Yes, I am serious. And I did not say "a" documentary. Just like books, there are many to choose from and you don't have to rely on just one. But of course, that would require effort you're not interested in putting in. Watch/read enough stuff from different sources and you start to distinguish what's factual from what is the result of the author's bias. No one is saying it will make you an expert on what happened there in the past 24 hours. But learning the history of the region will give you a better understanding of what's currently going on. As I posted earlier, feel free to be too lazy to try to educate yourself but don't make the assumption that everyone else must be as ignorant as you are. I wasn't suggesting you fly your Mooney to the Middle East, by the way. It was a general observation about travel. Oh, and I still haven't seen the Al Gore documentary.
Why does living somewhere guarantee understanding? Drive by Walmart at 10PM tonight and look around at your potential reference points. There are plenty of ways to form opinions and all have strengths and weaknesses.
Reading this article in this morning's paper it certainly appears to have some legs. In all our dealings with, and about, the Middle East we tend to forget just who, and what, we're dealing with. This is the one part of the world that holds their history in high regard to today's actions. They don't frigging forget who attacked their family, or interfered with their lives, decades or centuries, ago. http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/turmoil-blurring-mideast-borders-1.496011
It is a pathetic country, but not in the way you're thinking. There is very little, if any sense of nationalism for most of the middle east. They're allegiance does not belong to the fake countries that the west drew up after WWI, but to the tribal and religious roots that existed long before. Why would you, as an Iraqi soldier, fight and/or die for something as meaningless as the fake government propped up by the last invaders? They're not soldiers for anything more than a meager paycheck - a paycheck that they can't even rely on all the time.
Oh I don't blame those Iraqi soldiers at all. I feel bad for those poor guys. A lot of the ones who dropped their weapons and ran were captured and massacred. The fact that there is no Iraqi nationalism is why that country is going to die. I think Afghanistan might even be in better shape than Iraq vis a vis national spirit. Without a Saddam like strongman that country is going to dissolve just like Yugoslavia.
Another "made up" country that never would have existed in the first place without superpower intervention.
Whatchu talkin' bout Willis!? The concept of united Slavs emerged in the 17th century, it was a movement that slowly grew and was one of the primary reason for Archduke Ferdinands assassination. Austro-hungarian empire oppressed a large number of ethnic people. Yes, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia officially came into existence in 1918 with help of UK and France delegations, but it was a joint volunteer effort from three sides. In the end, you guys have a much worse, FORCED unity of states than Yugoslavia ever did. The only thing that killed it was the rise of Nationalistic based politicians in Serbia and Croatia during the power grab in the vacuum of Tito's death. During my childhood you were a Yugoslavian, no-one ever mentioned Serb, Croat or Muslim backgrounds....Once the nationalist parties got in power and poisoned the minds of the people, everyone started identifying themselves by their religious backgrounds (Which is hilarious cuz no-one was religious during the Socialist times).
You are right: Immediate Family first Extended Family second Tribe/Town Region Add the mix of religious persuasion (Shiite, Sunni, and level of commitment) to the above and you'll have the basis of why a western based, even multiparty democracy won't work. This seems to persist for sure, making it harder for those looking to have reconciliation...
That is conservative. Somehow we've been corrupted to think liberal interventionism is actually a conservative mantra. It isn't. Your conservative instincts are right.
That's the problem anytime people think label first, content last. "I'm a <insert ideological label here>, therefore I am must believe <insert official affiliation's required position>.
It depends. Yes, liberals tend to be interventionist, but conservatives tend to be hawkish, so both are just as likely to be warmongers. It just goes to show that anymore, it's just two heads of the same snake.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I used that example to illustrate the general idea. I wasn't commenting on Orvis' foreign policy.
The GOP sells the country on being "Hawkish". But they also call pushing Christian morality into law as being conservative. I disagree that either are conservative. I don't think the Tea Party or Libertarian parties would exist if the GOP was truly conservative.
Conservative has developed two definitions. There are Christian Conservatives (the popular definition) who want Christian religious values pushed on to everyone, and there are Constitutional Conservatives (the original definition) who believe that government should be limited and should strictly follow the constitution.
I'd add Fiscal Conservatives to the list. Social conservatives and constiutional conservatives have little in common except the same party. How such a contradiction in party platform can exist is beyond me. But the GOP will placate as much as possible to keep the base together in hopes of gaining/maintaining power. I'm not sure anybodies interest is being served besides the politicians though.
According to the local talk radio that I sometimes make the mistake of listening to we should be going back into Afghanistan and Iraq and kicking ass and taking names. They seem to think that we can win and create a wonderful Democratic state out of those people even if it takes an eternity. That's where I get the idea that leaving that part of the world to their own devices is a liberal idea. Also, since that seems to be Obama's goal it must be liberal. Doesn't that make sense?
It makes sense if you believe labels determine what people are supposed to think on every issue. Exactly the point of my post.
That is something I certainly agree with. I also agree that war minded individuals can come from both parties depending on the political advantages. In fact, I've always been of the idea that a real conservative would take the approach that when a conflict with another country reared it's head that conservative would give a lot of thought about solving the problem without fisticuffs. It's certainly the religious side of the Republican party that has decided that their religious ideas need to be "witnessed" to the rest of the world even if the rest of the world isn't interested. Maybe that's part of the problem. The Christian faith continues to send a ton of missionaries to countries that do not practice Christianity and maybe it causes a lot of the political strife that we face. People just love to interfere in the lives of someone else.
