They Rattle Sabers as if Strength in a Foreign Power is Always An Evil to be Attacked
Leaders of the western world continue to rattle their sabres against Iran, as they (apparently) tremble with fear at the prospect of the dreaded 1.2 billion Muslims of the world invading the world, waving Korans, administering clitoridectomies, pauperizing or exterminating non-Muslims, declaring that all that happens on earth is God's will.
Why not just, without being rude, teach the Islamic world, that the thoughts of God contained in the Koran represent less than one percent of God's thoughts? Despite whatever might be in the Koran much of the Muslim world no longer practices clitoridectomy. Many millions of Muslims live in or have at one time lived in societies tolerant of reasonable Christian persons. The erroneous doctrine that proclaims that all that happens on earth is God's will, is found not just in the Muslim world but also in the Christian world.
The fact remains, that Ahmadinejad President of Iran, which is in a leadership position in the Muslim world, has been very publicly making conciliatory tolerant religious statements that could reasonably suspected to be heretical contradictions of the Koran.
Aggressive USA leaders rattle their sabers, as if the world situation featured only two powers, "the west" on the one hand and the "Islamic (would be) Caliphate" on the other; as if, since there are only two powers, A and B, on earth, whatever makes the A power weaker makes the other B power stronger and vice versa.
The reality as everyone knows however, is that the world contains more than two powers. It contains, amongst others, the Christendom power, the Islamic power, the Hindu power, the China power, the Russia power, the western europe power, the USA power, the Japan power, the Satanist/Atheist power. Much of the 1.2 billion population Muslim world, is found in relatively poor nations such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia.
Since the world contains many powers, a foreign power becoming strong, could be a good thing for a nation, and a foreign power becoming weak, could be a bad thing for a nation. Yet the saber rattlers, carry on as if of course a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing while a foreign power becoming weak is always a good thing. Fact is in the history of man, nations have prospered and grown stronger without lashing out at the growth of power in foreign lands.
The USA is one of the powers in the world. Honorable powers of the world have a legitimate interest in: not being conquered by any one foreign power; not being conquered by a coalition of foreign powers; preventing any one foreign power from becoming so powerful that it enslaves the entire world. Powers of the world are unable to accomplish such legitimate interests, by themselves alone without allies. Thus they choose to ally themselves with foreign powers. But of what use is an alliance with a pathetic, weak foreign power? Thus obviously situations arise wherein a nation finds that a foreign power being strong is in its own self interest.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would not stumble into a situation wherein the entire world becomes the USA's enemy--because such leads to the form of defeat wherein a nation is carved up by all the other nations in the world that gang up on it.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships peacefully nudge foreign nations into behaviour that as opposed to harming US national security interests, is harmless or beneficial vis a vis US national security interests.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships build alliances and friendships with foreign nations thereby turning them into national security partners as opposed to adversaries.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would as opposed to becoming obsessed with the "Islamic threat", being aware of the dangers of myopia, work in a peaceful and friendly way to see to it that no foreign nation becomes militarily relatively powerful enough to enslave the entire world.
Not turning the world against you, getting foreign nations to behave harmlessly, making friends of foreign nations, preventing any one nation from subjugating the entire world, these kinds of successes distinguish sane nations from socio-pathic nations. A nation which automatically sees the growth of power in a foreign nation or group as a threat to be violently attacked, is a dysfunctional, socio-pathic nation.
It makes nations angry, it does not win friends and partners, this hubristic attitude that a foreign nation becoming strong, is always a bad thing. How would you feel about some snob who felt that anybody aside from his own self becoming strong was a dangerous misfortune?
Any power that thinks that a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing, is a power that is incapable of entering into successful alliances, because successful alliances depend upon strength in the allied-wth partner. Since such powers that fear strength in foreign powers are incapable of forming effective partnerships, it becomes reasonable for the powers of the world to shun them.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
Why not just, without being rude, teach the Islamic world, that the thoughts of God contained in the Koran represent less than one percent of God's thoughts? Despite whatever might be in the Koran much of the Muslim world no longer practices clitoridectomy. Many millions of Muslims live in or have at one time lived in societies tolerant of reasonable Christian persons. The erroneous doctrine that proclaims that all that happens on earth is God's will, is found not just in the Muslim world but also in the Christian world.
The fact remains, that Ahmadinejad President of Iran, which is in a leadership position in the Muslim world, has been very publicly making conciliatory tolerant religious statements that could reasonably suspected to be heretical contradictions of the Koran.
Aggressive USA leaders rattle their sabers, as if the world situation featured only two powers, "the west" on the one hand and the "Islamic (would be) Caliphate" on the other; as if, since there are only two powers, A and B, on earth, whatever makes the A power weaker makes the other B power stronger and vice versa.
The reality as everyone knows however, is that the world contains more than two powers. It contains, amongst others, the Christendom power, the Islamic power, the Hindu power, the China power, the Russia power, the western europe power, the USA power, the Japan power, the Satanist/Atheist power. Much of the 1.2 billion population Muslim world, is found in relatively poor nations such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia.
Since the world contains many powers, a foreign power becoming strong, could be a good thing for a nation, and a foreign power becoming weak, could be a bad thing for a nation. Yet the saber rattlers, carry on as if of course a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing while a foreign power becoming weak is always a good thing. Fact is in the history of man, nations have prospered and grown stronger without lashing out at the growth of power in foreign lands.
The USA is one of the powers in the world. Honorable powers of the world have a legitimate interest in: not being conquered by any one foreign power; not being conquered by a coalition of foreign powers; preventing any one foreign power from becoming so powerful that it enslaves the entire world. Powers of the world are unable to accomplish such legitimate interests, by themselves alone without allies. Thus they choose to ally themselves with foreign powers. But of what use is an alliance with a pathetic, weak foreign power? Thus obviously situations arise wherein a nation finds that a foreign power being strong is in its own self interest.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would not stumble into a situation wherein the entire world becomes the USA's enemy--because such leads to the form of defeat wherein a nation is carved up by all the other nations in the world that gang up on it.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships peacefully nudge foreign nations into behaviour that as opposed to harming US national security interests, is harmless or beneficial vis a vis US national security interests.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would through its international relationships build alliances and friendships with foreign nations thereby turning them into national security partners as opposed to adversaries.
If the USA were to follow a wise security policy, it would as opposed to becoming obsessed with the "Islamic threat", being aware of the dangers of myopia, work in a peaceful and friendly way to see to it that no foreign nation becomes militarily relatively powerful enough to enslave the entire world.
Not turning the world against you, getting foreign nations to behave harmlessly, making friends of foreign nations, preventing any one nation from subjugating the entire world, these kinds of successes distinguish sane nations from socio-pathic nations. A nation which automatically sees the growth of power in a foreign nation or group as a threat to be violently attacked, is a dysfunctional, socio-pathic nation.
It makes nations angry, it does not win friends and partners, this hubristic attitude that a foreign nation becoming strong, is always a bad thing. How would you feel about some snob who felt that anybody aside from his own self becoming strong was a dangerous misfortune?
Any power that thinks that a foreign power becoming strong is always a bad thing, is a power that is incapable of entering into successful alliances, because successful alliances depend upon strength in the allied-wth partner. Since such powers that fear strength in foreign powers are incapable of forming effective partnerships, it becomes reasonable for the powers of the world to shun them.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 2:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home