Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (118909)	11/7/2003 1:46:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I was pre-disposed to disagree with Pipes, (since he is a Bush appointee), but, after reading a couple of articles by him, I find myself agreeing with much, and taking seriously all, of what he says. Even when he doesn't have the right answers, he asks the right questions. Good for you. Pipes is worth reading, even when you disagree. 1. How do you deal with a shame-based culture armed with nuclear weapons? 2. How do you defeat the guerrilla war that Muslim shame-based nations will wage, whenever they suffer a defeat/occupation in conventional war? Good questions. I will add a third, 3. How do you negotiate disputes with a shame-based culture when they read any approach to compromise as weakness? I don't think any of these questions have good answers, except a long-range one - get the shame-based culture to become a guilt-based culture. We have historical examples of this happening. The Germans changed quite a bit in the last 80 years. Going further back, you could argue that the influence of Socrates and his disciples tipped Athenian culture from shame- to guilt-based. I think that introducing democracy into the region, so that people have more of a stake in their own lives and governments, is a big part of the answer too. Short term, the only working answer that the guilt-based cultures have found is to match ferocity with even greater ferocity. As the article pointed out, even shame based cultures give up on guerilla struggles if they conceive that they are up against an overpowering and implacable enemy. It's not so shameful to yield to such an enemy as that. That's why my biggest worry about the US troops in Iraq is that they will be too restrained, and leave the whole conflict to stretch out and fester. Another reason for training the Shia and the Kurds; if someone has to crush the insurgents, better it be the new Iraqi army.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (118909)	11/8/2003 12:57:33 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Mercy, a willingness to compromise, is often interpreted as weakness. Gandhi recognized this problem, that if pacifism was adopted out of weakness and cowardice, it would lead to defeat and permanent subjugation. He said: "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." His solution is that mercy and might must go together. Either one, alone, will fail. How do you display might while displaying mercy? Implementation is really a bitch. Gandhi had very particular circumstances to hand, where he could use popular support for displays of non-violent might. Did Gandhi offer any ideas about how America should have responded to Pearl Harbor?