I wish my Mom was here now to advise me on the proper answers like she was a few minutes ago, but I will add to this later, if I need to be corrected on what I will say:... 1. Yes, the culture is very different...even though My mother's family was poor, they still had "house servant" type people - If this makes any sense...I believe, My grandfather also had property on Corn Island... 2. They lost a lot of property, and to my family's (my Mom and her relatives) anguish, they demolished my grandfather's grave...Everything they pretty much had, was left behind or taken over... 3. As far as taxes go, only 1 or 2 distant relatives on my Mother's side still live there...so we don't know...we know it did get better there, but the country is still in bad shape overall... 4. My mother has never returned since being there in her early 20's...Since my Grandfather was a close military officer and bodyguard to Samosa, there was talk among the few relatives on my mother's side, that the Sandinistas realized this, and she might not come back...This has caused a lot of anguish and pain for her... My mother admits Samoza was no saint, and he was capable of some shady things...But, My mother has affirmed to me that the absolute majority of Nicaraguans did not freely want the Sandinistas to takeover like they did...
Goes for me too! Thank's to Sam, we went out for Indian food the other day. An unexpected, but tasty, consequence of a day flinging poo. And proof positive that good does come from mucking about over here.
To be fair, most of the founding fathers of this country did not believe in "democracy", they were mostly wealthy and well eductated and fear the "mobocracy" of a mass that's uneducated and poor. They wanted much more a plutocracy (some even wanted a new monarchy) which is why we have an electorate system today. I believe democracy is the best political system to ensure equality in rights, freedom and pursuit of happiness. However, while the democratic system in U.S. has been able to change and grow through time to it's present day form (perhaps the best gov't system ever up to this point), many nations democracy try to emulate the U.S. without the foundation and growing pains that U.S. democracy goes through. It's like trying to run before you walked. In short, many "democracies' in the world fail to provide a stable environment because they simply wouldn't work in the environment of that country at this point. It would be much better if they had a slow gradual (though progressive) process to improve the government while maintaining stability.
I think the ethical position is the one to hold on to and I think it has a lot of power to influence people. I look to Ghandi, MLK, Nelson Mandela and in Canada Tommy Douglas as examples. I’m not suggesting that any of these people are perfect, just that they strove for what was ethical and right and didn’t give in to cynicism or deceit. (I also think that they understood the concept of justice to be something that is increasing understood and refined as one pursues it rather than a complete predefined set of conditions. So I think of it in a Habermasian sense, which, incidentally, I find completely consistent with the Christian concept of justice … but this is a bit of a tangent. ) This is the other argument, but it’s not one I agree with. To deal with the last point first, the means create ends in themselves. Often this is overlooked and people simply don’t see the connections, or they chose to believe that the means will simple result in an unfortunate, but localized, wrong. But in a systems theory sense, as we have seen again and again, every action produces a reaction that becomes part of a chain of reactions, and here we are now dealing with 9/11 and Bin Laden today, for the last several years, and for how many years to come? Can we trace it all back to the earlier American involvement with him? No, no more than we can trace the other chain of events you present. But we can see trends and patterns and we can make educated assessments of the cause and effect relationships. What I am suggesting is that the ethical approach is a means that produces ends too, but predominantly positive ends. So, my position is that having an objective that is ethical, and a means that is ethical, produces a chain reaction of events that has a greater chance of achieving long term success. The other side may well not be using such noble means, but that will ultimately work against them, and increase our advantage. To deal with your second point, the USSR was in an advanced state of collapse at the time anyway. For the most part Reagan just happened to be standing there when it collapsed beside him. The real credit belongs to a truly intelligent and visionary man, Mikhail Gorbachev, who engineered the peaceful dismantling and transition of his own nation into a radically different group of nations governed in a radically different way. No mean feat. How exactly Reagan gets so much credit for this is a wonder. I’m not suggesting that it’s a perfect, flawless relationship. I am suggesting that on balance, in the long run, it will tend to work this way. What do you propose as an alternative? If we willingly break from adhering to just principles do we not give licence to and even encourage our adversaries to do the same? Is this not essentially the attitude that has got us to where we are now? Under these conditions, how could we call Bin Laden wrong? Would he not just be breaking the morals he sees fit to in this situation to achieve his end? Do you see the trap here? You seem to be saying that the only form involvement is unethical involvement. I am not at all saying that there should be no involvement, but I am saying that it should be ethical involvement. The US could have been involved in all these countries, but in different ways. Umm… yes we let the regions determine their own leadership, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have any positive involvement. I’m not sure where you’re going with this one. Where do you stand on the issues of “democracy” and “freedom”? We may have to get back to some more basic issues. Sure, there will always be elements that pursue their own agendas. I’m not catching your point. Re: Nicaragua. Yes, it is often not a simple thing to determine what is really happening in a given situation. That’s not an excuse not to try to do it. Many human rights groups denounced Samosa and praised the Sandinistas. If you want to put forward a validity claim suggesting that this was not a fair depiction of these two groups I’d be interested in hearing it. No group has the right to define or declare what is right. Validity claims are resolved through a discursive process aimed at forming a common understanding. Any issue can be put on the table, so if you wish to make a counter argument, please do. There is certainly an element of this, but are you suggesting that this negates the responsibility of the US for its interventions there?! Surely not. Saying that the US/West has done some horrible things in the ME for which it deserves blame is not saying that the people in non-puppet governments are blameless for their conduct. These are two separate issues. In answer to your last question, I’m sure most people would say yes. More importantly, though, perhaps just now the country has matured enough to get it past both the extremist past of the Shah, the US puppet, and the extremist religious rule which owed a lot its character to being a response to the Shah. One form of extremism, to a significant extent, bred another, both justifying breaking their own moral codes on the grounds that they were addressing a greater evil. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Now after a number of years of relative peace the younger generation is much less radical and seems poised to throw off the now outdated attitude of the current leadership. And I’m sure they are a region quite capable of governing themselves. They don’t need the west negatively interfering. If we were to topple the current regime and put in another puppet I’m sure that would radicalize the nation yet again. Again, the ethical approach has been the successful one. I don’t recall saying that anti-US sentiment was purley a result of US actions. In fact I would call that a misrepresentation of what I have said. And I, personally, don’t see the point in discussing relative heinousness. It is governments that declare themselves morally superior and thereby excuse their commission of only “moderately heinous” acts that are the very source of the ongoing problems that I’m speaking of.
This is all very true, (and very relevant to the situation in Iraq, btw), but in the case of Nicaragua we comparing a dictatorship that was widely criticized by human rights groups to a fledgling democracy. In this situation, for the reasons you mentioned, some struggle with implementing the democracy would be understandable, but I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the dictatorship was somehow more just than the democracy.
You know, I actually used to hate Indian food, and would have wildly flung poo at it last year at this time. However, when I was in Mongolia last year, after weeks of eating mostly flavorless yak and mutton, I found an Indian place in UlaanBataar that was the answer to my prayers. Now I love the stuff.
I submit that any government in Latin America, no matter what its economic system, could not withstand the determined opposition of the most powerful country in the history of the world. Chile never had an opportunity to find out if Allende's way would work. And in fact that was exactly the point of the U.S. interference there. I think it's the opposite of patronizing to let other countries choose their own and not interfere in their internal affairs.
Sam, NY is the place to get Indian food too. I'm sure you know about India row down in the east village, and there are a lot of good and bad places there. My favorite used to be Panna II. They had been declining in quality shortly before I moved away from NY, but the place is cheap was still fairly decent. There is also a great Indian restaurant on 72nd between B'WAY and Columbus, if I remember correctly. I wish I could remember the name of it but I can't. IT was definitely good but a little more pricey. Sadly though it was decorated with Christmas lights year round, some of which are mounted on the wall still in their containers. That was always a sweet bonus of going to Panna II.
Don't even mess around, dude, go to Jackson Heights. Although there is/was one place on East 6th that I particularly liked, and it too was decorated with Christmas lights. I considered this a bonus. The weird, hole in the wall places up and down Church Street are worth checking into, and there's a place in Soho just east of 6th Ave on Grand Street perhaps that is far better than you would think it would be. Damn, I miss NYC sometimes. As usual, I concur with Gifford. Reagan's thoroughly regrettable and sometimes detestable term informed my political gestation as a teen and a young adult.
LOL, one Indian place on East 6th with christmas lights? You're going to have to be a little more specific on that one! That's like saying "that starbucks in midtown!"
Yeah, yeah, I know. Or the Sbarro's in Times Square. I was just mentioning that my preferred place on East 6th has Christmas lights and that I sort of like it. It also has a discoball. That narrows it down some, huh? Who the hell knows what the name of the place is? It's on the south side of the street, obviously. It's about a quarter of the way into the block going west from 1st Ave, no more than a third of the way down the block. There's no live music inside. The lights are the small sort intended for a tree, and they are multicolored. As I recall, the predominant color of the interior is light blue. That eliminates a good handful of prospects at least.
A thread without <i>tribal warfare</i> is quite rare in 2004.....so I had better enjoy the moment while it exists. If you are interested in the Afghanistan topic.........here are a few more links: <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/20/">Soldiers of God (1975 - 1988)</a> <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/afghanistan/">Predicting the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: The Intelligence Community's Record</a> I have some really detailed links from the <i>National Security Archive</i>, but not sure about the demand for them. We (USA, Canada, Great Britian) have had things happen exceptionally well for quite some time and we probably don't appreciate it enough. Yes, we can always improve things, but our system of government and relative stability is something rarely seen in other parts of the world. I know that somebody will suggest the countries of Northern Europe being our equal (superiors?) in those areas, but they lack the immigration issues, diversity in ethnic groups, language barriers - conflicts, religious diversity and other factors that the USA, Canada and Great Britian have gone through. We have had leaders that generally mean well when embarking on Foreign Policy projects, but things sometimes go in a different direction(s) than planned. Perhaps some of it is a backlash of not being involved enough in Europe (Continent) between WW I and WW II and a silent vow to at least try something rather than let things fester as happened between the two World Wars. <i>Don't just stand there, Do Something!</i> mindset. Do the countries always make the right decision when they embark on these <i>projects</i>? Of course not because of several factors: 1) Things are often unique in foreign affairs. An auto dealer can pull up records on how blue luxury cars have sold for the last three months and have a general idea on how they will sell next month. A Department Store will have records on the sales of leather coats in the prior years and will be able to write a decent order for the upcoming fall-winter season. Radical Islam had minimal contact with the Western World prior to the 1970's and few people could imagine how it would morph and actually attack the Western World rather than just be a relatively defensive force to repel <i>Communism</i> in Afghanistan in its early stages. 2) Accomplishment of the primary (sole?) goal in a Foreign Affairs <i>project</i> is often the only benchmark (scoring mechanism) used, unless a <b>Major</b> negative consequence is evident immediately. 3) It will always be difficult to <i>put ourselves in the shoes</i> of others because of the different perspectives that we have on an situation - issue. The analysts will sometimes get it right when predicting outcomes, but perfection will always be over the horizon and never to be attained. 4) That we often remain fighting the <i>war</i> that has already been decided and not able to raise our heads to see other situations arising. 5) Hindsight will always be perfect and every leader (that has had to make significant decisions) will have some failures. We are only human. An example of differences between countries: The United States has historical ties with Liberia and has stepped in from time to time to stabilize the situation when things get gritty. Should more be done than a temporary patch? That will always be open to debate until Liberia becomes a stable country and that could be for the next 20 - 50 - 100 years. Germany had some colonial efforts in present day Rwanda, Burundi and other parts of Africa. I have seen zero to minimal action from Germany to help settle things when things get <i>gritty</i> in that part of the world. Belgium had colonial efforts in Congo & surrounding areas and there also seems to be zero to minimal effort by Belgium to step up and help in some way when things get <i>gritty</i> in that part of Africa. Is the present day isolationism that Continental Europe tends to favor correct? In some situations it might be and in other situations it is defintely not. The Balkans situation of the 90's failed to motivate the Continental Europeans to handle a Foreign Policy situation on their own doorstep and it took leadership & action by other countries (outside Continental Europe) to help stabilize the situation. Is the <i>fixit</i> mentality of the USA and Great Britain correct? In some situations it might be and other situations it probably isn't. There is a plan - project called the <i>Barcelona Process</i> that is an attempt by the EU to transition - modernise (reform?) some of the countries of the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean. <a HREF="http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/euromed/">Barcelona Process</a> One of the apparent limits of the Barcelona Process is that it desn't include countries at risk such as Saudi Arabia because they are not part of the Mediterranean basin of countries. Recently, the Bush Administration has been working on the <i>Greater Middle East Initiative</i> which will try to encourage change in the Arab world. There be some overlap with the <i>Barcelona Process</i> that the EU has been promoting, but the <i>Barcelona Process</i> doesn't cover Saudi Arabia which seems to be the next <i>Big</i> situation. The UN Human Development Program for the Arab countries is only a few years old and definitely a few years late in starting. The intents and actions of the EU, US and UN to foster development & change in the Middle East bring up the question of who should take the lead on this project. 1) The US because it has been in the <i>fixit</i> mode for decades and feels the need to change the situation in the Arab World (rightly or wrongly). 2) The EU because: * It made the first step in this direction - initiative * Has the geographic proximity * Economic ties * The immigration crossover with the Arab World and more able to walk in their shoes than the US could 3) The UN because they have a broader scope than the EU has with the <i>Barcelona Process</i> and would be viewed as having less of an agenda than the US would appear to have. Plus they are the UN and the task is ideally suited for them. Discussing possible scenarios in Saudi is best left for another thread as well as possible outcomes in Pakistan. Both are interesting siuations because of the impact that they can have on the world situation. <hr color=green> I just went back to review and it seems that I strayed a bit from the ideas and questions you posed for me. Too late for me to change everything, but my intentions were good.
Socialism never works. Wonder why the Third World is so poor? You can blame outdated command economies and lack of liberty for that, not "U.S. economic imperialism."
You are absolutely right that socialism doesn't work. What you are absolutely INCORRECT about is that the liberals in America want socialism.
Bama, please define what you mean by "socialism" and "work". Please list ten countries that you consider are working and that have what you consider capitalist economic systems? Then we might be able to have a conversation, because as it is I have no idea how you define socialism versus capitalism. Is Canada a socialist system or capitalist one in your mind? How about France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy? These are sincere questions.
Poona. we've lived down the block from them for ten years, but i was always slightly put off by the name and the slightly seedy looking exterior, so i never went in. about a year ago, a friend was in town and told us he'd recently eaten there and how great it was. we ordered in, and have been regulars ever since! i particularly recommend the chicken tikka mahkni, kinda like tikka marsala, but less tomatos. lamb sahg, while not on the menu, is also excellent. another great place in sapphire on the west side of broadway, around 61st. more expensive, but the coookings more sophisticated too. lunch is a great deal though. lastly, for an incredibly romantic evening, with very good food, try Nirvana on central park south. it's on the 15th floor of a small building between 5th and 6th, and the restaurant overlooks the park. go at dusk, and watch the light come on- just magical. btw, several indian friends have told me jackson heights is the best place to get authentic indian food in NYC. i haven't been, but perhaps it's a trip for the Clutch BBS NYC chapter?
Yes that's the place! I have also heard about Jackson Heights but never made it there for Indian food. There was a "real" Texas bar-b-q place in Queens that I got food from once. They had more than just bar-b-q chicken or Carolina Style pulled pork(not that there is anything wrong with that. I like that too.) But I was homesick, and my wife found the place in Queens. It was pretty good, and the only genuine Texas style bbq I had the whole time I was in NY. Queens also had some excellent Korean food. Better than just about any of the eateries around 35th and 36th street. But of those I liked Mandu bar a lot.
