An end to the "clash of civilizations"

[flamingjimmy 10]

White racism never had a particular national flag attached to it. It was universal all across the parts of the world where the white man set foot

So you can leave off simply stating that racism was a particularly American thing

 

He's not though is he?

 

Infact he was quite clear with what point he was trying to make, you even quoted it:

 

Your were making claims that the US were defenders of democracy before they had even introduced it at home was the point I was making.

Did you miss that part or something?

[albertross 10]

Was Britain always looking for war when the Royal Navy ruled the waves?

 

Course not. A navy, army or air force is necessary in time of peace just as in war.

 

It's called a deterrent against any future threat of aggression

 

NO It just went and stole what it wanted, no resistance cus we had bigger guns. Imagine a world without threat? we dont need an army ,navy or air force. as regards deterrent , wer'nt the intercontinintalsurgicalstrikingweponsofmas bleedin destruction supposed to do that?

[plekhanov 10]

On a personal note. Do you really wish to take guidance of the ethical nature of your life based on someones thesis paper that essentially confirms the "You" versus "Me" outlook on life?

What the hell are you blithering about? Who claimed that "The Clash of Civilizations" was any kind of a guide for how to live your life? I know I didn't.

 

It's a book about international relations and foreign policy, why are you pretending it's something else?

 

 

How divisive and incorrect is that. When my mother used to cook, she would put all spice in, not just 1 spice and it greatly improved the flavour and experience, no doubt of life. Let us forget modern philosophy. If we do beleive huntingtons incorrectly infamouse peice, he is just no worse than "them" by pidgeoning himself into a bi polar world view. id hate to live my life like that.

Except of course it isn't. I've never even read the book but I still know that Huntington identifies a whole series of two 'civiliazations', it is anything but a simplistic 'bi-polar' view of the world.

 

Good comes in all humans. Black Blue White Chinese, Arab or Anglo Saxon, with a hint of Eskimo even. Geographics dont come into it. What about if global warming really hots up (scuse the pun). We lose all our oil, the balance of power shifts and then all of a sudden a new world civilisation migrates, a hotpotch of tribes and communites and its now:

 

North

&

South ?

 

Not East and West? Will hungtinons cater for this? it completely throws new scenarios and shows his views were outdated but were pleasing to colonial powers who wanted some form of subtle/moral high ground for their aggressive 100 year expansion. Thats it. He is redundant now.Look at your average Anglo Saxon Muslim Convert and in an instant he has yet again blown another hole in Hungtington. What is the said person, neither truly East nor West. How about Human?

 

**paradoxically substitute devout eastern Muslim into decadent, hedonous Western European and the same analogy applies**

'Geographics dont come into it' Who said it did? Huntington's thesis is about culture not geography, you clearly don't know even the 1st thing about the thesis you are attempting to attack, which is why you keep on swinging and missing in such a ridiculous manner.

[plekhanov 10]

Whats the point in having warships if you are not going to use them?

The were being used, as a deterrent.

 

So, sam was looking for a war then.

No Japan was on a drive of imperialist expansion and domination in Asia and the Pacific US was in the way.

[Olive Tree 10]

Now you are using insulting language which in discussion is clearly a sign of loss. Plekh.

 

What the hell are you blithering about? Who claimed that "The Clash of Civilizations" was any kind of a guide for how to live your life? I know I didn't.

 

Your ill manner outstrips your intelligence i am afraid. This is EXACTLY what the protagonists of hunginton have done and why they used his theories. For the common man on the street to use it as a guide to his life, especially when looking at those different to them and say think of sandboxing each other into a "east" and "west". The policy makers who elevated him used his thesis precisely so common people can use it as a guide to differentiate between people. .

 

It's a book about international relations and foreign policy, why are you pretending it's something else?

 

Because internation relations and foreign policy should be dictated by the peoples will, and if the people are divided into a bi-polar us and them which huntington did, it makes it easier to manipulate people to follow the decisions you want them to follow for your own benefit. You have answered the oft repeated point i have made (and others) about huntington, why it is to do with internation relations and foreign policy?

 

because.it.served.the.interests.of.the.global.elite.in.their.aggressive.expansion.and.flimsily.used.it.to.make.them.feel.better.when.sleeping.at.night

 

You are not defending the common man by your endorsement and defence of it, but instead evil men whom dream of empire and stop short at nothing to get it. Thank you for letting me know which side you are on.

[Harleyman 12]

NO It just went and stole what it wanted, no resistance cus we had bigger guns. Imagine a world without threat? we dont need an army ,navy or air force. as regards deterrent , wer'nt the intercontinintalsurgicalstrikingweponsofmas bleedin destruction supposed to do that?

 

Why not run that by the UK Minister of Defence. He might just buy that. Save the country a bundle I reckon

[Harleyman 12]

He's not though is he?

 

Infact he was quite clear with what point he was trying to make, you even quoted it:

 

 

Did you miss that part or something?

 

At the start of WW2 the US was a democracy but a democracy that was flawed as it pertained to the rights of black Americans. Some of the southern states were segregated The US miltary was segregated. Britain had a vast empire lorded over by the British white ruling class also with a less than perfect democratic legacy. We know all that

 

Britain declared war on Germany. Japan attacked the US. Hitler declared war on the US and the US had no choice but go to war with both Japan and Germany.

 

I dont see what America not being a "perfect democracy" has to do with it going to war to "defend democracy" There were two nations embrarked on expansion by brutal and aggressive attacks on other nations. They had to be stopped and that was the whole issue to be dealt with at that time

[Harleyman 12]

I didnt say they were armed ,Howerever your defensive stance is leading me to belive that you wished they were, From previous postings I get the inpression that we may be of a not too disimilar generation, however the world has changed and no matter what our past expierences were we now have to look at things in a different light ,if only in the name of survival

 

Jeezus K Wrist albertross now your arguments are moving into the realms of the wild and whacko!

 

I've been in a war. I hate and loath war. I still have nightmares. I've seen all the ugliness of mankind at his absolute worst

 

Dont start calling me a doctor Strangelove That's just getting personal and insulting

[LordChaverly 10]

That might perhaps be legitimate if the party being denounced was Communist and allied to Stalin, however it wasn't, it was a popular front that included the Communist Party as just one of five other parties. Remember, these Socialist parties had made major sacrifices in the Second World War leading strikes and insurrections often violently suppressed by some of the same Fascists that the US then went on to back in 1948.

 

 

Wildcat, you really need to read more about the characteristics of the so-called 'Popular Fronts' in which communist parties participated (I suggest you start with Fernando Claudin's excellent 'The Communist Movement', which traces their development in great detail). The first thing (indeed perhaps the only thing) worth knowing about these organisations is contained in the word 'Front', i.e. they were communist dominated front organisations which had their roots in Stalin's Comintern. Although these organisations contained other parties, many of these had been infiltrated or otherwise compromised by communists (whether claiming fealty to Moscow or not). It is no wonder therefore that they were so distrusted by the Western democracies, including the US.