigot is someone who treats a person or group of people as subhuman or less deserving of the level of dignity he would bestow on another human being. A real bigot seeks to oppress and persecute a particular group. I simply disagree with and oppose the ideas and policies advocated by war mongers. I am not oppressing or persecuting anyone.