Would you go?

[Arwin]

Fair enough. Let's write it off as a culture difference. The vast majority of Americans will disagree with your usage

I took it from the American Heritage Dictionary, precisely to avoid such misunderstandings ...

, so it shouldn't surprise you either that ledhed and others will react with outrage and resentment at your choice of words.

I presume you are dutch, correct? Where did you study english?

In the Netherlands, the Free University of Amsterdam, where we learn about both BrE and AmE. I also studied English for one year at Stockholm University, Sweden, as an exchange student.

I'm just curious; no need to read anything into the question. And for the record, you would agree that my last statement in the previous post is accurate?

Yes, as I think my previous post clearly indicated, I agree. Even the U.S.' more noble endeavours, such as the liberation of Kuwait, offended significant groups of Arabs who are opposed to any Western involvement in such matters. Let's desist from saying this is because of religious fanaticism, and instead remember that until WW2 the Middle-East were divided up under Western Colonial powers, and had been for a long time:

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/colonialism_in_africa_and_the_mi.htm

 

[///M-Spec]

I took it from the American Heritage Dictionary, precisely to avoid such misunderstandings ...

I appreciate that, but dictionaries are not perfect. And they often fail to capture the nuances of vernacular speech; particularly in a bastard mongrel language such as American English. I would be quite surprised if any Americans here would agree with your usage. And I would not presume to tell you I know Dutch better than you do. Please don't presume to tell us you know English better than we do.

Yes, as I think my previous post clearly indicated, I agree. Even the U.S.' more noble endeavours, such as the liberation of Kuwait, offended significant groups of Arabs who are opposed to any Western involvement in such matters. Let's desist from saying this is because of religious fanaticism, and instead remember that until WW2 the Middle-East were divided up under Western Colonial powers, and had been for a long time:

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/colonialism_in_africa_and_the_mi.htm

America has a chequered history. But so do most countries. In fact, it is important to remember that pretty much every culture on Earth, at some point or another has committed aggression upon its neighbors and that America is not free of this.

But equally important if we want to realise the dream of a peaceful world is people and countries need to move on and stop holding grudges, pure and simple. Defense against an immediate threat is one thing, but the ages long hatred that is so common in some parts of the world is something else entirely.

The Japanese commited heinous acts of murder against my "countrymen" (I am Chinese American) in Nanking 60 some years ago, yet I harbor no particular ill will towards Japanese people or their government. Why should I? All the people who perpetrated those crimes are long dead anyway.

Can you imagine an EU that holds grudges over everything that has happened there in past 2000 years? It'd be ridiculous. Poland would be invading Germany in reponse to 1939. Spain would be arming a massive fleet to counter the Royal Navy for retribution over losing their armada and Greece would be invading Italy in a tit-for-tat response over Roman occupation following the Second Macedonian war. Absurd, right?

Yet many Arab extremists take every opportunity to use ancient history to provoke feelings of vengence. Their favorite word to describe westerners: "Crusader", is a perfect example of this mentality.

Yes, colonial powers did carve up the middle east.... almost 100 years ago. But German and Russia carved up Europe 50 years ago. Somehow, Europe has moved beyond that and now peacefully co-exist. Why would it be unreasonable for the middle east to attempt the same?


M

 

[Arwin]

I appreciate that, but dictionaries are not perfect. And they often fail to capture the nuances of vernacular speech; particularly in a bastard mongrel language such as American English. I would be quite surprised if any Americans here would agree with your usage. And I would not presume to tell you I know Dutch better than you do. Please don't presume to tell us you know English better than we do.

*arrogant mode on*I do in fact presume to know English better than most, having studied the language from its ancient history (Old English, Old Saxon, etc.) to the present, having probably read more of your great literature than you yourselves, knowing more of the fundamental grammatical principles underlying the English language and language itself. I may be able to understand more dialects of English too, and I would probably beat most here at a spelling bee contest too . *arrogant mode off*

But if you say that I will probably not know "the bastard mongrel language of American English" as well as you do, I will presume that you're correct, though I would like to hedge that remark with pointing out the possibility that provoke means different things within different political movements in the U.S. too. People allow context to color their judgment and interpretation rather easily.

Yes, colonial powers did carve up the middle east.... almost 100 years ago. But German and Russia carved up Europe 50 years ago. Somehow, Europe has moved beyond that and now peacefully co-exist. Why would it be unreasonable for the middle east to attempt the same?
M

It's not about when something was carved up, but its about when the healing process is allowed to start. You may want to review your comment on Europe in that light and refresh your memory. In the case of the Middle-East, that festering wound still has a knife or two sticking into it preventing the final healing process from starting, let alone completing.

too)

 

[///M-Spec]

*arrogant mode on*I do in fact presume to know English better than most

How very arrogant and throughly "American" of you to say. It is reassuring to observe that our critics always seem to possess the very same qualities they claim to despise.

But if you say that I will probably not know "the bastard mongrel language of American English" as well as you do, I will presume that you're correct, though I would like to hedge that remark with pointing out the possibility that provoke means different things within different political movements in the U.S. too.

It's possible, of course. But not very likely.

People allow context to color their judgment and interpretation rather easily.

You are leading by example, then?

It's not about when something was carved up, but its about when the healing process is allowed to start. You may want to review your comment on Europe in that light and refresh your memory. In the case of the Middle-East, that festering wound still has a knife or two sticking into it preventing the final healing process from starting, let alone completing.

America occupied Germany and Japan following WWII. Each country was headed by a dictator that weilded absolute power. Each country had a strong national culture and identity, including governments that were quite different from the American-style democracy that was "forced" upon them following occupation (especially Japan). Yet, within 30 years they were our largest trading partners as well as military allies.

Tell me why Iraq should be any different? Tell me what advantages Japan or Germany had in their "healing process" that Iraq does not. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people are not capable or not willing to build a world leading country such as Germany or Japan? Who is stopping them?


M

 

[ledhed]

please ....lets not let facts get in the way of this agument !

 

[Wastegate]

America occupied Germany and Japan following WWII. Each country was headed by a dictator that weilded absolute power. Each country had a strong national culture and identity, including governments that were quite different from the American-style democracy that was "forced" upon them following occupation (especially Japan).

I'm not a great expert on pre-WW2 politics but I think you might be a little misinformed here - and hopefully someone else knows better and can correct me.

Japan was not ruled by a dictator. Although it had an emperor (and still does) wasn't much more than a figurehead a bit like the Queen of Great Britain, or the Netherlands etc. Japan was governed by a Prime Minister, and an elected one. Even he didn't have a monopoly on power as the Japanese military was very strong politically and had a lot of influence at that time.

Hitler was a dictator, but even his rise to power was through a democratic system. Although he never achieved a complete majority he gained power by forming a coalition with other parties and managed to manoeuvre his position, with the help of mistakes from his contempories.

The difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq after the wars is that the democractic system put in place by the Allies was very similar to the systems they'd had recently in Japan and Germany, whereas Iraq has no real history of democracy. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others"

[WG makes an attempt to get On Topic]
I wouldn't go to Iraq. However well-meaning it might be I think it'll all cause more trouble in the long run than it will solve. [/On Topic]

 

[ledhed]

Japan had no real democracy. Iraq under Saddam had more democracy than Japan in my opinion. women never could vote in Japan . Sufferage was far from universal there. They tried to imitate great Britain in a way of a constitutional monarchy but the Emporer had more power than the monarchs in Great britain. In Iraq democracy has existed at the local levels something unheard of for the most part in Japan. The Iraqis are a far better match for the democratic proccess than the Japanese on a lot of levels. I feel its racist and ill informed thinking that places Iraqis and Arabs in general as being either uncapable or unable to embrace democracy. Why are they inferior or more stupid than anyone else ?
What makes anyone think democracy is such a hard concept to grasp ?

 

[///M-Spec]

I'm not a great expert on pre-WW2 politics but I think you might be a little misinformed here - and hopefully someone else knows better and can correct me.

Japan was not ruled by a dictator. Although it had an emperor (and still does) wasn't much more than a figurehead a bit like the Queen of Great Britain, or the Netherlands etc. Japan was governed by a Prime Minister, and an elected one. Even he didn't have a monopoly on power as the Japanese military was very strong politically and had a lot of influence at that time.

Hitler was a dictator, but even his rise to power was through a democratic system. Although he never achieved a complete majority he gained power by forming a coalition with other parties and managed to manoeuvre his position, with the help of mistakes from his contempories.

The difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq after the wars is that the democractic system put in place by the Allies was very similar to the systems they'd had recently in Japan and Germany, whereas Iraq has no real history of democracy. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others"

[WG makes an attempt to get On Topic]
I wouldn't go to Iraq. However well-meaning it might be I think it'll all cause more trouble in the long run than it will solve. [/On Topic]

As ledhed already supplied, Japan was indeed run by a dictator. Japan's wartime prime minister forced his way into the position through a military coup. Hideki Tojo was in fact a general in the armed forces.

A year before that, in 1940, all political parties were DISSOLVED by the Imperial Rule Assistance Association. The Imperial Japan that went to war with the Allies were controlled by a military dictatorship, with an Emperor as a figurehead and a general Tojo as defacto ruler. Tojo was Army Chief of Staff, War Minister AND Premier. Folks, that's a dictator. It was Tojo that ultimately approved the attack on Pearl Harbor.

As for pointing out that Iraq has no experience with democracy while Germany and Japan did before the war, I will conceed that may be true. However...

I feel its racist and ill informed thinking that places Iraqis and Arabs in general as being either uncapable or unable to embrace democracy.

This was worth repeating. The point is that I simply don't think there is anything that should and can hold back Iraq from being the Japan or Germany of the Arab world... except maybe her neighbor to the east, who fears exactly such a thing... and extremists... who want to control Iraq for themselves.


M

 

[Arwin]

How very arrogant and throughly "American" of you to say. It is reassuring to observe that our critics always seem to possess the very same qualities they claim to despise.

I see few Americans use *arrogant on/off* tags. That's a significant difference. Incidentally, I don't think you would question anyone who graduated from an American university if he were to make the same claims ... Think about that one for a while.

It's possible, of course. But not very likely.

On the contrary, it's very likely. That's how language evolves, after all.

You are leading by example, then?

If I'm leading, I don't see many followers.

America occupied Germany and Japan following WWII. Each country was headed by a dictator that weilded absolute power. Each country had a strong national culture and identity, including governments that were quite different from the American-style democracy that was "forced" upon them following occupation (especially Japan). Yet, within 30 years they were our largest trading partners as well as military allies.

Tell me why Iraq should be any different? Tell me what advantages Japan or Germany had in their "healing process" that Iraq does not. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people are not capable or not willing to build a world leading country such as Germany or Japan? Who is stopping them?

Wastegate beat me to it, partly. I think if you are aware of the histories of the three countries, I'm amazed you even think about comparing them. They're all three very different. I posted a history of Japan only a short while ago. Please tell me how that in any way resembles Iraq. Surely there is a way, but you'd have to compare today's Iraq to Japan of more than a century ago. Germany is very different from both. He also forgot to add that Iraq has experienced no less than three wars in the last few decades and then there's Israel, which is a last festering remnant of Colonialism, one of the knives keeping wounds open I was referring to.

Who knows in the future Iraq will prosper and maybe even thanks to this war. Let's hope so. Remember, I wasn't against a war in Iraq, but only under the conditions and the flag of the U.N.

 

[///M-Spec]

I see few Americans use *arrogant on/off* tags. That's a significant difference. Incidentally, I don't think you would question anyone who graduated from an American university if he were to make the same claims ... Think about that one for a while.

I don't need to think very long on that. I know I would, if he made the same exact statement you did.

On the contrary, it's very likely. That's how language evolves, after all.

Do you really want to drag this whole "provoke" issue on? Fine. Consider the following statement.

Palestinian protesters provoke Israeli army to open fire; 21 dead.

Read that statement and tell me it doesn't automatically imply the army was justified in firing on the protestors?

If I'm leading, I don't see many followers.

I didn't mean it in a good way.

Wastegate beat me to it, partly. I think if you are aware of the histories of the three countries, I'm amazed you even think about comparing them. They're all three very different. I posted a history of Japan only a short while ago. Please tell me how that in any way resembles Iraq. Surely there is a way, but you'd have to compare today's Iraq to Japan of more than a century ago. Germany is very different from both.

I didn't say they were the same. They don't have to be. I said they have important similarities that allows them to be compared. This goes right back to the issue of "healing wounds".

Lots of countries with vast cultural and historical differences are now democratic. Even cold-war enemy Russia is now democratic. And an ally.

He also forgot to add that Iraq has experienced no less than three wars in the last few decades and then there's Israel, which is a last festering remnant of Colonialism, one of the knives keeping wounds open I was referring to.

I will agree that Palestine is a problem. I've been vocal about Israel's behavior in other posts, so you should already know I am not happy with it. But just because I see faults in Israel's policy towards the issue doesn't mean I don't also see faults in the Palestinian leadership. I think many Arabs have a one-sided view of the issue and it colors their judgement.

Who knows in the future Iraq will prosper and maybe even thanks to this war. Let's hope so. Remember, I wasn't against a war in Iraq, but only under the conditions and the flag of the U.N.

For the record, I was not either. Does that surprise you?


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Well, since I'm here all over mile's thread, I should at least stick to the topic.

I couldn't go with a clear conscience. Not with the undeniable, unflinching, single minded sense of purpose that our military expects (and needs) from its soldiers. There are too many issues still unresolved in my mind for me to make that decision.

Make no mistake: people who want to kill innocent civilians, American or otherwise, need to be dealt with. If that involves a holding cell in Baghdad or Gitmo, so be it. If that involves a NATO 5.56 in the head in the middle of the desert night, so be it as well. Good riddance, pal; more of your buddies will be joining you very shortly.

If that was all there was to it, I'd go too. I'd do it. Gladly. With enthusiasm even.

In a perfect world, a terrorist is sitting by a tent in the desert, just waiting for someone to pickle a couple of cluster bombs on him. You make a pretty explosion in the dirt and show it on CNN. End of story. But of course real life is much more complicated than that.

Military operations disrupt ordinary people's lives. It sometimes kills them. It razes towns, destroys families and creates fertile opportunities for people to hate someone or something. On both sides.

Its not just collateral damage. Its the overall price we pay for having to defend ourselves in the most expedient way possible. The 'cost of doing business' is increased resentment in the Arab world, Europe, Asia and at home. It is moral casualties like pre-emptive strikes, secret wiretaps ordered by a secret judge in a secret court and it is support for governments that do things to their people we would never tolerate in America.

You might say, "freedom isn't free, M. There's a price to be paid for it". Which is all well and good, except that sometimes the wrong people pay it. You wouldn't tolerate someone who puts your family in harm's way just to keep his safe, why would you expect any different from him?

I guess what it comes down to is sometimes my government trades someone else's freedom for mine. If this person is already a terrorist, then good. He can rot in hell. But when this person is just some random guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't feel good about it. Not at all.

Maybe its naive, but that's how I feel this week anyway. Heh. Subject to change without notice... I wish I knew a better way to keep our country safe, but I don’t have any real answers.

Maybe I'd be better off as a spook instead of a soldier.


M

 

[Arwin]

Both of Russia's democracy and it being an ally are somewhat tainted - being an ally at this moment conveniently guarantees support from the U.S. for Russia's Chechnyan 'adventure' and Putin's democratic rule is only just that.

Also, I'm not saying that the Palestines are not guilty in this conflict. They have plenty of blood on their hands. My point was simply that the conflict isn't resolved and the knife, which is basically a last remnant of Colonialist rule in the Middle-East, keeps the old wound open and fresh.

Finally, "Palestinian protesters provoke Israeli army to open fire; 21 dead." is a nice example to show the complexity of context coloring and subjectivity. Someone on the side of Israel would read that the Palestines did something that justified the Israeli army to open fire and kill 21. The Palestinians will read that simply protesting is enough excuse for Israels to kill more Palestines. Since you've shown above to be a very good writer, how would you rewrite this example in about the same number of words while making sure that neither party could draw the conclusions I suggested above?

However, I'm going to have to give you this one. I took out my faithful Collin's Cobuild, which takes large bodies of recently used texts and uses the computer to analyse current usage. Amazingly reliable, and I accept it's authority (I hope you apologize for not accepting yours immediately). I guess my bookwormish knowledge of the language sometimes proves outdated (a risk if you've been forced to read so much old stuff):

1. If you provoke a person or animal, you deliberately annoy them and try to cause them to behave aggressively. EG: Rayos was trying to provoke them into fighting ... Waving a red cape, Delgado provoked the animal to charge ... They are armed and ready to shoot if provoked in the slightest way.

Have to point out nonetheless that none of these mean justify or excuse though. And inappropriate - well, I suppose waving a red flag in front of a bull can make the bull do things that don't seem warranted by harmlessly waving a red flag.

And congratulations on your last post. Very well put.

 

[///M-Spec]

Both of Russia's democracy and it being an ally are somewhat tainted - being an ally at this moment conveniently guarantees support from the U.S. for Russia's Chechnyan 'adventure' and Putin's democratic rule is only just that.

Well, they use hard currency, wear blue jeans, produce bad pornography and don't have their missles pointed at us anymore... at least not all of them. That's good enough for me.

My point was simply that the conflict isn't resolved and the knife, which is basically a last remnant of Colonialist rule in the Middle-East, keeps the old wound open and fresh.

Yes, it isn't. But what has the Arab world done to promote a peaceful settlement to the Palestinian problem? Why did Arafat and the PA walk away from the most generous package Israel had ever put together for them as part of Oslo II? Why does your typical Arab put the blame for the situation solely on Israel for the situation?

Since you've shown above to be a very good writer, how would you rewrite this example in about the same number of words while making sure that neither party could draw the conclusions I suggested above?

Palestinian protesters and Israeli army clash; 21 dead.



M

 

[Arwin]

Well, they use hard currency, wear blue jeans, produce bad pornography and don't have their missles pointed at us anymore... at least not all of them. That's good enough for me.

They also interfere in democratic elections in Ukraine, repress and occupy Chechnia, severely restrict the Russian media, etc.

Yes, it isn't. But what has the Arab world done to promote a peaceful settlement to the Palestinian problem? Why did Arafat and the PA walk away from the most generous package Israel had ever put together for them as part of Oslo II? Why does your typical Arab put the blame for the situation solely on Israel for the situation?

Your typical Arab doesn't exist. Sure Arafat may have overplayed his hand at one time, but the package wasn't that generous and Israel should just have been patient a little while. They're both to blame, as I've said many times before, but still for each Israeli murdered 2-3 Palestines are killed, Israel is founded on stolen land and occupies and represses the Palestines, and they see little for that in return. Also, Israel's reaction to an Israeli right-extremists murder of Rabin was one of terror - it feared falling apart in two over the peace process. They freaked out and backed off from seriously persuing a just peace until today and lately it has been behaving like a brutal tyrant. Reap what you sow (though I am 100% sure that if the Palestinians would limit themselves to massive peaceful protests they would have achieved a lot more a long time ago.

Palestinian protesters and Israeli army clash; 21 dead.

I already gave you this point. However - this one isn't quite right as it has lost the information that 21 Palestines were killed by the Israeli army rather than any other mix of both parties.

M

 

[///M-Spec]

They also interfere in democratic elections in Ukraine, repress and occupy Chechnia, severely restrict the Russian media, etc.

So what should we do? Invade?

I already gave you this point. However - this one isn't quite right as it has lost the information that 21 Palestines were killed by the Israeli army rather than any other mix of both parties.

Well, you asked me how I would phrase it to provide the most neutral terminology possible. That is what I came up with.

Incidently, we don't know who the 21 dead are. Not even the slanted first version of the report gives you that information.


M

 

[Arwin]

So what should we do? Invade?

Let's start making a point of the U.N. resolutions and go from there?

Well, you asked me how I would phrase it to provide the most neutral terminology possible. That is what I came up with.

Incidently, we don't know who the 21 dead are. Not even the slanted first version of the report gives you that information.

According to you it seems to:

Palestinian protesters provoke Israeli army to open fire; 21 dead.

Read that statement and tell me it doesn't automatically imply the army was justified in firing on the protestors?

Isn't language grand? Because first of all, this statement implies a link between "Israeli army opens fire" and "21 dead". It doesn't say Palestinians exchange fire with Israeli army, or Israeli army returns fire.

So the question that you'd want to read the article for is what the protesters did to provoke the shooting 21 people.

 

[///M-Spec]

Let's start making a point of the U.N. resolutions and go from there?

It wouldn't get very far since Russia is on the security council and would most definately veto any resolution. A general assembly resolution can be passed, but would largely be a symbolic gesture at best....

Today's Russia is still greatly preferable to the cold war era USSR. Wouldn't you agree?

According to you it seems to:

Isn't language grand? Because first of all, this statement implies a link between "Israeli army opens fire" and "21 dead". It doesn't say Palestinians exchange fire with Israeli army, or Israeli army returns fire.

So the question that you'd want to read the article for is what the protesters did to provoke the shooting 21 people.

Yes, language is grand. The first statement only strongly implies it. But you never get the information. The second statement is much better because it only says 21 people are dead, not who was killed and why.


M