The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Surrender our critical thinking > Comments

Surrender our critical thinking : Comments

By Jeff Schubert, published 25/9/2006

The similar psychology of supporters of Bush and Saddam

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“In short, people most anxious to believe in a “highly involved” god - in spite of a complete lack of evidence that any sort of god exists at all - also want to believe in Bush [Mohammed/ Jesus?]. They are very ready to surrender their own critical thinking to an authority figure, be it a god or a man.” – Good point.

Extend this also to its logical conclusion, “People are generally fearful, gullible and ever-willing to believe in a saviour. It is ironic, and even terrifying (for a rational mind, perhaps even more terrifying than terrorists) to think that - psychologically at least - Bush’s strongest supporters are also those who may have most favourably looked upon Saddam Hussein.”
Posted by relda, Monday, 25 September 2006 9:48:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am fascinated by the relationship between Howard and Bush, and by the ties that seem to bind our governments and economies.

Fear and gain indeed.

It is no longer a secret that the Bush Whitehouse and the present US Congress are the most criminally corrupt in the history of the United States. So much so, that the world is in mortal peril. In my opinion it is far worse than at the height of the cold war.

Which brings me to the relationship between our two countries.

Did Howard join us to the war-for-profit gang out of fear or did he gamble on a nett gain? Did we have any say in it? What might have happened had we refused? We know what the sly-boys do to recalcitrant leaders - history is littered with their bodies. Their country's economies are plundered in broad daylight.

Of course Bush himself is only a sock-puppet for something larger and more rapacious, although he and his family members have been compensated by enormous financial gains over the last five years.

I have this feeling that there is no honour amongst thieves, and that the actions of our government have only served to throw the pit-bull another bone.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 25 September 2006 10:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following article is interesting because it shows the naiveté of meddling and interfering with a culture prematurely – or perhaps at all.

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20470333-601,00.html

The entry into Iraq only hastened the current terrorist threat – there was no action to be taken that would have reversed nor eliminated it.
Posted by relda, Monday, 25 September 2006 10:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hahahaha. I love it.

Totally agree, though I rather suspect there's going to be a person or two who would like to express their disagreement. Should be interesting.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 25 September 2006 11:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In short, people most anxious to believe in a “highly involved” god - in spite of a complete lack of evidence that any sort of god exists at all - also want to believe in Bush. They are very ready to surrender their own critical thinking to an authority figure, be it a god or a man.' quotes Schubert .

And he says: 'There is an almost wilful blindness to reality in this attitude which leads to extreme gullibility. In spite of a complete lack of evidence - once again.....' [there is no god]

Can this really be so? I challenge the question on a numerical/imperical, rational basis. I hope to get the point across in breif.

Analyzing Religion is like analyzing Evolution. Scientific rationalism attempting to reduce the numbers soon de-equates (de-constructs) the scientific existance of man in both cases. So where does that leave the question? Well consider the following -presumably- well known fact. The bible (God) challenges us to get to know/find him, right? But ask yourself this: Do i seek to find the existance of (a) God? What is your answer? Add yourself to all the other people who answer Yes or No, and total the number. Is the number greater for Yes than No? The answer to this question places u where you belong (no offence). Next, divide the number of people who dispute the existence of God, from those who don't.

Using this number, add to it both the amount of received wisdom of the 'Nay' answer, plus all the qualitative/quantitative/imperi-rational research that supports this view. Then, subtract that from the 'Yay' figure, and there is your answer. Of course, it is highly negative, but completely un-academic.

So now we can ask the question, and prove the answer -but not the question: Is there a God?
Posted by Gadget, Monday, 25 September 2006 11:34:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo and here I was thinking our Australian spirit lacked critical thought, content to be lead.

May I add that in addition to gain, fear for position and trust, there is another fear itself.

Herman Goering, a world one fighter ace decorated for bravery and instigator of the concentration camps in the second, is said to have said:
HERMAN GOERING
“ of course the people don’t want war. But after all it’s the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to tell them is they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the Country to greater danger.”

Does this sound familiar to recent happening, from the black hole, children overboard, terrorists amongst illegal immigrants, war with Afghanistan and then Iraq, interest rates, native title? Sure I am stretching a bit for only two wars are mentioned but these days as you can have a "war on terror", (your own defintion) surely a war on; rates, illegal entry, deficits, people who throw children overboard,native title, is okay
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't the Bible say something about Jesus wanting the Sheep (on his right) and not the Goats (on his left). Sheep don't think for themselves.

Although interesting the article assumes that their is a god, ranging from an interventionist god through to the creator of the Laws of Physics. What would atheists have to say about blindly following?
Posted by Narcissist, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said and an excellent post.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp. People who are willing to surrender rational thought and blindly believe in something as irrational as religion will also be more willing to do the same when fawning over Bush et al.

If you can blindly believe one in the face of confounding evidence to the contrary, it makes sense that blindly believing the other in the face of all evidence will be much easier also.
Posted by Daniel06, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:09:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bush/Cheney regime is in many ways unique to history. But in other ways Cheney is just another despot. (Bush is only the face of this regime I beleive)

Make no bones about it, Bush/Cheney are theocratic dictators. They have the support of millions in America, but definatley not the majority.

Lets not beat around the Bush, they were not elected democratically, in 2000 OR 2004.

Holding bogus elections is nothing new, but world leaders from all over the globe refer to Bush as 'the democratically elected leader', he is not, and the fact that he is acknowledged as such is very strange.

Corruption is rife in the Bush admin and the bill of rights and the constitution have been radically watered down since his coronation.

Maybe things will change in 2008, but I think the last 6 years may have just been the beginning of the end.
Posted by Carl, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good for you, Jeff Schubert. About time we had a bit of real psychology, combined with good common sense. Good stuff so far from most of our contributors also. As an oldie origionally from the bush also always remember advice from my stepfather, my own father dying not long after WW1.

My second father was a hard bastard if ever there was one, gave orders in the summertime, make sure your waterbag lasts all day because I don't want to see you knock off till after sundown.

Went to country school with kids from both Irish as well as a German family, both families not standing up for God save the King before the monthly flicks in the town. Bit of a flare up about it at the school on Monday. Took the row home, but the old man, as we called him, surprised us. Just don't make a song and dance about it, he swore, remember they're our neighbours.

It made us think differently about things, sorta not taking sides so much but tossing things around in the mind.

While studying in retirement, got very interested in a book by Geoffrey Searle, called From Deserts the Prophets Come, which Searle like Socrates encourages us to study hard, take interest in the great thinkers, and let it all sink in. Still got the book.

You are so right, Jeff, but the overhead or deep depth view as you have expressed, in today's global situation can be sometimes expressed by our leaders as unpatriotic. If you are not with us, you are against us, says GW Bush, as well as just lately, our own Peter Costello. Yes, it is a worry.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 25 September 2006 4:16:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeff

I think your article was spot on.

The media are as guilty or even more so in surrendering their critical thinking.
We are constantly exposed to government press releases which are released as news without any question from the media.
Goering had it worked out (the politics of fear) and this is working well for the Howard government. Many Australians think that Saddam posed a threat to Australia, and do not even remember the reason Howard first gave for invading Iraq or ask what happened to all the WMD's.

I think that until we start using our critical thinking abilities then we will continue to live in a 1984 (George Orwell) environment of permanent war and fear.

The fact that there have been so many favourable comments on your article show that some people are thinking instead of just believing.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 25 September 2006 4:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'showed that 32 per cent of people who believed in a god which was “highly involved in their daily lives and world affairs” also trusted Bush “a lot”. The researchers called this type of god “authoritarian”.

The study also identified three other categories of god: “benevolent”, “critical” and “distant”. The “benevolent” god “is very active in our daily lives” but less so in the affairs of the world than the “authoritarian” god, and less wrathful: only 23 per cent of believers in such a god trusted Bush “a lot”. Only 12 per cent of people who believed in a god that “really does not interact with the world” - a “critical” god - trusted Bush a lot; and the figure was only 9 per cent for those who saw god as “distant”, more as a “cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion”.

In short, people most anxious to believe in a “highly involved” god - in spite of a complete lack of evidence that any sort of god exists at all - also want to believe in Bush. They are very ready to surrender their own critical thinking to an authority figure, be it a god or a man'
Lol. Surrendering our critical thinking would be to believe this article. Race is a much more significant factor in whether someone 'trusts Bush a lot', but I don't see the author lamenting that fact. Note also the phrase 'people most anxious'. The rhetoric continues.
(note also, that only 53%, not 63% of the Authoritarian God types believed Saddam was involved in 9-11.)

Of course, the author is obviously an atheist peddling their own lack of rationality as 'critical thinking'. Pop psychology and confusing correlation with causation does not make you a clear thinker. What it does make you is a propagandist who is big on rhetoric, but small on reason.
Posted by Alan Grey, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article.

In my experience it isn't just religeous people either, basically, everyone at some point, gives up trying to make sense of all the conflicting information, opinions and complexity which the world presents and ultimately chooses to 'trust' some source. It's a natural consequence of living in a world which is so damned complicated.

Most of the people congratulating the writer on this article are of the left and are probably thinking this 'voluntary blind faith' applies particularly to Bush supporters (to which the author refers), but it's just as true on the left. Bying into all the anti-US conspiracy theories, which are as unsupported by real evidence as some of the wacky stuff in the Bush camp is just as bad.

The truth, for those prepared to admit it, is we (ie ordinary people wholely removed from the decision making process) don't know the truth. Maybe Bush went to war because he thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, maybe he went to war because he thought he could make a bunch of money, maybe because he thought securing the oil was in the US best interest, maybe he was just plain annoyed that Saddam had outlasted his dad at the top, probably there were multiple motivations. At best the evidence is inconclusive for any of the theories I've yet heard, and anyone who believes one theory over another is being as stupid as those who believe in bush because they 'want to.'

My tip, be suspicious of anyone who has solid answers as to why things are the way they are
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:30:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Untutored Mind,

I note your quotation of HG, "Voice or no voice people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to tell them is they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the Country to greater danger.”

Certainly it could be that the whole 9/11 thing is a cunning plot to drag the people to a war so they can be manipulated as you suggest. Alternately, it could be that America was in fact attacked, in which case the US response, looks a whole lot more reasonable. Of course, I don't know the answer with certainty but I did see, on the TV, the internet, dozens of newspapers, from numerous countries, a large commercial airliner being flown into one of the World Trade Centre towers, followed by the video admission of Osama and the celebrations on the streets of Gaza/The West Bank. Though I concede it's possible the American government dummied up the whole thing, I was left with the general impression the Americans were actually under attack.

In that light, Americans wanting to go to war and condemning pacifists as lacking patriotism, even their general paranoia and aggression, seems understandable if not righteous.

Perhaps wars are convenient for leaders for the reasons outlined in the article, (and observed by Herman Goering all those years ago) but it doesn't logically follow that all wars are created by the leaders who benefit from them.
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I have "sinned". The numbers re Iraq which I posted are for those who "agree that Iraq War is justified". The numbers for "agree that Hussein involved in 9/11" are 54%, 44%, 32% and 24%. My apologies, but the point remains: the decline is dramatic!
Posted by Jeff Schubert, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeff,
touche'!

Paul_of_Melb
Posted by Paul_of_Melb, Monday, 25 September 2006 7:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin there is one problem the Memorandum is dated July 2002 pre 9/11.
According to some authors 9/11 gave the final excuse.
The reasons for 9/11 range from own goal, “Blowback”, (Chalmers Johnson”s book ) to Saddam to Saudi Arabian Al Queda.
Eventually the truth may emerge.

A more interesting question is how the coterie of people lying their way to their desires be it refurbishment of past glories, American protection or Hubris allowing thoughts of the American Century to seem a reality, managed to gain such a hold over the democratic populace, even if a sizeable minority initially opposed the war?

This is the question Seymour Hersh asks in Chain of Command 9/11 to Abu Graib.
“How did they overcome the bureaucracy intimidate the press mislead congress and dominate the military“?

I think it goes something like the following. Knowledge can counter engendered fear at least to the extent it places the issues in perspective. The media for whatever reason failed to inform us correctly, pushing Governments spin- The Washington Post has admitted such.

How and why the media took the stand they did is a question further along the line. Note however the spin is still on, still trying to make people react to the immediate, as well perhaps as having news relating to matters concerning them directly and about which people might be able to do something.

On spin the Islamic (Islamo Fascist in the words of our treasurer) readings the weekend headlines and inner pages should convince one.

May I suggest first if you have not already done so give up trusting, do your own research. Start perhaps with the reasons given by Muslim academics for the ’crusade’ the West seems to be pursuing.
http://72.14.235.104/search? Perhaps.
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 7:46:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me get this straight. Your article is sub-titled
"The similar psychology of supporters of Bush and Saddam"
and the strongest connection you can get is that some people who believe in God are more likely to have accepted Saddam was linked to 9-11.
No data on where they got this idea. No relationship between 25 years of Saddam's brutal repression and Bush's administration.

Perhaps your idea of critical thinking is not as critical as you think. That you are willing to try and cast everything in a bash Bush, bash religion light, fitting in with your pre-conceived bias, shows a marked lack of critical thinking.
Posted by Alan Grey, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 8:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now it seems we are having an interesting balanced discussion, which OLO should be all about.

As an oldie without much early education, who now believes he can argue from both sides, also now looks back and wonders how he agreed with possibly typical Aussies, who not only called our Aborigines either no-gooders or not yet out of the trees, but also called Middle East Arabs, other ones who had just lost their f' en way.

Possibly now still caught between two fires, one to stay loyal to the nation, whoever is in power, and a different reasoning these days, so much harder to quell.

Having studied history thoroughly right back to the ancient Greeks, and only remembering the Bible through a thoughtful mother, as about God's gift of a Promised Land, and getting rid of some awful people who did not believe in God.

But our dear mother also told us that Jesus came on the earth not only to save us, but also to tell us that God is not really so cruel as in the Old Testament.

It is interesting that as one studies more in his own age, he is more likely to go back to a Jesus Meek and Mild mixed up a bit with Socratic reasoning than take Christianity through all the politics and spin that most of our denominations seemed to be based on.

With all the study it also leaves one wondering where true justice lies in our world today, the one formerly held through shot and shell, now with missiles and gone nuclear, or one attained simply through thoughts of forgiveness like with Mandela in South Africa, rather than nasty religous reminders about people who in all truth are just mentally and physically blocking our way, and yet in the eyes of a forgiving God as the young Jesus taught, might be justified in calling us intruders.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 1:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalim I hope you are still folowing this thread.
My apolgies of course 9/11/2001 precedes July 2002. Sorry.
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 5:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/weekinreview/24hakim.html?ex=1316750400&en=f5d4309bed17c084&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Anti Bush people obviously are highly correlated with conspiracy nuts. Showing a similar psychology to Iran's leader who denies the holocaust and wants to nuke Israel out of existence.

See how easy it is to do? Such a pathetic and pointless way to discuss things.
Posted by Alan Grey, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 10:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan, sorry to differ, but there is a scientific study based on Bismarkian Realpoliik. Not that Bismarck wasn't ruthless when need be, but it has been said by world historians that if Bismarck had been in charge of Germany just before 1914, WW1 would never have started.

Further, as WW2 is said to have been caused by the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany through the harsh treatment of Germany resulting from the Treaty of Versailles, certain looney lefties, as many academics are now termed by a few of our group, are saying that the worst thing that the US let happen, as regards Realpolitik, was to help little Israel go nuclear. In fact, Islamic resentment over an atomic Israel, could have caused the tragedy of 9/11.

Carrying on with the science of Realpolitik, we are now left with the possibility of letting Iran go nuclear in order to balance atomic Israel, which maybe even Putin of Russia thinks about.

Remember these ex-Soviets were involved so much in a matching nuclear power situation with the US during the Cold War.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 1:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few important pointers on critical thinking:

· True critical thinking is higher-order thinking, enabling a person to, for example, responsibly judge between political candidates, serve on a murder trial jury, evaluate society's need for nuclear power plants, and assess the consequences of global warming.

· Critical thinking is not being able to process information well enough to know to stop for red lights or whether you received the correct change at the supermarket.

· Critical thinking is scientific thinking.

· Critical thinking can be described as the scientific method applied by ordinary people to the ordinary world.

· Children are not born with the power to think critically, nor do they develop this ability naturally beyond survival-level thinking.
· Critical thinking is a learned ability that must be taught.

Humans are conditioned from birth to follow authority figures and not to question their pronouncements. Parents and teachers reinforce us through conditioning using a wide variety of postive and negative techniques. Most individuals reach adulthood in this conditioned form. The result of such conditioning is the antithesis of both scientific investigation and critical thinking: individuals often lack both curiosity and the skills to perform independent inquiry to discover reliable knowledge. Most in fact, from post-kindergarten, can be likened to sheep. Someone earlier has mentioned the ‘clever’ goat, nay, statistically at least, there are few who can ascribe themselves this clever rank – the world in fact has only room for very few critical thinkers, the rest just follow.

The implication of Iran going nuclear needs to be pondered critically. The reasons should be obvious
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 3:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looks like your critical thinking theory has put Realpolitik or power balance theory out of date, Relda.

Certainly this has been talked about also. And the only way to put power balance theory out of date, is to have one power so arrogant it knows it is safe to break all the rules.

The Roman Empire felt safe to break all the rules, Relda, as colonial Britain broke all the rules and stayed safe - as America believes she is so very very safe being not only respectably unipolar, but with more atomic weaponry than the rest of the world put together.

The tragic side of it, unfortunately, is that it could be said that while you and I can critically discuss power balance theory, the US has become so naive it believes it is so powerful there is no need to discuss such problems, as she did with her attack on Iraq, as well as letting Israel go atomic.

What we are on about here, Relda, is all about causes which our future historians will dwell upon. That is of course, if such historians are not qietened down or locked up, as Mr Costello has intimated just lately
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 6:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Historians have noted the “lifting of the veil” in 1973, where the nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles were wheeled out of their secret silos in Israel to ward off Egypt and Syria. A panic situation in Washington saw the shipment of conventional arms to Israel to prevent a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs.

These are merely the facts Bushbred (have spent years in the bush myself – not born under a she-oak though). The “ambiguity” policy of Israel will no doubt change in response to Iran gaining nuclear capability.

Like America, Iran spins its own form of deceit. It is the world's fourth largest oil exporter and says its nuclear programme is for energy needs alone. There is speculation that Ahmadinejad might welcome an apocalyptic confrontation, meaning the idea of any deterrent would not work.

The chess board is far more advanced than we might imagine.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 7:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice critical thinking, as expressed in the article by Schubert, and in the comments by bushbred, relda and others above.

It's good to read some gentle, direct and rational ideas - as distinct from the waspish and intemperate rants we get from some of the 'usual supects' who seem to swarm around certain issues in these forums.

Schubert makes some very salient points that resonate well with what many of us have known for a long time. That these are uncomfortable for some only reinforces their veracity.

Get rid of the theologians and bring back the humanists. Then we all might have a prayer.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:22:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred,

You have a sharp mind for someone of your age, I really hope that I maintain my interest in International affairs right up untill Im 80, i think its great.

My interest at the moment spawns from genuine concern for my future, I am only 22, and i always thought I was living in a great age, but the past 5 years seem to have sent the world back about 10 steps.

The Cheney regime is incredibly arrogant, its like they have never read a history book in their life. They might have all the guns in the world but 'full spectrum dominance' can never work, people will never accept it.

America has too many internal problems to be so outward focused, people talk about China or the Middle East as the next major battleground, but I fear the next major battles could be waged within the US itself, their country has been hijacked by extremists, and I dont think they will put up with it forever.

Anyway, thanks for wise posts Bushbred.
Posted by Carl, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:45:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The result of an ideology is to often bring about a result at all costs.
The Roman historian Tacitus had the British chieftain Calgacus declaim before a battle with the invading Romans: "They make a desert, and they call it peace." – sounds familiar.

There seems deep ambiguity toward seeking a just world – those on ‘left’ often miss this with simplistic remonstration, whilst those on the ‘right’ merely show martial pronouncement. If we are to get to to the nub, is there a certain given justice that may actually require sacrifice – whether it be personal or other?

“International morality is weak because international society is fractured. Powerful states are generally `satisfied powers' which uphold the status quo. The weak are revisionists, agitators who seek change. Common to both is the task of devising an agreed world order, which is thus invested with legitimacy.

Harmony in the national order is achieved by this blend of morality and power. In the international order, the role of power is greater and that of morality less. When self-sacrifice is attributed to an individual, the sacrifice may or may not be purely voluntary. When self-sacrifice is attributed to a state, the chances are greater that this alleged self-sacrifice will turn out on inspection to be a forced submission to a stronger power. Yet, even in international relations, self-sacrifice is not altogether unknown... .” Frontline India, Jan 2006
Posted by relda, Thursday, 28 September 2006 4:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think there has been a lot of good points made; and I'm very glad to have helped facilitate this. The moderate, balanced view so often gets drowned out by accusative tags such as "left", "right", "progressive", "liberal", "conservative" etc, that I think "moderates" (and I think that, overall, I am one) need to be more aggressive in putting their views -- a case for a new category of "aggressive moderation"??!!
Posted by Jeff Schubert, Thursday, 28 September 2006 6:55:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHILDREN must be allowed to grow up and develop in an environment of care and respect, not constant concern and anxiety!

Intergenerational Change. What does it mean?

What does this say for the "Emotional Life of Nations"?

Try Lloyd deMause, whose depth on pycho-history is riverting.

http://www.primal-page.com/godwin2.htm

And from here, who knows perhaps it is to gaze closely at Australia's role, by critically doing something about it.

ie: The constant exposure of children to such violence ought to worry everyone. (meinmuk!)

According to UNICEF, school attendance rates in Iraq have fallen to roughly 65 per cent as many parents do not consider it safe enough to send their children to school.

A report issued by Iraq's education ministry earlier this year stated that 64 children had been killed and 57 injured in 417 attacks on schools within a four-month period. More than 47 youngsters were kidnapped on their way to or from school in the same period.

The report also noted that 311 teachers and government employees had been killed and another 158 wounded in attacks.

We only need to reference organisations like reliefweb to find the impact war has on children, and their families;

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6TM4GU?OpenDocument

As the article states, in Iraq there are few institutions and doctors in Iraq trained to treat the children of war, so parents often have no one to turn to for help if they recognise the symptoms of trauma, which include lack of initiative, anxiety, insomnia, poor concentration and bedwetting.

Psychiatrists are rare and none exist at all who specialise in children's mental health.

We surrender these children to war while we fail to communicate on conditions in human survival.

What we are asking these young people to prepare for, as adults, is unreasonable.

This a critical and addresses the way we run the world.

http://www.miacat.com
Posted by miacat, Friday, 29 September 2006 12:05:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I can't add much to this and hold back the urge to flame most of you.
But Alan Grey is 100% on this .
Jeff needs to reboot and start again.
Posted by T800, Friday, 29 September 2006 12:07:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to be human nature that people don't like to be TOLD what to do. An invitation to participate, now that's a different matter and is naturally underpinned by respect.

Of course, to succeed (to secure general participation/involvement), a presented idea must appeal to common sense, and generally be seen to progress to an obvious common/shared good.

Dictatorial policy enforcement will always meet, in the end, at least equal resistance and people will feel they are only spinning around the same circles, rather than truly making progress.
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 29 September 2006 10:01:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Possibly a Dangerous Example of Critical Thinking

Needed Changing of the Unipolar Guard - Based on extracts from the Guardian

The US and its allies have disappointed its thinking public so much through underestimating situations like Iraq as well as of the capabilities of underground organisations like Al Quaida, it is becoming hard to accept the meagre list of our allied capabilities or credentials.

Poor judgment by our leaders has multiplied anti-Western terrorism to the point that we must admit that we can only win possibly with the help of Israel by forced capitulation of Iran and Syria through pattern bombing - leaving us wondering what sides Russia and China might take, and maybe India, and even Pakistan in the long run.

What has become a problem in today’s world, is that a dismaying number of people who admired the US, especially back in the days of the Keynesian-sponsored Marshall Plan, etc, are now changing their opinions. Indeed, going by reports it seems the US and Britain are playing the same old colonial double-game, with too many troops under orders to guard oilfields rather than organising some sort of democratic peace for the Arabic population.

US vice President Dick Cheney, as well as other White House members having undercover major oil company interests certainly doesn’t help the situation.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 30 September 2006 6:43:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred Part Two

Possibly more problematic are the US President’s rather dull remarks about freedom for all, reminiscent too much of British colonialist Land of Hope and Glory - Mother of the Free. Both the US and the UK must surely realise that ME Muslims did not come down in the last shower. Their grand-parents must surely have told truthful tales about Western imperialism and injustice, ever since Lawrence of Arabia was double-crossed just after WW1.

And even if our allies have tried to act more truthful - according to the newspaper article, unfortunately, there is little hope now of rebuilding the trust of non-Middle East Muslims or even of most global non-Muslims.

Finally, historians are saying that time is definitely not on our side, the leaking of our own advancing technology, will surely bring close the threat of a mini-nuclear bomb in a haversack - to be set off simply by pressing the button of a mobile phone.

Surely it is time our leaders left off thinking about missile diplomacy and pattern bombing, and thought more about the simple wisdom of a Gandhi, or a Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader able to organise a peaceful end to the Cold War, with an arrangement for the new Russia to retain most of its nuclear arsenal as part of the bargain.

Or better and safer still, the perceptivity and common sense that helped Nelson Mandela calm down possibly the most arrogant elitist group of people to be found in modern times. The South African arparthaidists who also practised state terrorism, so much like the Nazis. Even the former Pope gave praise to Mandela, but not our new Pope, unfortunately
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 30 September 2006 6:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Touché ! Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Ataturk, Mussolini and Mao were - like Saddam Hussein - highly intelligent, skilful, ruthless, possessed of enormous will power and self-belief, and (when they wanted to be) charming men. But it was the people around them who surrendered their own independence who enabled these men to realise their ambitions for power."

Hmm, sounds like Howard's Way to me.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 9 October 2006 3:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy