Mid east

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Noone @ June 14 2002,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. VERY few non-genetic jews were acepted into jewdaism, so we cant talk about any tendantion. And those who have "depleted" their genetic jewish heritage are no longer considered jews by jews. So, most jews are jews geneticaly, very few - jews by religion and lots of jews are jews geneticaly and atheists by religion. Jews are VERY strict about genetic heritage (the religious jews) - they prohibit marrying non-jews etc to preserve heritage. And they also make it very hard for non-genetic jews from converiting into jewdaism.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, if you say so. But the jews I know here in Finland (and they look pretty semitic to me) have all married from the scandinavian ethnic group and the spouses then just converted to jewish religion. Maybe they're exceptions, then.

Anyway, the conflict in Middle East is a really sad thing, because you have semites fighting semites, a war inside an ethnic group because of religion. The birthing pains of Israel in the aftermath of WWII caused this rift and so you cannot live mixed in the same area anymore like you used to long time ago. Sad.

[Oligo 1]

Forum bug... grrr!

[Noone 4]

"During the Exodus, lots of jewish people of different ehtnic background (semitic, slavic, etc.)"

Yes, but then you have to say : Israelis having slavic ethnic background, and not jews having slavic ethnic background. Or a mixed family. But even a mixed family would have a semitic background as well. Because a person without a semitic background is not considered a jew at all. And also what should we do with palestinians who have mixed themselves with sheits etc. They also don't fi into the picture then ?

[Noone 4]

"Ok, if you say so. But the jews I know here in Finland (and they look pretty semitic to me) have all married from the scandinavian ethnic group and the spouses then just converted to jewish religion. Maybe they're exceptions, then."

Yes, it happens, but not too often. At least in Israel. It's more of an exception, the a rule.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Noone @ June 14 2002,10:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And also what should we do with palestinians who have mixed themselves with sheits etc. They also don't fi into the picture then ?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not so much looking for a solution as I am pondering the ground reasons for your conflict. I'm not suggesting kicking out all non-semites or such ethnic solution. It's just that the conflict you have is such a bitch and it gets worse the more you dig for the reasons. Goddamn, it must be the worst tangled mess that has ever existed.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ June 14 2002,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's just that the conflict you have is such a bitch and it gets worse the more you dig for the reasons. Goddamn, it must be the worst tangled mess that has ever existed.  <span id='postcolor'>

Only to be beaten by the violence spiral that the war on terorism (and all what came before) is very likely to start; the main differance is that this conflict will be global..........  

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Its possible to blow the Bush initiated 'War against Terror' (as distinct from Jewish/Arab problem) out of proportion

I think a lot of it will turn out to be more posturing than anything else,

feelings rather than actions

with maybe an occasional US action in some country (or at home) or an occasional terrorist atrocity.

The US is not imminently acting militarily against Iraq and certainly North korea etc (other 'axis of evil' countries)

Much of it is sabre rattling......

i hope

then again this period (Afghanistan conflict minimised and no other arena right now quite matching the same large scale of potential action)

could be a 'phoney war' similar to early WW2

the calm before the storm..

but i wouldnt bet on it.

[Guest]

I think that we are thanks to globalization polarizing the world on ethical principles more then the classical national-interest principles. This is of course economically motivated as always, but this time the difference between the two sides is much larger. And one side has nothing to loose.

We (mainstream 'civilized' countries) have the advantage of military superiority and vast economic resources. On the other hand we are hampered by our own principles. Today carpet-bombing a city would not be acceptable. On the other hand we have also a military system that was built to fight similar military systems. Our infrastructure in the society doesn't have any possibility of defense. As I have said earlier in this thread many times: you can't have an open democratic society and prevent terorrism at the same time. Anybody can slap on some explosives and go into a grocery store and blow himself up. We are also not at all prepared for suicide attacks. That paradigm is a complete enigma to us, since we have never had anything like that in our culture.

Now, one may argue that due to the fact that we outnumber the enemy by far, that they cannot do any serious harm. To that I say: Remember the Roman empire. Remember how it was brought down by the much less organized and much weaker barbarians.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Yes of course people always wheel out the old roman empire stories   but im not sure its appropriate

The USA especially is wary of this, they can see the barbarians across the fence, so theyve built the biggest fucking wall the world has yet seen

In some ways the West has backed itself into a corner because the only way to destroy countries like the USA quasi-militarily or for that matter other NATO countries as world powers is weapons of mass destruction (hence the acute fear of them in the US).

A bio-attack (or numerous attacks) with a massive deathtoll could bring down the US government or government of other western countries.

But the western world has a military population apart from the general population,(especially in the US) so even if the populace become complacent ,lazy, debauched or whatever ,they will have people willing to fight for their countries and ensure that the walls do not crumble.

Never mind the USA ,even Britian or France say could take on the Arab worlds conventional militaries and win decisively.

The west is just a league above everyone else in conventional terms.

But the non-democratic weaker countries are ahead in freedom of action.

Especially seeing as non government groups take responsibility

for 'beating' the enemy

They can massacre ,they can cheat, they can rob , they can do anything to win , or at least bring down the enemy to their level.

They can throw disease across the wall.

But i dont see how they can win, they can make life in the west terrible but look at Israel, It will not end.

Perhaps in 200 years time

this could be seen as the last great hurdle for the

post-modern world

the last gasping battle cry of the ancient world,

the last desperate fight for return to the old ways,

a walking carcass held up by crutches of the modern world-

violent romanticists using the internet for communication, fast global travel, the massive advances in power potentially wielded by a small group or single man.

Today one man could kill a million

and a million could fail to kill one.

But the west will not lose, its almost inconcievable (unless as i said there is a massive successful bio attack)

otherwise all we could do is fail to win.

(perhaps we already have)

[Guest]

IsthatyouJohnWayne:

I think that the assumption that you are making is that the modern 'barbarians' are dangerous by themselves. I am more saying that the problem is not their military power, but more our fragile democratic system. The WTC attack was in real terms of no threat to the US. Far more persons die each year in car accidents. The effect was purely psychological. It is not about the enemy destroying the system, it is us stopping to believe in our system if we feel weak and exposed. If a destruction of the western world will occur, then it won't be because of a military defeat but because of a destruction from inside. For a system to work you must either have people forced to obey it or they must believe in it. Our western systems are based on the second assumption.

If people stop believeing that the system can guarantee their needs, then the system will ultimately fail.

[Pukko 0]

I think the quite simple and only way is to act creatively in all our actions with the goal of a positive globalisation in mind.

Only work to improve relations between groups and people. Our differances are not there by nature; they are only our social constructions. It will be very costly for all, not only economically; and we must accept that our rich western world is not the result of us being better or working harder, rather to be lucky enough to be the first ones to exploit resourses and people in huge extent.

We must all make sacrifices, or mankind will not survive for much longer; we cant just sit on all our gold and cry lazy people and terrorists at everything we dont like, but the most costly will not be our gold, but our pride.........

All that terrorist need is a reason, and if we continues to alienate, exploit and oppress 'less developed' nations we will soon be no more

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

but you perhaps fail to take into account that by violently attacking the US, Osama Bin Laden or others are in fact cementing the strength of US society as a whole and bringing them closer together,

so if by attacking the USA ,the attackers are hoping to fragment US society then they were always bound to fail,

If however they were hoping to fragment the always nebulous 'west' and furthermore provoke muslims to action then they may well have succeded....

There are two issues here for a country

1-international relations

2-internal relations

countries with large and outspoken muslim populations may have to seriously address both in the post sept.11 world,

but for other countries the quickest way for them to fall apart would be to leave them alone, to let them become complacent.... attacking a country brings it together,

so if anything Osama Bin Laden has prolonged the life of the current political system in America (if as according to you

it is somewhat prone to collapse)

The USA is no longer complacent, i think Europe is now more complacent, but less likely to come under attack. According to what i have just set out this implies that European countries are currently more prone to internal collapse

But i really dont think western countries 'collapse' is imminent.

What form would this system failure take, other than anger on the streets and the usual signs of a political/social change,

probably nothing that would constitute a 'defeat' of the west

(theyde still want to go home and watch the Simpsons or play OFP    )

Pukko-

"All that terrorist need is a reason, and if we continues to alienate, exploit and oppress 'less developed' nations we will soon be no more"  

That doesnt constitute a very convincing argument for many in the western world.

"Im not oppressing anyone, why should i change?" this will be the attitude of most...

people are not willing to make sacrifices without obvious gain.

What sacrifices do you refer to?

'we must change or the bad guys will kill us' That how your views could be generalised

(though according to you no doubt they are not bad , only 'abused' )

and that is not very convincing at all.

Why should people change to accomodate a violent minority?

And what changes in most peoples lives precisely would bring about this globalised utopia?

Or are you referring more (as i suspect) to government policy?

If it harms economies and therefore costs people their jobs, it will not be popular.

Thus governments will not pursue it, such is the nature of democracy.

[Guest]

IsthatyouJohnWayne:

I wasn't talking about America, but the western world in general (western in the political meaning).

If you see the latest developments in USA, the unification of the country around its leaders is starting to go away.

Bush's actions were a necessary step to ensure the citizens that everything is under control. Now that effect is fading away. People are starting to question how the mighty US intelligence services missed. They are questioning about what Bush knew. At the same time the director of the FBI is telling the nation that more attacks will come and that there is nothing USA can do about it.

This creates a disbelief in the system. Now, I'm not saying that USA will collapse any time soon. But if this terrorist thingie isn't temporary, the disbelief will grow and accumulate. Finally the system won't hold. Revolution or something, I don't know. Or we abolish democracy and get strong dictators. Europe is no different, except that we havn't been attacked recently.

Now, again, I'm not saying that this could happen any time soon. I am only theorizing on a long term perspective.

[Pukko 0]

I dont think that I could explain this to you IsthatyouJohnWayne even on 1000 pages, since we seem to have quite different ontological views and there are no real good (objective) and concrete references that I know of, but I'll continue giving you a hint about it

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 15 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"All that terrorist need is a reason, and if we continues to alienate, exploit and oppress 'less developed' nations we will soon be no more"  

That doesnt constitute a very convincing argument for many in the western world.

"Im not oppressing anyone, why should i change?" this will be the attitude of most...

people are not willing to make sacrifices without obvious gain.

What sacrifices do you refer to?

'we must change or the bad guys will kill us' That how your views could be generalised

(though according to you no doubt they are not bad , only 'abused' )

and that is not very convincing at all.

Why should people change to accomodate a violent minority?

And what changes in most peoples lives precisely would bring about this globalised utopia?

Or are you referring more (as i suspect) to government policy?

If it harms economies and therefore costs people their jobs, it will not be popular.

Thus governments will not pursue it, such is the nature of democracy.<span id='postcolor'>

I should probably always start with saying that I do not 'predict' the end of the world, or even anything negative, with the changes I mention. Its rather a very positive social development that I'm thinking of. If we refuse to develop do we will just collapse one day over a night..

And I should maybe also mention that I currently study educational science (which is a part of behavioral science) which focus on how we construct (and/or affect) human beings at institutions, family and other social contexts. I therefore dont think that a human being is born to 'anything' by nature; we are maybe to 80 or 90% just social products of our own time. Therefore I will NEVER say anything like: "People would never accept or do this or that". Who the fuck are we to speak of what future generations will or wont do? Well I have indeed my vision of it, but since it involves social development its more likely than to think that the humans we see around us today are the one and only true & everlasting kind of humans; I see our social world rather like the guy in Matrix - only as very temporary and constanltly changing codes and labels....

Now for your reply:

I am not claiming that the 'bad guys will kill us' if we do not change; rather that we will kill ourselves if we dont. The basic thing is that I do not for one second doubt that we will continue to develop ourselves socially with time - BUT if we today stagnate in a century long global conflict there might not be hopes for a VERY long time, or ever (while humans exists, not necessarily for long), to come further than we are today..

The western world are without doubt in a deep crisis. More and more people see through more and more of the, for the western world, vital illusions. The illusion of our 'representative democracies' maybe one of the most important at this time. Whatever comes out of it (breaking illusions) in the long run can almost only be for the better though.

I fear that USA, the western nation, will refuse develop in any larger extent due to national pride, and will therefore keep going strong until one day just collapse, because the illusions that holds it up is seen through, in kind of a chain reaction maybe. I just hope that USA will not let its frustrations (continue) to be aimed at the rest of the world; if thats the case USA might bring the rest of the world to chaos and destruction on their way to collapse.

I also hope that Europeans continue to eat its daily portion of shit, instead of piling it (one finally collapses from it) up or throwing it at others (it always comes back you know). That way Europe might avoid a collapse, but instead slowly just changing form; because the 'western world' as we know it today is definitely history, I cant see anything else.

-

-

-

Here I thought of a concrete connection from the above to the war on terrorism, but it all just becomes so empty and meaningless. Please tell me if it made any sense before I write more maybe too abstract bullshit to make any sense - trying to answer your direct questions!

But Ill end with this slogan anyway :

Dont let our western (more and more present) misfortune go out over the others in the world - we will need them as brothers and sisters in the long run.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"Please tell me if it made any sense before I write more maybe too abstract bullshit to make any sense - trying to answer your direct questions!"

It would help if you could give some example or vague indication of what you mean by these changes, and social development. Please be more specific

You think society should make a conscious effort to change how individuals are formed/brought up and develop them through the effective use of institutions as instruments of social change?-

does it not occur to you that that seems like a very Scandinavian approach?    

relying on institutions rather than individuals....

,government trying to improve society rather than letting it improve itself (and government just keeping everything running properly)

"I just hope that USA will not let its frustrations (continue) to be aimed at the rest of the world; if thats the case USA might bring the rest of the world to chaos and destruction on their way to collapse."

thats a very biased and if i may say-european view-

,quite frankly it sounds like rubbish. What cases of America 'letting its frustration' out on the rest of the world can you give?

I really doubt that is a US intention or explaination for US actions. US companies(along with others of course) may exploit certain poorer countries for capital gain, and US administration may have acted in certain other dubious ways

to advance their sphere of influence etc,

but bombing of Serbia/kosovo (amongst others) for instance is more likely the US trying to find a post cold war role and assert itself,

(and a sense of moral rightousness)

attributing human characteristics to nation state is not necessarily apt. The US government only became 'frustrated' with Al Quaida for instance when they started actively attacking US personnel.

As for the 'illusion' of representative democracy.... well what do you suggest?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, (representative) democracy

is terrible, but it is the least terrible of the systems available.

There are problems with it , but no vastly superior system presents itself. Anyway a bit(or alot) of apathy is expected....

the more comfortable peoples lives become the less they see a need for government intervention.

If there is a change it will only be to a more effective type of representation (in other words an actual strengthening of representative democracy).

What other 'illusions' do you refer to?

"I also hope that Europeans continue to eat its daily portion of shit, instead of piling it (one finally collapses from it) up or throwing it at others (it always comes back you know). That way Europe might avoid a collapse, but instead slowly just changing form; because the 'western world' as we know it today is definitely history, I cant see anything else."

This is very cryptic, you sure you aint taking a degree in talking in riddles?

..... give me examples and i can counter them

but if you just talk vaguely it makes your argument sound weak

you are standing on a mountain of air at the moment,

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 16 2002,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You think society should make a conscious effort to change how individuals are formed/brought up and develop them through the effective use of institutions as instruments of social change?-

does it not occur to you that that seems like a very Scandinavian approach?    

relying on institutions rather than individuals....<span id='postcolor'>

That is a socialist approach, not necessarily Scandinavian.

Anyway, that's not what he said. He said in "social context" which includes anything where people interact and form social relations. This can even be an indirect abstract phenomenon like mass-media's interaction with the individual consumer.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Hate to break it to you Denoir but Scandinavia is generally regarded as a fairly socialist corner of europe

(a generalisation certainly)

Yes i understand that his ideas reach beyond government institutions (although mass media is an institution of sorts) but that seemed to be the focus especially considering his area of study.

Pukko-"Who the fuck are we to speak of what future generations will or wont do?"

its impossible to predict the future, but nonetheless there are trends and likelyhoods. Will 50% of society in the next 25 years suddenly decide that its all too much and that they will kill themselves?

its possible but highly highly unlikely in my opinion , and so is the complete overhaul of western society overnight in some collapse or revolutionary process

at least in my humble opinion

Certainly there will be an evolution of ideas,(and thus society) over time but whats new? there always is.

I dont think western society is on the brink of collapse.

Change certainly, but that doesnt take a pychic to predict.. change is a constant.

[Pukko 0]

Ok, I'll make a try to write some short concrete examples and answers. The problem is that its a really big, self-interacting, coplex phenomenon this, and mentioning one or a few questionable things do not give my argument much more substance; the other way rather. But if one consider that there are 10 000 'a little wrong things' that all put together form a abstract picture of another society than we believe we are living in. I'll mention a few, by them selves quite pointless, things quickly here that are the first I come to think of:

A short mentioning of a few illusions more or less related to reducing humans, and that are with many other things building a fundament of our present conception of the world:

---The differance between adults and children - is it really different life forms or is it rather a question about interests (the concept of childhood was invented not long ago)? Here is also many other illusions of differances present of course. One of these is the very present destruction of the white heterosexual male's natural superiority.

---Our nationalism (also a recent invention) - is our national identity really worth anything more than historical sub/pre national regions/counties?

---The western labour market a a whole - how long will it survive in its ever more demanding form? How long can we motivate ourselves working to death producing quite meaningless (also new inventions) services (there are not many percents working with fundamental things anymore)?

Regarding alternatives to representative democracy, look some 20 pages or so back on this thread.

And no, people in general will probaly not wake up one day and kill themselves (even if the ones who do probably will increase wastly in numbers). But one can in some perspectives consider society as a living organism, and as such it will have a strong survival instinct - breaking anything apart if necessary. Fallen illusions will make humans look for other values in life to comfort them; an ever refining phenomenon towards an utopic society. And I work actively to find and destroy such illusions.

My point about USA is that it very often seems conservative and isolated in some crucial parts. And if the pride of living in 'the best nation in the world' - even if only lets say 20% really think that - live on, USA might have big problems changing in a changing world. And no changes (development)= obsolete= no good. And as you said, 9/11 made the Americans rally around its flag making them stronger for a while, but that probebly only strengthen conservatism; and that do not hold in the long run.

And finally to connect to war again:

Most of say at some times that we live in a sick society, without being able to specify what the problem really is (personally I recon most things in our society comes to one thing in the end - the reducing of one self and others). But on a governmental level it might be real good to avoid that people are digging and criticising the government and nation, and thereby give the people a evil enemy as a scrape goat (only one of dozens of reasons to go to war) to make them forget all about their closer problems. But for how long do you think that such a policy will be sucessful?

One do might argue forever about USA:s real reasons to go to war, but while we do maybe 2 to 4 billion people on this planet (many of them Americans) gets more and more sceptical about USA:s foregin policies and actions. And unfortionally I cant see any hope that USA will either work harder just to improve international relations (wars never do that, maybe to the few but not for the majority) OR be able to convince people that they are doing it in the best interests of everyone.

Prior to 9/11 I was merely a little irritated at USA for a 100 reasons, but since then I am really scared about what they might start now. Start - as in executing many unnecessary and violent actions around the world in the 'war on terrorism' - probaly the most pathetic concept in the history of mankind....  

I think I have answered some of your questions here to some extent at least. Oh, the one about conscious change of individuals in institutions: thats about the only reason for our present institutions (globally). I can tell you that I am not a friend of educational systems, even on more fundamental levels.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 15 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but you perhaps fail to take into account that by violently attacking the US, Osama Bin Laden or others are in fact cementing the strength of US society as a whole and bringing them closer together,

so if by attacking the USA ,the attackers are hoping to fragment US society then they were always bound to fail,<span id='postcolor'>

Nice conversation, but I have to point out one thing. By attacking U.S. Osama's gang indeed made the nation rally around their flag. But the attacks also made the nation to banish some of the values they hold so dear. All these detainings without trials and ridiculously increased powers for the law-enforcement, the making of a police state. I'd say this is Osama's greatest victory.

A disgruntled minority might not be able to literally destroy a western nation, but they are able to change the nation to worse.

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ June 17 2002,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 15 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but you perhaps fail to take into account that by violently attacking the US, Osama Bin Laden or others are in fact cementing the strength of US society as a whole and bringing them closer together,

so if by attacking the USA ,the attackers are hoping to fragment US society then they were always bound to fail,<span id='postcolor'>

Nice conversation, but I have to point out one thing. By attacking U.S. Osama's gang indeed made the nation rally around their flag. But the attacks also made the nation to banish some of the values they hold so dear. All these detainings without trials and ridiculously increased powers for the law-enforcement, the making of a police state. I'd say this is Osama's greatest victory.

A disgruntled minority might not be able to literally destroy a western nation, but they are able to change the nation to worse.<span id='postcolor'>

It is true that USA came to the flag together against the terrorists but is this at all unexpected? In any war, the civilians will rally to protect themselves (under the guidance of the army/goverment). So was osama really trying to test this against the americans (do those "captilist scum" really care about anything except themselves?). Sure the americans have lost ideals such as minimal force and has "changed a nation", but did US come out for the worse in terms of the defending itself from attack. IMO, US did maintain itself in the face of other nations when the integrity of its national security was questioned by 9/11.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Pukko -

Thank you for attempting to clarify your position, i think i have greater understanding of what you mean.

I essentially agree that we are living in a world of -if not illusions- then certainly under-examined human constructions.

But what you suggest is that people are increasingly 'seeing through' this and becoming disillusioned with the world that has been passed onto them. I would say that this is an exaggeration.

Most people do not see or question most of what you call illusions (for example childhood-a largely victorian construction - is still widely accepted and 'protected' )

Only a few are truly coming under public scrutiny , such as the nature of our western democracies.

There is some discussion of nationalism/super/internationalism/globalisation throughout the west, but most do not seem willing to abandon their national ties any time soon.

And certainly most are not 'seeing through' their national divides (unfortunatly)

Nationalism is still seen as a positive force and a means of empowerment especially in people feeling oppressed or attacked people.

As such i do not believe nationalism is in much danger of collapse. In fact i think that enforced (or rushed) globalisation can fan the flames of nationalism. If a nation feels under threat from globalisation, its sense of national identity will thrive, something more eager internationalists seem not to realise(and so they have screwed it up).

The best way to create a truly globalised, peaceful world is to let nationalism slowly die out and very gradually faze in a supernational sense of identity instead.

But i think the walls between people are still too great (not least language) for an international identity to truly emerge.

The western world is indeed a vast human designed (and thus flawed) series of time honoured constructs (you can call them illusions)

based on generalisations and tending to cater for groups (rather than individuals)

But THIS WILL NOT CHANGE for a great time yet (only my opinion obviously)

it sucks but its true. (thats maybe why so much of the media is designed to cater for fantasies-as opposed to widespread

changing of reality)

The world is run by managers not philosophers, and designed by scientists not artists.

Oligo-

"All these detainings without trials and ridiculously increased powers for the law-enforcement, the making of a police state. I'd say this is Osama's greatest victory."

There is some truth to this, but i do not believe this was >precisely< Al Quaidas aim.... certainly to make Americans live in fear - of which that is a result.

But the point is, Americans are swallowing this as the price of safety... there is not real widespread opposition to this, at least certainly not to a degree that would fragment the nation.

Also it can be exaggerated. For example Japan is something of a police state even without terrorism .The ability to hold people for almost 2 weeks without charge in terrible conditions, all non-Japanese must carry passport at all times etc

and almost noone makes a fuss of this.

[Pukko 0]

Nice to see that we have some common views after all But I think you have mis-interpreted some of mine points a little. It still sounds like you think that I am pessimistic about the future. But that could not be more wrong (with the big exeption of a great global war). I'll quote you on this one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I essentially agree that we are living in a world of -if not illusions- then certainly under-examined human constructions.

But what you suggest is that people are increasingly 'seeing through' this and becoming disillusioned with the world that has been passed onto them. I would say that this is an exaggeration.

Most people do not see or question most of what you call illusions (for example childhood-a largely victorian construction - is still widely accepted and 'protected' )

Only a few are truly coming under public scrutiny , such as the nature of our western democracies.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, at first I thought you meant that my point was that disillusion in it self would be a good thing (it always hurt at first, but is also always replaced by something, most of the time at least, more positive with time (if handeled in a bad way crucial disillusion might of course be too much for some people). The best is of course to let a new perspective 'shine through' the illusion in question; which it self will be replaced in time too). But you rather seem to be sceptical about peoples ability to see through illusions - and thats probably where our conceptions separate the most; that I think that the western peolple is just about (ok, talking decades maybe) to start a revolution because it is SO much that dont make sense anymore.

You write "such are the nature of our western democracies"; and thats what I mean; I believe more and more people start questioning our socio-cultural world, and since that world in this case is the western world - that would be the end of the western world as we know it . And that do not mean that we are all gonna die, but that we take a large step towards a 'better' society for everyone. I think that this might go quite fast actually, like a chain reaction, a revolution or even as quick as a 'collapse'. How quick it will go, and thereby also how much it will hurt us, is all depending on how open we are towards social change - and in that case I think that Europe is more open than the USA, and thereby my vision of a US collapse in maybe 2 - 5 decades or so..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is some discussion of nationalism/super/internationalism/globalisation throughout the west, but most do not seem willing to abandon their national ties any time soon.

And certainly most are not 'seeing through' their national divides (unfortunatly)

Nationalism is still seen as a positive force and a means of empowerment especially in people feeling oppressed or attacked people.

As such i do not believe nationalism is in much danger of collapse. In fact i think that enforced (or rushed) globalisation can fan the flames of nationalism. If a nation feels under threat from globalisation, its sense of national identity will thrive, something more eager internationalists seem not to realise(and so they have screwed it up).

The best way to create a truly globalised, peaceful world is to let nationalism slowly die out and very gradually faze in a supernational sense of identity instead.

But i think the walls between people are still too great (not least language) for an international identity to truly emerge.<span id='postcolor'>

I think its far too late to stop globalisation now, or it could rather never be stopped. I agree to 100% that it should not be rushed (as should'nt anything be. Just look at the radical feminism...), but the outcome of a great big global war now would be very bad for a positive globalisation, at best! It might even be the end of mankind. Therefore mine, and many others, big concern about this 'war on terrorism'.

And we will probably not for several thousand years develop a "international identity", but we will be able to enjoy living in 'cultural borderlands' for sure - where one belongs to all cultures and, almost, none. Im very sure that humans do not need a common enemy to unite them, by nature!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"All these detainings without trials and ridiculously increased powers for the law-enforcement, the making of a police state. I'd say this is Osama's greatest victory."

There is some truth to this, but i do not believe this was >precisely< Al Quaidas aim.... certainly to make Americans live in fear - of which that is a result.

But the point is, Americans are swallowing this as the price of safety... there is not real widespread opposition to this, at least certainly not to a degree that would fragment the nation.

Also it can be exaggerated. For example Japan is something of a police state even without terrorism .The ability to hold people for almost 2 weeks without charge in terrible conditions, all non-Japanese must carry passport at all times etc

and almost noone makes a fuss of this.

<span id='postcolor'>

I recon that the aim of the terrorists behind 9/11 was primary to make USA act exactly as they did in Afganistan (or even less sucessful of course). So that there would be no doubt among the majority of our planets population that USA is a bad/evil nation (the symphaty quota for the dead of 9/11 is probably almost non existant when compared to the hatered for many of USA:s earlier and present weakly - or not at all - globally justified actions). If USA continues to expand the war on terrorism new terror organisations will pop up everywhere in the world, based on the aim to crush USA. USA is not popular globally as it is, and will not improve their relation to most people internationally by military force.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 17 2002,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is some truth to this, but i do not believe this was >precisely< Al Quaidas aim.... certainly to make Americans live in fear - of which that is a result.

But the point is, Americans are swallowing this as the price of safety... there is not real widespread opposition to this, at least certainly not to a degree that would fragment the nation.

Also it can be exaggerated. For example Japan is something of a police state even without terrorism .The ability to hold people for almost 2 weeks without charge in terrible conditions, all non-Japanese must carry passport at all times etc. and almost noone makes a fuss of this.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt that the cutback of liberties in U.S. was Osama's goal, but it was nevertheless his greatest victory. I doubt he understands it though.

Anyway, the beauty of it is that Americans are swallowing it as the price of safety and it is definitely not fragmenting the nation.

Also, I'm not bashing U.S., don't get me wrong. I know that many many nations have it worse, like Japan. BTW, you did know that Japanese police has a very good track record of solving crimes?

What really ticks me off is the degeneration of civil rights as a process. You'll have this state with liberties and then a minor events strikes. As a backlash, you have huge reduction of civil rights, accepted by the population because of safety reasons. Now, try getting the liberties back when the danger passes: Not going to happen.

The irony is: States with liberties are not nearly as safe as police states. Yet, we do not want to live in a police state or do we? But politicians want to, it gives them more power.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 17 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If USA continues to expand the war on terrorism new terror organisations will pop up everywhere in the world, based on the aim to crush USA. USA is not popular globally as it is, and will not improve their relation to most people internationally by military<span id='postcolor'>

bull. The U.S has established good relations with alot of nations since the 9/11 incident. example:

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=54742

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Indeed, the situation and local opinion varies throughout the world and changes with the particular circumstances

The idea that 'the world hates the USA' is ludicrous as i have said all along.

Just as it would be ludicrous to say 'the world hates the British empire' during the 19th century

You can find people with good opinion of a thing and with bad, with positive experiences of glabalisation and with bad.

If bridges and schools are built and a few grain sacks dished out,if they are removed from fear, then people will smile and laugh

But if bombs fall in their town or there are unwanted tanks on

their street corners, then they will frown and shout angrily

people dont tend to care about 'background' so much as they care about what they can see with their own eyes.