WW3 ? HAWKS vs DOVES ?
October 30, 2007 01:48 PM EDT
(Updated: October 30, 2007 02:17 PM EDT)
views: 47
|
rating: 8.2/10
(10 votes)
|
comments: 16
We all may just wake up some morning in the very near future to find that we are really in it ... BIG TIME ... based upon the rhetoric floating around in our media now. David McGill has a weekly article called The Toll, a recent one of 10/28/07 that I made this (soon to be reposted) comment on ... I also placed it on Devin Barbers latest article of today at http://www.gather.com/viewMessage.jsp?messageId=9851624190126922 Thus my comment, now as an article, for what it may be worth. Feel free (encouraged) to also check out David and Devins articles. As I read through all of this, attempting to see what it is that the debate is REALLY about ... it strikes me that it is all about personal philosophies all around.
The philosophy of the "hawks" that value more materialism, action and force of arms. Those that see the solving of their perceived problems in the world as requiring a physical solution, the more violent the better because they 'think' that such will solve the problem once and for all time (or at least as long as needed by 'their' standards ... which is often a very short term thing as they seldom look down the larger picture of the road of time) ... they forget (conveniently ?) that 'victims' hold grudges, even over centuries, that being a large part of what is always playing out in this world, especially in the middle east where the natural order of mostly tribal relationships has been unnaturally interrupted by the dominance of western powers that arbitrarily defined nationalism by drawing lines in the desert some relatively few years ago.
That being what the misused statement by the president of Iran was all about when he said what was truly and accurately (had it been interpreted properly) only a reference to "removing those LINES that define the UN-natural STATE of ..." Israel. To ONLY wipe the LINES of demarcation of ZIONISM (not Jews) from what was naturally a desert of NOMADIC interactions of the Arabs BEFORE 1948 (when it was initially TERRORIZED by fundamental Zionists FIRST) ...
But of course, as has become the 'natural' way of POLITICIANS world wide, things are only said with great calculation to effect a particular means or desire ... and those things said then most often do NOT reflect the truth of the matter(s).
Thus we have the TWO opposing SIDES here, that of the HAWKS that seem to need action to solve problems physically ... and the DOVES that would prefer a more peaceful solution, one that looks at a much larger picture in time, factoring in a more distant past as to just why people become upset and do the things they do ... then projecting the possible solutions into a longer future scenario to attempt to see how it MIGHT most likely turnout in the long run ... peace to them is worth doing it right and having it last ... for the Hawks, war is a way of life, peace is but a time to rebuild between wars, nothing else !
So why don't we cut through ALL of the BULL SHIT here and just admit where we each really stand on this issue (as if it were not evident already) and deal with THAT first ?
All of the other PROJECTIONS (as John points out) of the personal issues in our minds of the 'little people', the average citizen caught up in ALL of this, is completely overlooked and discounted WHEN we LABEL them in mass with our own inner projections of the way we each personally think ...
It is too damn bad that these international issues are not settled JUST by those that make the decisions, often for a much more PERSONAL reason than the ones they CLAIM in the name of their supposed "followers", we the citizens that often are expected to pay the ultimate price of it all ... both with our lives as well as our property.
Leadership on earth has always achieved it's desires by DIVIDING and CONQUERING ... be that withIN their own nations or institutions, OR on the world stage ...
United we stand and Divided we fall ... that applies to the personal and individual mind (left and right brain functions) ... on up the social pecking order ... all of the way to the world stage where we get either Peace or War ... and the natural results of which the one is Productive and the other is Destructive ... really a NO-BRAINER when you get right down to it ... united, at least with common goals of WHAT is MOST IMPORTANT would go a long way to making us all happier ...
I am sure there are many things that the Hawks can do to take out their natural aggressive tendencies ... short of involving us ALL in a world war ...
To be a dove and peaceful does NOT make one a SISSY ... it just makes one true to a natural nature that SHOULD be appreciated by ALL.
| |
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
Gee ... I wonder WHO would have "allowed" that to happen ? ... so much for what is really important is this world ... geeesh !
Where did you get your translation? And your historical facts are wrong.
You wrote: "the misused statement by the president of Iran was all about when he said what was truly and accurately (had it been interpreted properly) only a reference to "removing those LINES that define the UN-natural STATE of ..." Israel. To ONLY wipe the LINES of demarcation of ZIONISM (not Jews) from what was naturally a desert of NOMADIC interactions of the Arabs BEFORE 1948 (when it was initially TERRORIZED by fundamental Zionists FIRST) ..."
1. The President of Iran's misquoted speech HAS been translated "Israel should be wiped off the map." But the the words he said in Persian, literally,were " disappear from the pages of history": this was a quotation from about 1981 of a rhetorical sppech by Ayatollah Khomeini , which Ahamadinejad quoted in full: "The Ayatollah said, 'The Soviet regime, the South African regime and the Zionist Israeli regime will disappear from the pages of history.'" It was not a threat to attack Israel, which Iran has offered to recognize , while supporting the rights of Palestinians to a state.
2.Palestine was not a "nomadic culture" and certainly not a "desert." It had a highly educated class of Christians and Muslims and an indigenous Jewish minority as well as a large developed agricultural base befor Israel was created. Over 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled from the region the UN granted Israel after it was declared a state.
I have said many times before that it is usually the far right that does the claiming and staking out, they afterwards tell the 'others' that they are the far left and the problem. But I see the Left as being more "liberal" in that their thinking is not quite so , shall we say, "organized" as that of the Right … we all know that the Democrats are always accused of never being able to agree with each other … that may be because they are more individualistic (in the 'good' sense of the word) …
Please folks, I am only using the extremes to make a needed point so people can get their bearings and be more like the Colonel … and the vast, much more silent, majority that seem to never speak up here on Gather. (probably more credit due to them !?!)
Clarke, I surely trust just what you say … where needed I stand corrected, thank you ! But let me better explain my 'position' on all of that.
First off, I do not pretend to be an expert on anything, and I am certainly not a scholar … but I do have a lot of interest and a caring for the truth … a truth that I admittedly consider to be 'relative' because I see myself as spiritually driven towards the more subjective "essence" of the greater Intentions of peoples understandings, and attempting to get them to trust more their Intuitions than the "authorized" leadership of institutions that usually have an axe to grind or a dog in the fight … in other words, not necessarily all that accurate truth-wise … except for the "side" that has a need to believe it.
So what I do often is speak in generalities, often of metaphor and allegory, because I expect and hope that peoples own Intuition will serve them better in deciphering my meanings and intentions … especially on matters between right and wrong … If I were to take the time to look up and quite chapter and verse of all sources, I realize that in fairness to insure complete accuracy, I would have to present all sides of the issue … and that would take time I do not desire to 'waste' … because all of those would just be someone's "facts" which would usually have another set of "facts" in opposition. I hope I am making my point here.
So I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought ALL of the area involving Palestine and Israel was a desert … I just remembered only what impressions I have of long ago when the 'sands' were traveled by Arab traders with caravans of camels … and even to this day we are constantly told that the Arabs generally subscribe to tribal leaders rather than governments set up by the west … of course I am speaking of "loyalties" here, not nationalism.
As for the "terrorist" acts of the Zionists just prior to the formation of the Jewish "Zionist State", I know that I have read of them and firmly believe it … if I HAD to, I am sure I could find the references.
As for the meaning of the speech that has been so spun and distorted, I see you and I pretty much agreeing on the essence of the issue … that being that the intention was a reference to an "illegally" IMPOSED state or nation (Israel) where it should not be, and that IF history went the way Iran intended, that would be 'changed' in the future … AND what I meant in the article, was that they did NOT mean that they would attack or kill anyone, just that the issue would be eventually 'settled' in favor of the Palestinians who were removed and those now severely mistreated in the actual area …
I was taking issue with the so often repeated distortion that so many keep passing around insisting that Iran intends to (according to 'that' speech) destroy Israel and Jews by force … that being the intended meaning of the western media that is basically controlled by corporate interests … which have a big say in what this neoCON administration plans to do … and it is apparent that they want to incite the people that will fall for it, to back them in their stated goals to kill terrorists where ever they hide or are supported … you know, those "Axis of Evil" places …
Anyway, my sources of information do exist, and they are far more credible about truth than is the MSM … and I will not even bother to mention FAUX.
Please let me know if you need more explanation … everything I say is just IMnsHO.
Doves and Hawks are terms applied to people based upon their views about a military conflict. A dove is someone who opposes the use of military pressure to resolve a dispute; a hawk favors entry into war. The terms came into widespread use during the Vietnam War, but their roots are much older than that conflict. The association of doves with peace is rooted in the biblical story of the Great Flood: the dove that Noah released after the rains had stopped returned with an olive branch, the symbol of peace and a sign that the waters had receded from the ground. "War hawk" was applied to advocates of war in the United States as early as 1798 when Thomas Jefferson used it to describe Federalists ready to declare war on France.
The juxtaposition of the two terms originates in a 1962 account of the Kennedy administration's decision making process during the Cuban missile crisis. The hawk-dove antithesis quickly became a popular way of labeling partisans in the Vietnam debate. But it also oversimplified their differences. The term "dove" was applied both to those who supported U.S. intervention to stop the spread of communism, but who opposed military means, and to those who opposed U.S. intervention altogether. The latter were also sometimes called other names such as "peaceniks."
Use of the terms declined in the post-Vietnam years, but reappeared in the 1990s during debates over U.S. policy in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Maybe there is one thing that might bring Americans back to the land of the real. Much like spoiled thirtysomething socialites who have never worked a day in their lives, perhaps America's choice of believing what it wants to believe over what is real derives from the fact that, for decades upon decades now, America has been allowed to live beyond its means.
With the exception of the years of the Clinton surpluses, the US Federal Budget has been continually in deficit since 1970; the balance of payments on current account - what the US borrows/lends from/to foreign nations, has been in deficit since 1983.
If someone else is paying for your reality, it's easy to live in fantasy. But there are signs that this situation may be changing.
The most recent TIC (Treasury International Capital) data for August, released on October 16, show a stunning reversal of foreigners' willingness to pay for US profligacy. Instead of foreign capital interests actually putting money into the US in August, for that month the TIC data actually went negative, indicating that, for that month at least, the net capital inflows into the United States were at minus $163 billion. That includes a minus $35 billion capital flow into long-term US government securities, the principal car park where foreign capital traditionally sits. This is the worst net TIC data report since the late 1980s, and it is the first time that foreigners have been net sellers of Treasury bonds since 1998.
Those who think that America is still looking at an upcoming forecast of unending sunny economic skies brought to us by meteorologist George W Bush say that the August TIC data was anomalous due to that month's severe economic crisis.
In other words, although you could still make money in US markets even in August, foreigners chose to take their money and run.
In much the same way as 18th century English literary light Samuel Johnson once said that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging, perhaps the prospect of finally living within its means will focus the nation's mind away from ideological fantasy and back towards practical policy solutions to the nation's problems.
But it won't be easy, and it won't be pretty. Just as the paparazzi press captured the famed pictures of Paris Hilton in tears in the back of a police car as she was transferred from her fantasy life of privilege in the Hollywood Hills to the reality of the Los Angeles County Jail, perhaps we will soon see similar pictures of forlorn American consumers in tears, weeping inconsolably outside such high- end retailers as Restoration Hardware or Coach, mourning for the mindlessly acquisitive consumer lifestyle that soon might be no more.
Jules, thanks.
\
Clarke, beyond our means ... never so true as it seems today ... led by our government on our way to bankruptcy with China holding the bag maybe ... it not our enemy now they will be ...
As for the people of this nation going in debt, it is encouraged, especially when retirement systems are now mostly tied direct to the stock market ... everyone is forced into a vested interest and of course has to vote accordingly to 'protect' their investment.
Same thing for those building equity in their homes and property, all more or less forced to play the 'game' ... I for one would be tempted to leave this country but my retirement is federal and they would probably quit sending it to me ...
The hawks would have you believe that their toughness in destabilizing Iran and scaring it into submission, as Greg Schiller said in his comments.
That would be all well and good if that is as far as it is going to go, but - what Greg fails to take into account - is the track record of this administration, which leads us to fear that it is now hellbent for a confrontation.