Сергей Забугорный
02-23-2005, 10:10 AM
... смеётся тот кто паранджу не снимает. Перо ему с пожеланием добра. Не в обиду сказано. :twisted:
(Из под паранджи)
В продолжение увядшего было разговора и в связи с приездом вашего главного гангстера в Европу «замиряться» решил вывесить здесь у вас ответ моего американского друга, коренного техасца. Для контраста, так сказать. Я уже давно получил его, но ведь Бог велел делиться с ближним, вот я и внял его призыву. Лучше поздно, чем never. Такой «крутой антиамериканщины» я уже давно ни от кого не слышал, а самокритика всегда похвальна. Впрочем, „думайте сами, решайте сами» - соглашаться с ним или нет. Переводить я не стал, оставил как есть. По прежнему опыту знаю, что кое-кто на этом форуме ещё слабоват в английском, но уж пардоньте.
Ответ очень большой – почти 3 убористых страницы. Так что, я разобью его на две части. Если кому лень читать длинный анализ, лучше и не начинать. Пока всё. Если будут интересные комментарии, присылайте - отвечу и «за себя и за того парня» (кстати, этому «парню» уже за 60, так что определённый жизненный опыт у него имеется), а на «базарные разборки», как в прошлый раз, у меня нет времени...
Лучшие перешлю дальше автору. Правда, по-русски он не читает, так что, пожалуйста, на английском или же русском - я переведу, если аргументация покажется мне интересной. Только, пожалуйста, грамотно - другого я не понимаю и не принимаю.
Сергей Забугорный
Hi Sergej,
Yes, you may quote me on anything I've said about the US election results. I hope people elsewhere in the world realize that not all Americans are like Bush. Forty nine percent of the voters voted against Bush. Even in Texas there were a lot of Kerry supporters. Travis County, which is largely the City of Austin, voted 62 percent for Kerry.
I was disgusted by the election results. It's embarrassing that so many Americans are so gullible or so selfish that they would vote for Bush. I've never voted for Bush Junior (I voted for his daddy once). I have voted against the current Bush twice for Texas governor and twice for president. I've done my ineffective part to stop the stupid, closed-minded jerk.
There are quite a few policies of the Bush Administration that I and millions of other Americans don't like at all.
1. I don't like the Bush Administration arrogance toward the rest of the world. All of the countries on the planet need to work together. I find it disgusting when the US government says, "This is what we intend to do and the rest of you are either with us or against us."
On the other hand, most other countries take selfish positions that are not in the best interest of the world as a whole. I can't think of a case where a country took a position that was contrary to their own economic interests unless they had made a deal to trade off one economic interest for another. Some of the positions the Bush Administration takes are just part of the economic haggling that all countries do, but I still don't like the arrogant way the Bush people do it.
2. Contrary to what the Bush Administration seems to believe, I have no confidence that democracy or freedom can be imposed by military invasion or any other form of military attack. The current US attitude of offensive military action simply legitimizes guerilla fighters. I believe armed guerilla forces can only be defeated by eliminating the support they receive from the population as a whole. I believe high-tech military attacks increase the support the civilian population gives to guerilla fighters. I can not understand why the US military doesn't understand that basic principle. That's how the US was defeated in Vietnam and in the end had to withdraw.
In the same way Israel has had no success with defeating Palestinian guerilla fighters. The Soviets certainly had the same experience in Afghanistan. The British have never defeated the Northern Ireland guerilla fighters either, but at least they have been sensible enough to not use escalating weapon sophistication to try to defeat them.
US history includes other demonstrations of the principle that guerilla fighters supported by a sizeable percentage of the population can not be defeated. It was American guerilla fighters who defeated the British army, the most powerful army in the world at that time, to win independence in the late 1700s. How many examples does the US military need to experience before they realize that sophisticated military power is powerless over a determined population. The US generals probably don't read much of the history of Britain, France and the other colonial powers of the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, but those histories show countless times that a population can not indefinitely be subjugated by superior military weapons. Didn't the Soviet Union break up similarly? I believe violence can only end when most of the people believe it's in their best interest (safety and economic) to not support guerilla fighters. The people have the final say. Those who want to stop war should work on convincing the population.
3. I believe US policy in the Middle East is entirely too one sided, but I believe it wouldn't be much different with the Democrat Party in power. I believe peace in the Middle East is only possible after the Israelis and Arabs come to terms. I believe that can occur when world powers put pressure on Israel to compromise. The US has the most power over the Israelis, but there are other world powers that could serve this role too. The European Union is also well positioned to pressure Israel to give up dogmatic positions. As long as no Western countries take a strong hand in negotiating from the Arab perspective, I see no hope for outsiders to have any influence in the Middle East. The other way peace could arise in the Middle East is if the Palestinian and Israel people became so tired of the deaths that they arose in spite of their political "leaders."
4. I'm appalled that religious fundamentalists have acquired so much power in the US. I believe the US was one of the first countries founded on the principle that government doesn't control religious institutions and religious organizations do not control the laws and courts. In other words, I thought the US Constitution assured that people of any religion were free to practice their beliefs without government interference. But in the last few decades the Christian fundamentalists of the US have entered the political arena from the local to the national level. They are not a dark conspiracy, they state their goals openly. They want to impose their beliefs by laws and court decisions onto all of the citizens of the US. I find that no different than what the Talaban did in Afghanistan and the religious leaders did in Iran 25 years ago. In fact all over the world there are people who want national boundaries to enclose only people of one "ethnic" group. Usually that means they want people only of one religion within their country. History is full of that.
Medieval kings specified what religion their subjects were to participate in. But now all progressive countries have a growing population of people who are ethnically different, whether they like it or not. I see news stories on how various countries in Western Europe are struggling to find a way to assimilate the increasing number of people from other cultures. As an American I sometimes smile smugly because that's what has been occurring in the US since wooden sailing ships first arrived with European settlers. A lot of the people who initially populated what is now the US took the risks of crossing the ocean in order to get away from the state sponsored religions of various European countries. It saddens me that the Christian fundamentalists in the US have forgotten why our ancestors left Europe and established the country several hundred years ago. I feel strongly that the freedom those ancestors risked their lives for applies to every person of every religion (as well as those without a religion) from where ever in the world his or her ancestors originated. The fundamentalists have become politically clever and sinister. They put their people onto local school boards and text book selection agencies to modify the education of young people so that they do not learn anything about other religions and cultures or about any science that they feel violates the science expressed in the Bible. So a generation of kids grows up that is ignorant of other ideas and they become voters. The fundamentalists campaign for legislators who will push laws that impose their beliefs on the rest of the population. During political campaigns they exploit the tribal instinct in humans, it's "us" against "them." They bring out little issues and make them important, to enhance the divide between "us" and "them." The uninformed hear just enough to identify with the "us" and vote against the "them." Then their politicians select judges who will interpret the Constitution in accordance with fundamental Christian beliefs. These methods aren't different than those used by Hitler, Stalin and the Talaban, except that they are doing it slower, not within the time span of one government administration. In my view, the packing of the courts with fundamentalist judges is the largest danger of the Bush Administration. There will be quite a few vacancies in the Supreme Court during these next four years. I fear that the next several decades will be dominated by Christian fundamentalist Supreme Court decisions. I fear that the American citizens will lose 50 years of progress and freedom.
Bill H
см. окончание
(Из под паранджи)
В продолжение увядшего было разговора и в связи с приездом вашего главного гангстера в Европу «замиряться» решил вывесить здесь у вас ответ моего американского друга, коренного техасца. Для контраста, так сказать. Я уже давно получил его, но ведь Бог велел делиться с ближним, вот я и внял его призыву. Лучше поздно, чем never. Такой «крутой антиамериканщины» я уже давно ни от кого не слышал, а самокритика всегда похвальна. Впрочем, „думайте сами, решайте сами» - соглашаться с ним или нет. Переводить я не стал, оставил как есть. По прежнему опыту знаю, что кое-кто на этом форуме ещё слабоват в английском, но уж пардоньте.
Ответ очень большой – почти 3 убористых страницы. Так что, я разобью его на две части. Если кому лень читать длинный анализ, лучше и не начинать. Пока всё. Если будут интересные комментарии, присылайте - отвечу и «за себя и за того парня» (кстати, этому «парню» уже за 60, так что определённый жизненный опыт у него имеется), а на «базарные разборки», как в прошлый раз, у меня нет времени...
Лучшие перешлю дальше автору. Правда, по-русски он не читает, так что, пожалуйста, на английском или же русском - я переведу, если аргументация покажется мне интересной. Только, пожалуйста, грамотно - другого я не понимаю и не принимаю.
Сергей Забугорный
Hi Sergej,
Yes, you may quote me on anything I've said about the US election results. I hope people elsewhere in the world realize that not all Americans are like Bush. Forty nine percent of the voters voted against Bush. Even in Texas there were a lot of Kerry supporters. Travis County, which is largely the City of Austin, voted 62 percent for Kerry.
I was disgusted by the election results. It's embarrassing that so many Americans are so gullible or so selfish that they would vote for Bush. I've never voted for Bush Junior (I voted for his daddy once). I have voted against the current Bush twice for Texas governor and twice for president. I've done my ineffective part to stop the stupid, closed-minded jerk.
There are quite a few policies of the Bush Administration that I and millions of other Americans don't like at all.
1. I don't like the Bush Administration arrogance toward the rest of the world. All of the countries on the planet need to work together. I find it disgusting when the US government says, "This is what we intend to do and the rest of you are either with us or against us."
On the other hand, most other countries take selfish positions that are not in the best interest of the world as a whole. I can't think of a case where a country took a position that was contrary to their own economic interests unless they had made a deal to trade off one economic interest for another. Some of the positions the Bush Administration takes are just part of the economic haggling that all countries do, but I still don't like the arrogant way the Bush people do it.
2. Contrary to what the Bush Administration seems to believe, I have no confidence that democracy or freedom can be imposed by military invasion or any other form of military attack. The current US attitude of offensive military action simply legitimizes guerilla fighters. I believe armed guerilla forces can only be defeated by eliminating the support they receive from the population as a whole. I believe high-tech military attacks increase the support the civilian population gives to guerilla fighters. I can not understand why the US military doesn't understand that basic principle. That's how the US was defeated in Vietnam and in the end had to withdraw.
In the same way Israel has had no success with defeating Palestinian guerilla fighters. The Soviets certainly had the same experience in Afghanistan. The British have never defeated the Northern Ireland guerilla fighters either, but at least they have been sensible enough to not use escalating weapon sophistication to try to defeat them.
US history includes other demonstrations of the principle that guerilla fighters supported by a sizeable percentage of the population can not be defeated. It was American guerilla fighters who defeated the British army, the most powerful army in the world at that time, to win independence in the late 1700s. How many examples does the US military need to experience before they realize that sophisticated military power is powerless over a determined population. The US generals probably don't read much of the history of Britain, France and the other colonial powers of the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, but those histories show countless times that a population can not indefinitely be subjugated by superior military weapons. Didn't the Soviet Union break up similarly? I believe violence can only end when most of the people believe it's in their best interest (safety and economic) to not support guerilla fighters. The people have the final say. Those who want to stop war should work on convincing the population.
3. I believe US policy in the Middle East is entirely too one sided, but I believe it wouldn't be much different with the Democrat Party in power. I believe peace in the Middle East is only possible after the Israelis and Arabs come to terms. I believe that can occur when world powers put pressure on Israel to compromise. The US has the most power over the Israelis, but there are other world powers that could serve this role too. The European Union is also well positioned to pressure Israel to give up dogmatic positions. As long as no Western countries take a strong hand in negotiating from the Arab perspective, I see no hope for outsiders to have any influence in the Middle East. The other way peace could arise in the Middle East is if the Palestinian and Israel people became so tired of the deaths that they arose in spite of their political "leaders."
4. I'm appalled that religious fundamentalists have acquired so much power in the US. I believe the US was one of the first countries founded on the principle that government doesn't control religious institutions and religious organizations do not control the laws and courts. In other words, I thought the US Constitution assured that people of any religion were free to practice their beliefs without government interference. But in the last few decades the Christian fundamentalists of the US have entered the political arena from the local to the national level. They are not a dark conspiracy, they state their goals openly. They want to impose their beliefs by laws and court decisions onto all of the citizens of the US. I find that no different than what the Talaban did in Afghanistan and the religious leaders did in Iran 25 years ago. In fact all over the world there are people who want national boundaries to enclose only people of one "ethnic" group. Usually that means they want people only of one religion within their country. History is full of that.
Medieval kings specified what religion their subjects were to participate in. But now all progressive countries have a growing population of people who are ethnically different, whether they like it or not. I see news stories on how various countries in Western Europe are struggling to find a way to assimilate the increasing number of people from other cultures. As an American I sometimes smile smugly because that's what has been occurring in the US since wooden sailing ships first arrived with European settlers. A lot of the people who initially populated what is now the US took the risks of crossing the ocean in order to get away from the state sponsored religions of various European countries. It saddens me that the Christian fundamentalists in the US have forgotten why our ancestors left Europe and established the country several hundred years ago. I feel strongly that the freedom those ancestors risked their lives for applies to every person of every religion (as well as those without a religion) from where ever in the world his or her ancestors originated. The fundamentalists have become politically clever and sinister. They put their people onto local school boards and text book selection agencies to modify the education of young people so that they do not learn anything about other religions and cultures or about any science that they feel violates the science expressed in the Bible. So a generation of kids grows up that is ignorant of other ideas and they become voters. The fundamentalists campaign for legislators who will push laws that impose their beliefs on the rest of the population. During political campaigns they exploit the tribal instinct in humans, it's "us" against "them." They bring out little issues and make them important, to enhance the divide between "us" and "them." The uninformed hear just enough to identify with the "us" and vote against the "them." Then their politicians select judges who will interpret the Constitution in accordance with fundamental Christian beliefs. These methods aren't different than those used by Hitler, Stalin and the Talaban, except that they are doing it slower, not within the time span of one government administration. In my view, the packing of the courts with fundamentalist judges is the largest danger of the Bush Administration. There will be quite a few vacancies in the Supreme Court during these next four years. I fear that the next several decades will be dominated by Christian fundamentalist Supreme Court decisions. I fear that the American citizens will lose 50 years of progress and freedom.
Bill H
см. окончание