http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:41:08 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497494 SMT Fair enough mate! 497494@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:41:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497493 Clavos: I will be condescending to you. You have a tiny brain. Don't bother.... 497493@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:40:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497491 Ps: in view of our intractable and seemingly diamterically opposed stances on this issue, can we just agree to disagree?? 497491@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:38:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497489 "I come from a people who were defined by others, who got it WRONG!!.... its insulting!!" Sigh, here we go again ... me too, probably in much the same way as you, Zedd, but I'm not oversensitive about it. You assume to know an awful lot about me. Let it go Zedd, you've misunderstood me is all. Don't read things into things that aren't there. BTW, there have been a number of books writen on understanding the arab mind (in fact that's the title of one) written in English by arabs themselves. I you think this equates to something like, for instance, understanding the black mind as it relates to you in your country, you are wrong. I don't regard people of arabic background born in this country as being arabs. They are not - they are Australians of middle-eastern descent. You are trying to find things in my comment that aren't there. And really, I don't like being accused of bigotry. The reason is, I am not. And that's what I really find offensive - you deciding what constitutes bigotry. It's your problem, not mine. 497489@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:35:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497484 zedd says to STM: <i>What you said is condescending. Its called ethnocentrism.</i> AND she says to him: <i>They could very well say the same about you and your people (whites)and they did from what you say. I have a completely different world view than asian americans because of my culture. Again you sound like an old missionary. Believe me I KNOW. Because of my world view and experiences.</i> Holy shit, zedd, have you NO sense of irony??? You accuse STM of condescension and ethnocentrism...LOOK AT YOUR OWN WORDS!! Unfuckingbelievable!! 497484@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:25:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497481 SMT If you are a European, you can say whatever you want to say about yourself. So no I would have not said much. I would have prob asked if you were refering to culture or asked you to be more specific. Yes Europeans have a history of white supremacy and imperialism so yes the rest of the world is more sensitive about how you view them. I mean come on Australia exists because of the very topic at hand. So does the U.S. The Aboriginals were at one point labled as "the missing link" by those European that lived among them and loved them. So yes it counts to me what you call other people. It affects how they are treated. You see the reason that the U.S. public didn't stop Bush when he was suggesting that we go to Iraq is because they didn't know the difference between Iraq, Iran, Afganistan or whoever. Many still confuse Arabs with Indians. Its pitiful... you have to live here to get the entire picture. Let Adam tell you.... So what you say about other people is VERY important. I come from a people who were defined by others, who got it WRONG!!.... its insulting!! So no mindse, just culture. 497481@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:21:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497478 Stan the Man sez:(from their own admissions to me) that they have a different attitude to life, love and the universe than I do. Again their world view is their culture goober. That is how we define a culture. Thats all!! nothng illuminating or special. Its thier culture SILLY. They could very well say the same about you and your people (whites)and they did from what you say. I have a completely different world view than asian americans because of my culture. Again you sound like an old missionary. Believe me I KNOW. Because of my world view and experiences. You sound like you have good intentions but you are way off base. Just check yourself. What you said is condescending. Its called ethnocentrism. Its a difficult thing to overcome. 497478@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:11:57 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497475 Zedd wrote: "God did not make Sidney, Sidney." No, but he possibly might have made Sydney, Zedd. I didn't call you a bloke BTW ... I called you mate. It's not gender-specific. Please, once again, don't lecture me on this stuff Zedd. You may have your own reasons for being over-sensitive, but you don't know anything about my own family background, so you are making an awful lot of assumptions about what I might and might not know about bigotry. Should you choose to post again on this, I won't waste my time commenting. It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. Sorry if that sounds rude Zedd, but I just really hate this thought-police kind of nonsense. As an aside, if I'd written the collective European mind, I wonder whether it would have caused the same uproar in your thinking. Probably not, I suspect. Also, I am not a supporter of the continuing war in Iraq in its current, unworkable incarnation - which is what this post is about. 497475@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:08:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497473 Clavos What are you talking about? I suppose there is a collective hispanic mind that you want to tell us about. 497473@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:02:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497472 STM I read your post. All civil/geographical distictions are man made. God did not make Sidney, Sidney. It was carved up for reasons which suited man.... Shame on you. That was a silly statment to make. All countries were carved up by man. Most indigenous people weren't asked. Who said anything about you hating Arabs. I said that there is no collective Arab mind. Listen whether whites want to admit it or not, you are united and consider one another bretheren. The laws which govern international bodies favor white countries or those with large white inhabitants because you see each other as bretheren. You mask your unity by using code words "the west" because your history has forced you to feel shame for your self love (white supremacy and emperialistic ideas). You dont mean West, you mean WHITE! If the soviets had behaved there would have been another code word other than "the west" to mean White. Arabs fight amongst each other, have tribal strife like all groups in the world. They also share a kinship, rightfully so because they are akin (???). All blacks feel a kinship and a brotherhood(African, Caribean, American, etc..) It doesn't mean that they have one mindset. Do you think when Michelle Kwan is skating that a Korean will be pulling for the white girl? NO! They will pull for the Asian even though Michelle is Chinese. It doesn't mean that there is an Asian mind. BTW I am not a bloke.... You sound like the missionaries of the past. Sorry guy, you just do. Check yourself. 497472@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:58:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497381 @ #26 Very nicely put, Stan The Man... Kudos! 497381@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:30:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497199 "Your statement is offensive so please don't use it again. I would suggest that you go even further to explore why it is. You may be a bigot and you don't know it. Most don't and very few ever claim to be but multitudes are." That statement is probably way more offensive than anything I might write about the collective Arab pysche. There is such a thing Zedd, and yes, if you read my bloody post properly, it does have cultural origins. And no, I don't believe there is a collective white mind, black mind, Asian mind, whatever. As I say, and I'm supposing from the tone of your comment that you didn't read the post in full, the countries of the Arabian region are an artificial creation - made at the stroke of a pen less than 100 years ago in a place that until then had been totally tribal. Arabs still tend to think of themselves as Arabs first, and as brothers and sisters, not simply as Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, etc ... So mate please, don't sit there like you're in a lower east side cafe f.cking lecturing me about bigotry. I went to school in Baghdad, do not hate Arabs or even mildly dislike them, in fact the opposite is true - and I live in city full of Arabs, and understand (from their own admissions to me) that they have a different attitude to life, love and the universe than I do. That is not bigotry: it's fact, and I don't need a nonsense lecture about how politically incorrect I am. I may well be politically incorrect, but the truth is I'm not that bothered whether you like it or not. I'm sick of these kind of debates being hijacked by people with misguided notions of what people can or can't say - or think. You have every right to your own beliefs, whatever they may be, but please don't foist them on me. I'm just not interested. 497199@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:31:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-497184 STM So there is a collective white mind Most whites are christian, all have European ancestry, have Western ideals.... Look you staying in the Middle East probably makes you even less capable to comment on those people. Like missionaries in the past, Westerners bring their ethnocentric perspective to other cultures, get it all wrong and use thier "expretise" to enterpret the culture of a people in which they never understood. There is no collective Arab mind, white mind or any ethinicity's mind. There is a word called CULTURE perhaps that is what you meant? There are traditions but there is no collective mind. That sort of thing causes an over simplification of a people and causes such things as an attack of an innocent people because they are "close enough" to the perpatrators, like we did when waging war against Iraq. Your statement is offensive so please don't use it again. I would suggest that you go even further to explore why it is. You may be a bigot and you don't know it. Most don't and very few ever claim to be but multitudes are. 497184@blogcritics.org Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:59:35 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-496085 Zedd asked: "What is "the collective Arab mind". Is there such a thing?? Yes, there is Zedd. There is a unity among Arabs in terms of race, as much of what is now the middle east in terms of nationality was simply an artificial creation decided at the stroke of a pen by the victorious colonial powers (Britain and France) after WWI. Arabs still regard themselves as brothers and think similarly AS Arabs, rather than as Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, etc. Tribal loyalties are also still much stronger than those of nationality. I lived there as a kid so, unlike many other occasions, I'm not just talking through my arse here. 496085@blogcritics.org Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:37:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-496083 "Please give relatively contemporary examples where Armies of Occupation and/or a nation succeeded long-term against indigenous guerilla insurgents." Malaya, 1948-60 ... by the British. It took years, as you can see. It is regarded, also by the US military, as the classic example of how to use small-scale units of highly trained troops in a counter-insurgency role, and in combination with a hearts-and-minds type campaign to win over the local populace. Malaysia, an islamic nation, and at that time under serious communist threat, remains a very stable, democratic country with a high standard of living - one of the highest in the Asia-South Pacific Region. It remains a part of the British Commonwealth. They have their problems, but hey ... The US in fact uses a similar type of operation quite successfully in Afghanistan, so why not Iraq? I suspect there are political reasons behind it, and some Pentagon meddling. There you go mate ... all true. Ask our friend SFC/SKI, now serving in Iraq, he might be able to further enlighten you. I have only studied it briefly as part of my modern history studies, and only really touching on the Australian Army's involvement, so if you want more you'll find it on the net. 496083@blogcritics.org Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:30:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495769 USA 495769@blogcritics.org Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:03:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495753 Dear STM, (and anyone else who wants to Make My Day) Please give relatively contemporary examples where Armies of Occupation and/or a nation succeeded long-term against indigenous guerilla insurgents. Thanks in advance, S 495753@blogcritics.org Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:13:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495750 STM: "...a successful counter-insurgency campaign... requires some extensive thinking way outside the envelope." Coupla points: 1) Fer starters, 'thinking outside the ENVELOPE' gave us Abu Ghraib -- among other things. 2) 'thinking outside the envelope' usually ends up with one starting to resemble one's enemy relative to morals, etc. [see torture, killing civilians, scarin' the shit outta innocent little kids, etc. etc] Win the battle, lose yer soul. ...Which, frankly, I don't think really bothers a lot of Americans, so-- never fucking mind that one. 3) See France vs Algiers, mid-1950s [et al] -- for more... ummm... great examples of successful 'innovative' thinking in fights with insurgents. 4) oh, and did I mention... WE LOST IRAQ. YANKEES COME HOME. ~NEXT! 495750@blogcritics.org Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:09:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495594 *we had those deals in Kurdistan before the war* Adam - I've been looking for evidence of pre-war development contracts/deals for Kurdish oil fields without success...got any sources for this - ? 495594@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:31:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495513 Troll: Good point, but I believe we had those deals in Kurdistan before the war, since the Kurds have been going their own way even under Saddam and he couldn't touch them. I.e. -- the war has not succeeded in getting our oil companies any deals to explore Iraqi oil fields elsewhere in Iraq, and it's a total failure from the POV of the real reason Bush/Cheney invaded (to get the oil deals for their Texas oil buddies that Saddam was giving to the Russians and the4 Chinese). Adam 495513@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:24:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495511 *The real reason Bush/Cheney started the Iraq War &mdash; to get the oil exploration contracts in Iraq for their Texas oil buddies that Saddam was giving to the Russians and the Chinese &mdash; has become unattainable. So why don't they get out if they haven't succeeded in their own secret mission?* Adam - let me be perverse and suggest that the situation is a partial defeat at worst from this perspective since the oil fields of 'Kurdistan' are more or less securely in 'Western' hands...the conflict now centers around which companies end up with development rights for the fields in the south sac 495511@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:12:12 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495453 Clavos #11 The trouble is that we didn't learn anything from that specific challange because no one actually faught back so we are taken aback when people actually want to take arms and fight against our will to control them. With slavery we sort of phased it out, as it was comfortable with us, always blaming the Africans at every level with all seriousness and sobriety! Depicting them as lazy (lazy slaves, ha ha), unintellegent and unAmerican for expressing discomfort at "our" money driven genocide. We expect the Iranians and everyone of that region to be fine with our invasion and declare them as evil for finding any fault and fighting back against our money driven genocide (500K+ dead). We declare Al Jazeera to be evil and inflamatory because they dare speak of the human toll of the war. I think America is full of good and caring people but I don't think that most actually look at this conflict and many in the world as involving human being with pride and love for self just as they. 495453@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:09:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495451 STM What is "the collective Arab mind". Is there such a thing?? What about a collective white mind What about a collective hispanic mind Come on people... 495451@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:50:27 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495433 Unfortunately, Stan, you have defined the precise reason why the Americans have to get out of Iraq. <i>"Don't expect anyone to begin thinking outside that envelope anytime soon, however, while the people at the Pentagon and the White House are more worried about building their own little empires and grinding axes than about the real nature of the threat. This has nothing to do with a weak US that lacks will, either. It is about the nature of the conflict and the unworkable strategies being employed to deal with it."</i> There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the Americans who perceive that they are raking in billions in war contracts want to allow the government to actually succeed by thinking outside the box. They'd lose a fortune. And that is far more important to them than any damned flag, any patriotic feelings or concern for soldiers putting their lives on the line. You know as better than most that Iraq, as a country with a national identity, is as real as a cigarette commercial. Far far better to allow that nation to devolve into its constituent parts than to impose upon it an unnatural unity. Kurds living newar the border of Turkey do not feel any affinity with Turkey. But they care about Basra only to the degree that exports of theirs go through unhindered without an exhorbitant amount of baksheesh paid out. Only the Sunni in Iraq have an investment in keeping control of Kurdistan and Shiastan, as they themselves have little in terms of natural resources to exploit. The solution to bringing peace and prsperity to this part of the world lies in an economic union expressed by a single Arab state with room in it for autonomous Druze, Alawi regions working in alliance with a Christian Lebanon and a Jewish entity here in Israel, and an independent Kurdistan. This entity would have much the borders of the ancient Assyrian Empire, except that its control would stretch to Nejd and Hijaz as well. Now you tell me. Which American or European coporate giant would benefit from such a thing? The answer - none. Thus, Americans will be kept occupied fighting a non-ewnomy in Iraq while its biggest enemy in the region, Saudi Arabia, goes untouched and the Persian Empire is reborn to the east.... 495433@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:04:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/12/143110.php#comment-495420 I don't think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, or that it should just end so that we can all save face. By doing that, you are listening to the insurgents, rather than the 90 per cent of Iraqis who don't want the place to descend into further bloodshed. But it's being conducted way too much like the Vietnam War: a huge build-up of men and materiel and a pretty heavy-handed but piecemeal approach, probably in all fairness just in keeping with the fact that that's how US military strategy has evolved over the past half-century or so. It worked fine in WWII, when the American big-business approach was exactly what was needed, but running a successful counter-insurgency campaign of this nature requires some extensive thinking way outside the envelope. It certainly inolves having most of the population on your side. Therein lies the key. Don't expect anyone to begin thinking outside that envelope anytime soon, however, while the people at the Pentagon and the White House are more worried about building their own little empires and grinding axes than about the real nature of the threat. This has nothing to do with a weak US that lacks will, either. It is about the nature of the conflict and the unworkable strategies being employed to deal with it. The US, just like any country, has every right to stand up to its enemies. It also owes it to itself to do it right, resonsibly, and ideally in a way that will bring an end to all the hand-wringing at home. I can tell you how the collective Arab mind of the insurgency will work on this: if you leave now, you are as weak as piss and you are fair game for anything else we can do to you. And that means anywhere, any time. But if you stick it out, we will always think twice before we provoke you. The second option is the better one for America in the long run. 495420@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:33:50 EST