Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Are we in a "Struggle for Civilisation"?
Now cast aside your personal feelings for GWB for a minute. Is he correct? Are we in a struggle for civilisation?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?th readID=3772&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=2006091211 4413
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?th readID=3772&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=2006091211 4413
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
It will never, ever, ever happen. Not in the UK. It's just impossible. I mean, are they saying that in small villages in Hertfordshire, little old Miss Marples will have to do their shopping wearing burkhas?
No, it won't happen. Culturally, parts of Britain have changed, but it will be impossible for ANY terrorist organisation to win...to change the essential fabric of a people.
No matter what you read, or how much the right wing press try to scare you - it ain't gonna happen. Look at the reaction of Londoners (of all backgrounds) after the 7/7 bombings.
We absolutely won't be scared or cowed.
No, it won't happen. Culturally, parts of Britain have changed, but it will be impossible for ANY terrorist organisation to win...to change the essential fabric of a people.
No matter what you read, or how much the right wing press try to scare you - it ain't gonna happen. Look at the reaction of Londoners (of all backgrounds) after the 7/7 bombings.
We absolutely won't be scared or cowed.
To follow sp's answer, a terrorist orgaisation can only win if it has the support of the general populace, and in the words of sp, 'it won't happen'. not here anyway.
As for civilisation, Bush obviously means his interpretation of it, civilisation has a different meaning in almost every country in the world.
As for civilisation, Bush obviously means his interpretation of it, civilisation has a different meaning in almost every country in the world.
British muslims saying bombings won't stop until yah de yah is as meaningless as GWB positioning himself as the defender of civilisation (whatever that means - are we the only ones with a civilisation?)
How many times did the IRA say the violence would continue until Ireland was united?
Or Churchill's "we will fight them on the beaches...we will never surrender.." (Right!)
It's just meaningless rabble rousing for a soundbite for the news.
If it has any meaning it's "Elections are coming in the US - vote republican"
How many times did the IRA say the violence would continue until Ireland was united?
Or Churchill's "we will fight them on the beaches...we will never surrender.." (Right!)
It's just meaningless rabble rousing for a soundbite for the news.
If it has any meaning it's "Elections are coming in the US - vote republican"
Bush said no such thing. He said "This struggle has been *called* a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization." (my emphasis).
The speech basically says 'there are only two possible choices good or evil - and we're good' and then co-opts God into being on his side at the end. Thank you and goodnight. As a piece of propaganda it's great - it's emotive and simplistic and co-opts the highest possible authority to legitimise itself at the end.
Trouble is, those of us capable of debating in more sophisticated terms than 'junior school playground' know the world is slightly more complicated than black and white, 'good' and 'evil'.
I'd debate the appropriateness of much of the message in view of America's understandable feelings about the aniversary.
The speech basically says 'there are only two possible choices good or evil - and we're good' and then co-opts God into being on his side at the end. Thank you and goodnight. As a piece of propaganda it's great - it's emotive and simplistic and co-opts the highest possible authority to legitimise itself at the end.
Trouble is, those of us capable of debating in more sophisticated terms than 'junior school playground' know the world is slightly more complicated than black and white, 'good' and 'evil'.
I'd debate the appropriateness of much of the message in view of America's understandable feelings about the aniversary.
Samel P Huntingdon wrote a book back in early 90s that describes how wars will be fought between civilisations rather than between countries fighting for borders. The book is called 'Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the New World Order' Its a damn good read, way ahead of its time and fairly prophetic. Samel P is a professor in world economics at Harvard so his credentials check out.
I have held serious reservations about George Bush's peculiar outlook on 'freedom' and 'terror' since he first came to power.
I think the notion of a 'war on terror' is an utter farce. If I were a Muslim in Iraq, i would obviously see America as an oppressor, and Bush as a terrorist - it is a matter of cultrure, location, and perspective. The notion that democracy is the only right way to live as a colossal arrogance, and America continues to pay the price in blood for the arrogance of its stance, and its perception of 'threats' and the violence with which it responds.
Fundamentalists hate western democracy in general and Bish in particular with a passion and fervour he couldn't begin to understand, and surely it is time to try and resolve difference with dialogue, not invasion and oppression.
Bush's simplistic self-righteous approach is far more a difinition of 'terror' than a section of the world which has not posed any serious long-term threat, until prvovked by right-wing rehtoric, backed up by an imoral and ultimately fruitless invasion.
We may be in a struggle for civilisation, but not against the East, but against the American government.
I think the notion of a 'war on terror' is an utter farce. If I were a Muslim in Iraq, i would obviously see America as an oppressor, and Bush as a terrorist - it is a matter of cultrure, location, and perspective. The notion that democracy is the only right way to live as a colossal arrogance, and America continues to pay the price in blood for the arrogance of its stance, and its perception of 'threats' and the violence with which it responds.
Fundamentalists hate western democracy in general and Bish in particular with a passion and fervour he couldn't begin to understand, and surely it is time to try and resolve difference with dialogue, not invasion and oppression.
Bush's simplistic self-righteous approach is far more a difinition of 'terror' than a section of the world which has not posed any serious long-term threat, until prvovked by right-wing rehtoric, backed up by an imoral and ultimately fruitless invasion.
We may be in a struggle for civilisation, but not against the East, but against the American government.
From a recent speech by Mr. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House:
�Consider this recent statement by the Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad: "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
What's more, as our enemies have taken stock of what America and her allies, especially the U.K. will and will not do they have grown bolder. As they watch the divisive politics in America and the anti-American sentiment in Europe, they have grown bolder. As they have watched the pathetic impotence of the United Nations and the degree to which powerful nations hide behind diplomatic negotiations as an excuse to say a lot but do little, they have grown bolder.
It is the understanding and support of the American people and her allies, that is at the heart of whether or not we can undertake the effort needed for our collective national security.
But the American people and more emphatically, those of Europe, do not yet believe their cities and their own lives are at risk. They do not believe that anything truly horrifying could happen.
For the moment, the terrorist threat has become an "over there" problem that impinges on our lives only when we go through security at an airport. The very success of the Bush Administration in stopping further terrorist attacks after 9/11 has made it possible for people to relax and ignore the threat.
There is no campaign more important than the campaign for the understanding and support of the American people and the people of our democratic allies. This has been a woefully inadequate effort over the last five years. We are now paying the cost of that inadequacy.
(Contd.)
�Consider this recent statement by the Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad: "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
What's more, as our enemies have taken stock of what America and her allies, especially the U.K. will and will not do they have grown bolder. As they watch the divisive politics in America and the anti-American sentiment in Europe, they have grown bolder. As they have watched the pathetic impotence of the United Nations and the degree to which powerful nations hide behind diplomatic negotiations as an excuse to say a lot but do little, they have grown bolder.
It is the understanding and support of the American people and her allies, that is at the heart of whether or not we can undertake the effort needed for our collective national security.
But the American people and more emphatically, those of Europe, do not yet believe their cities and their own lives are at risk. They do not believe that anything truly horrifying could happen.
For the moment, the terrorist threat has become an "over there" problem that impinges on our lives only when we go through security at an airport. The very success of the Bush Administration in stopping further terrorist attacks after 9/11 has made it possible for people to relax and ignore the threat.
There is no campaign more important than the campaign for the understanding and support of the American people and the people of our democratic allies. This has been a woefully inadequate effort over the last five years. We are now paying the cost of that inadequacy.
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
The statements of hatred and desire for killing by our enemies have to be driven home everyday. Those who would retreat and withdraw must be made to explain and defend the consequences of their proposals. The full burden of undermining our alliances and strengthening our enemies must be placed on those who would seek peace at the cost of defeat and who would advocate weakness in the face of tyranny and hatred.
The news media have to be held accountable for their biases and easy assumptions. We are entering a period when those who manipulate the press on behalf of tyranny must be held accountable and confronted directly.
It is fundamentally misleading to try to isolate Afghanistan without understanding the role of sanctuaries in Northwest Pakistan.
It is misleading to try to understand Iraq without understanding the role of resources, sanctuaries and leadership in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It is impossible to understand the role of Hezbollah in South Lebanon without examining the resources and support from Iran and Syria.�
If we don�t soon recognize that we are already in World War III, we will, along with my U.K. friends, see more and more attacks of the kind experienced in the subways of London� and worse...in my opinion�
The statements of hatred and desire for killing by our enemies have to be driven home everyday. Those who would retreat and withdraw must be made to explain and defend the consequences of their proposals. The full burden of undermining our alliances and strengthening our enemies must be placed on those who would seek peace at the cost of defeat and who would advocate weakness in the face of tyranny and hatred.
The news media have to be held accountable for their biases and easy assumptions. We are entering a period when those who manipulate the press on behalf of tyranny must be held accountable and confronted directly.
It is fundamentally misleading to try to isolate Afghanistan without understanding the role of sanctuaries in Northwest Pakistan.
It is misleading to try to understand Iraq without understanding the role of resources, sanctuaries and leadership in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It is impossible to understand the role of Hezbollah in South Lebanon without examining the resources and support from Iran and Syria.�
If we don�t soon recognize that we are already in World War III, we will, along with my U.K. friends, see more and more attacks of the kind experienced in the subways of London� and worse...in my opinion�
There's nothing inherently uncivilised about Islam; in fact, Muslims kept classical learning alive when Europe was wallowing in the dark ages. We are clearly at some risk from mad bombers, but we have been for years; neither al-Qaeda nor the IRA before them were any real danger to our civilisation. As sp1814 says, it's just not going to happen.
Jake is correct to point out that midterm elections are coming up, and Republicans are starting to worry that they may lose control of Congress (unnecessarily, I think), and that the war in Iraq may be the reason. So Bush must rally the voters, and this was, indirectly, a campaign speech. But with respect, Clanad, I think you and Gingrich can sleep easy; the risk of either of you being killed by enemy action is infinitesimal.
Jake is correct to point out that midterm elections are coming up, and Republicans are starting to worry that they may lose control of Congress (unnecessarily, I think), and that the war in Iraq may be the reason. So Bush must rally the voters, and this was, indirectly, a campaign speech. But with respect, Clanad, I think you and Gingrich can sleep easy; the risk of either of you being killed by enemy action is infinitesimal.
It's all related to politics and devised by politicians for their own interests. Even the terrorists/terrorist org's have political agendas/motivations, at the end of the day.
As long as they (the terorrists) are a minority-which they are- and don't have support from majority of the people-which they dont- I see this "struggle for civilisation" as a bit of an exaggeration on Bush's part (what a surprise)...
And on the contrary, admarlow, I think Bush is a sharp, intelligent and gifted leader with a real flair for public speaking, and speaking in general. He is also a bright philosopher who worries a lot about the world and our future, in his spare time. There is nobody out there who could ever compare to him in any way, let alone, fill his shoes.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Writing Ideas Organiser Software
Technology45 mins ago
Body & Soul53 mins ago
Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV95 mins ago
ChatterBank125 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.