What If The Sky Really Is Falling?

Ok, I'm not going to talk about politics here (& I don't have much time for that), but I'll offer my take on how & why if an empire will fall in the 21st Century...

1) Adaptation. The world as it is today is all about adaptation, rapid adaptation. A country, even the superior/empires of the world also requires adapting to the different trends happening in the world. e.g. technological trend, social trend, economical tread... etc. to fend off competitions. If an empire falls to do that, even the United States could be out of the scene quicker than anyone could have imagined. e.g. Look at China, comparing the city of Shanghai 10 years ago & now... one will hardly recognize that's the same city they are talking about & already there are people & articles predicting that China will become the new world leader in the later part of the 21st Century.

2) Comparing the world now to the past, the same rule applies, just a different game. It's like playing a game at beginers' level in the past & now moving onto the deity level. Things changes more rapidly, more competition, more variaty, but the aim, objectives & the cencept of the game still very much the same...

 

All I see in this thread is "blah, blah, blah, blah."

 

They hate us because many of our most cherished beliefs and things we do for fun are in stark opposition to their religious beliefs which in countries like Saudi Arabia are pretty much the law. You're talking about a country that has a city with a wall around it to keep out all non-Muslims. The reason.....because the presence of non-Muslims in the holy city of Mecca would infect the city. As stupid as that sounds to an American, that is an actaul belief of many a Saudi-- that non-Muslims are hellbound devils roaming the earth. Imagine the most right wing Christian's point of views and mulitply them by 100 and then you might have some understanding of what we're up against here. Yes, it is just blind hate, blind because the Saudi society lacks the education to think for themselves and furthermore, have the Matawah (the religious mafia) and the voice of the Mosque telling them what to think. We're talking about a nation by the way that was born less than a century ago. When Lawrence of Arabia came to Arabia in the first world war, he found a nation of nomadic tribes. That same society was thrust from their Dark Ages way of life into the 20th century in the 1930's when oil was discovered by Steineke. Now how far do you think these people have come in the 80 years since they left their bedouin lifestyle? For the kind of Saudi I'm talking about, the kind you find off the beaten path all over the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, their hatred for America is not based on perceived American imperialism and oil interests in the middle east, but our society being pushed on their society ever so little more with each western channel that is allowed in their homes. I moved to Saudi Arabia in 1986 and back then, there was no T.V. outside of the Persian Gulf area. To put it in perspective, I did not even know who won the Super Bowl for months. That's how limited the news was there. There was also no McDonalds, no coke, no MTV, no ESPN, no gum, almost nothing western found in the region. Then the Gulf War came. Thousands of American troops were in the kingdom at the request of the Saudi royal family. These troops wanted their ESPN, their coke, their western news and for the first time, the Saudi govt. allowed some of these things into the kingdom. People, Arab and American alike, invested in sattelite scramblers so that they could get the news feeds that the American soldiers were getting. That's when things started to change in Arabia. McDonald's came, Taco Bell came, coke came, gum came, most importantly exposure to western culture came into the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, viewed as literal holy land to the citizens of the country. Some Saudi kids were seen wearing Nikes, sipping coke, and basically adopting the western ideas they saw on the television which they were previously unable to see. There were many Saudi adults who viewed this as the worst thing that could ever happen to them. In 1993, two years after the end of the Gulf War, you started to hear rumblings about displeasure that the American culture was being adopted by the Saudi youth. Some, not all, started talking about "Saudiazation" which boiled down to ridding the country of all westerners. They said they could have won the Gulf War themselves without American help and started to demand that the Saudi royal family expel the Americans from the kingdom (so much for gratitude). The talk was in the local newspaper on a daily basis. I have stacks of them at home and just one of them would be enough to get you to understand what we are dealing with. Now before 1995, there had never been a terrorist attack against western interests inside the Saudi kingdom. That all changed when the military barracks at Khobar Towers occurred, an event that brought Osama Bin Laden's name on the world stage for the first time though few Americans cared that 17 of their service men died that day. The attack happened just a few miles from my home and we heard the explosion. Anti-western sentiment born of religious belief had become violent in the kingdom and it wouldn't be the last as the more radical Muslims in the kingdom saw the attacks at a last ditch effort to preserve their strict Islamic society. Within months, a poll came out in "The Arab News" in which 62% of the people responsding said they supported Bin Laden's terrorist attacks on western interests, an astounding number to even me who understood these people. That was the first time my family really felt in real danger living in that country. A year later, we found an 8 x 11 paper on the hood of our car which said "Do not leave your homes. If you do, you will be kidnapped and killed by us" signed The Matawah. The American consulate and the State Dept. for the first in 1997 advised Americans not to go to Saudi Arabia due to "a religious movement to rid the kingdom of western ideas". That was the Clinton's administration's warning in case you think Bush is just off on some tangent with his understanding of the situation in the middle east. I could go on and on. The fact is to answer your original question, yes the Saudis dislike us because our culture is in strict opposition to their more easily controlled culture and they were more comfortable living in their pre-Gulf war society that was free of western ideas and pleasures. The Gulf War brought the west into their lives for the first time and a large faction of their population saw this as the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. It began with a few smirks at westerners in a street, then heated discussion in the local papers, then terrorist attacks against westerners in the kingdom, until now where we see it finally spilling over onto American shores. Yes, it really is as simple as them finding our way of life taboo and wanting to get it out of their society. It's blind hate as illogical as that probably sounds to your typical American. The problem is, their population simply can not manage their oil reserves themselves. They lack the education to do so and the govt knows it which is why, despite the very loud, very vocal protests and demands for Saudiazation from the country's people, that the govt. controlled oil company that manages all of the Saudi oil continued and continues to this day to higher westerners and Indians to run their country's largest, most profitable company. The people saw that their govt. would never give them what they wanted so some of them have decided to take matters into their own hands. The question now is whether Americans will wake up and realize this or if they will continue to believe that everything I've said here is nonsense. Trust me, I know if I grew up in this country, I would have a hard time believing it to. In fact, if I were in your shoes I probably would have a hard time taking my word for it. I can only swear to you that everything I've said in this post is very true. Take it or leave it. As for Macbeth, the sky may not be falling but it's teetering on the edge of the cliff.

 

Stick to managing sports sites then. This stuff is obviously above your head.

 

Deuce Rings, fascinating stuff. I completely agree that the hatred is based on culture, not on "politcal reasons." I laugh when people say Osama bin Laden just disagrees with us politcally- what a joke that is. Since when is murdering thousands of people a logical response to a political disagreement? Unfortunately, for some people, the US should be analyzed and suspected before all else.

 

Of course I mean the Roman Republic. And while the idea of Rome did remain powerful in the Byzantine, I would hardly label the Byzantine the exact same political entity.

However, I'm very much aware that your grasp on history on this subject probably exceeds my own, as I just am equipped w/college intro courses in history here .

It's debatable as to whether France was even a true nation under Louis, or merely an extended estate of the King. But regardless, my argument is narrower than you imagine: simply put, sudden and abrupt ends are more likely to come to short-lived empires/nations. Louis reigned for a long time. But France was not hegemonic for the entirety of his reign, lacked the comparative supreme power of the US even during this reign.

I don't think it's really important that the period of US dominance has lasted only 15 years loner than the Soviet Empire lasted... but rather that the US, as a discreet political, cultural entity, has existed for more than 200 years. Many generations being the important thing.

Errrp... I can't find anything we disagree about here.

You and I disagree to a small extent. Individual liberty is important to me, but I don't think (directly at least) that it's that much of a threat to the fall of our system.

I do think that the threat to balance of power in government affects the future of the nation in many ways (and this is somewhat affected by the loss of individual liberty). As balance of power erodes, decisions are more likely to be non-deliberative, uncompromised, and based on personality... and more prone to costly decisive errors (fond of that phrase).

That's my real worry, actually - that the executive is acumulating too much power. Loss of individual liberty reinforces this, in the obvious sense that increased executive control of the individual limits access to positive change at the grass roots level.

 

MacBeth,

I read your long original post. If I'm not mistaken, you basically made one single point: While we are strong, we could be wrong.

I'm not a history guy as much as a logic guy. So bare with my approach to problems.

While all your historical arguments are helpful in dampening the optimism of the "We are strong, therefore we must be right" sentiment, they do not offer any logical connection with the present situation. Yes, we could be wrong. But that doesn't follow that we ARE wrong.

The "That was then, this is now" crowd is not necessarily wrong. They would be wrong if they did not examined the historical lessons such as what you have noted. They would be right, however, if all they said (as I am saying now) was that historical patterns have no logical connection with present events.

In other words, to prove that we are wrong now, you still have to look at the present situation and show that we are wrong. That, you did in your last paragraph. To me, that last paragraph is the only meat of the argument (if your goal is to prove that the present adminstration is misguided) and all the historical stuff is just an introduction.

BTW, even if the US is crumbling, the sky still won't fall. Learn from the Romans. So relax.

 

If its just a hatred of culture I ask again. Why not bomb Amsterdam? That is where prostitution and drug use is legal and is the complete antithesis of their wahhabi 'Islamic' culture??

Why not hate Thai people for all the debauchery that happens in Bangkok??

I also have been throughout the middle east and I see a time-bomb about to explode because of the horrendous conditions that the people live under. The Saudi's want freedom from their government which I feel is more tyrannical than that of the Iraq. Their puritanical form of wahhabism is what grew into groups like Al-Queda and others.

But to blame it on hatred of culture is just nonsense. It makes no sense and it is ignorant.

Deuce,

I understood you lived there, but you don't know about the history of US involvement in the region. Egypt's totalitarian government is funded by the US and they live in a police state, yet its funded by the US only for one reason: they are at peace with Israel. The Saudi people see the US troops there helping the corrupt, monarchs in power rob the country blind. Iran was a democracy till we came in and 'installed' the shah of Iran, who killed an uncountable number and created the revolution which led to the current state. There was a democratically elected government in Algeria, that we overturned and helped support a Dictator that rules with an iron fist till today. We have had economic sanctions against many middle eastern countries for over a decade, crippling their economies and not letting them sell their products and services to the world.

Wouldn't you be pissed? Oh yeah....they just 'hate'. It is so much easier to be ignorant and mark people as 'evil' and that they just 'hate' rather than understand the truth that the only reason there is a US-Muslim/Arab conflict is because of Israel.
That little sliver of land is the cause for the disharmony of the whole region with the US. The US has armed Israel with nuclear weapons, F-16's, and almost every technological weapon we own. The US gives them billions annually, which comes out to over $10,000 per citizen of the country and they expect their enemies to love them? Israel is the primary cause of the Arab/Muslim - US conflict as well as the beginning of our break from the UN and the world. We were thrown off of the UN Human Rights group with our support, and walked out of the international racism conference because they brought Israel up. Don't be naive.

 

I believe a few paragraphs from Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael would fit well in this thread.

"As the flight begins, all is well. Our would-be airman has been pushed up off the edge of the cliff and is pedaling away, and the wings of his craft are flapping like crazy. He’s feeling wonderful, ecstatic. He’s experiencing the freedom of the air. What he doesn’t realize, however, is that this craft is aerodynamically incapable of flight. It simply isn’t in compliance with the laws that make flight possible-but he would laugh if you told him such things…

Fortunately—or rather, unfortunately for our airman—he chose a very high cliff to launch his craft from…He’s like the man in the joke who jumps out of a ninetieth-floor window on a bet. As he passes the tenth floor, he says to himself, “Well so far so good”.

There he is in free fall, experiencing the exhilaration of what he takes to be flight. From his height he can see for miles and one thing he sees puzzles him: The floor of the valley is dotted with craft just like his—not crashed, simple abandoned…What sorts of fools would abandon their aircraft when they could be enjoying the freedom of the air?

He thinks with amusement of those who predicted that his flight would end in disaster…he’s come all this way, and he hasn’t even gotten a bruise much less a broken bone. But then he looks down again, and what he sees really disturbs him…The ground is now rushing up at an alarming rate…he starts pedaling with all his might…which of course does him no good at all. That craft is doomed—and so is he unless he abandons it.

Ten thousand years ago, the people of your culture embarked on a similar flight: a civilization flight. Their craft wasn’t designed according to any theory at all. Like our imaginary airman, they were totally unaware that there is a law that must be complied with in order to achieve civilization flight. Like our airman they see strange sights in the course of their fall. They see craft very much like their own—not destroyed merely abandoned—by the Maya, by the Hohokam, by the Anasazi…

Five billion of you pedaling away—or ten billion or twenty billion—can’t make it fly. It’s been in free fall from the beginning, and that fall is about to end."

 

There have been 2 bombing attacks against Bali. Terrorist attacks against India are a regular occurence. France is having problems assimilating their Muslim immigrants. Although Russia isn't really aligned with us, they are becoming somewhat westernized, and they are having problems with terrorist in Chechnya.

It is false to say that they are focused only on the US.

 

So what did he say? For me it is too hard to read something that long and not paragraphed.

 

I don't really believe Israel is the primary cause. Israel became a convenient excuse. Nobody cared about the Palestinians until Israel was formed, then all of a sudden the Palestinians were heroes standing up to Western oppression. That is why Palestinians are not allowed to become emgrate to other nations of the Middle East (well, I believe they can become citizens of Israel).

By the way, I do feel there is legitimate anger towards the West and US. I'm not saying they are wrong in feeling that way, or that the US has been right in every foreign policy action. But to argue that their situation is mostly the US's fault is wrong, IMO. How prosperous were these nations in the 1800's? How close to democracy and freedom were they?

 

I'm not saying that their high rates of illiteracy, their crumbling economies and their subpar governments are the US's fault. That is there fault on their own for allowing themselves to be taken advantage of by corrupt leaders.

The only point is that if we give nuclear weapons and billions to Israel and they use them to take more land and have political assasinations, then you will see the reigon dispise not only the country, but the group that funded them. That would be US.

The same way that if a person gives money to a terrorist group and that group carries out an attack, we find them to be a party to the violence. That is how we in the US are held accountable.

 

We didn't give nuclear weapons to Israel. Israel developed them on their own (probably with some covert assistance) from uranium bought from South Africa. As I've said before, the Palestinians are not a distinct people as such. There is no Palestinian language or culture. They are Arabs like the rest of their brethern. It's funny, that it is always Israel, which is only a few miles wide in a few places, which is asked to give up some land for peace and not the Arabs, who own 90 percent of land over there.

 

Its not the amount of land that is important, its what is contained within their borders that causes all the problems...they are sitting on alot of history and someone is always going to want to claim it as their homeland or capital.

 

But that is a fallacy too. The Muslims supposedly revere Jerusalem as one of their holy sites, but little if anything went there. Here is a great quote from a great article in Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2001.....

-Daniel Pipes is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
Here is the link here:
http://www.meforum.org/article/490