cc wrote:

> "Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
>
> > So don't join the French Army. But who will defend France next time, if
> they
> > come under foreign attack, if not an "army"? Santa Claus? Jesus?
>
> Common sense I hope !

France's common sense will not protect them any better than it protected them
through the early 20th century. Forces bent on evil will appear to victimize
others no matter how much sense you have.

Insert cheap anti US comment here.

> I'm not impressed by the way French Army has defended the country since at
> least Napoleon, that's even the contrary in fact. I'm really sorry for all
> those that died in 1914-18...but they are victims of a total mess, no
> defendors, they didn't defend my country. From where I stand, that was a
> civil war with my great-grand-fathers fighting each other.
> You don't want me to list all the other conflicts.
>
> And, I wouldn't not defend France. I don't see the point. Nations are
> enveloppes. If what they contain is rotten, let them collapse.

We are not talking about France collapsing under its own baggage, I am talking
about France being the future victim of military aggression. Who but an army
(or other armed force) will help France then?

> I'm glad to see France is slowly disappearing as a
>  nation (it's becoming a cultural and linguistic community, enough for me)

While I do not care much about national boundaries, I'm one of those foreigners
who believes that French culture and language should be preserved. And it would
be nice if French people did it themselves.

> to allow the creation of the European living space. For the same reason,
> "defending France" against other nations in the dozens of European wars  I
> see that was often negative.

What was negative was aggression and war itself, not defending France against
outside attack, or promoting freedom for themselves.

> (if not always, but I want to keep the illusion
> it was the positive when it was defending "democracy" against "dictature")
> Now I go further, "defending Koweit" is the last of my concern and I could
> not see that as anything but a means to restore enough peace in the area.
> Because peace is necessary for people to go further the "nation mentality".
>
> I'm optimistic. I believe in historic progress. And the concept of "nation"
> that was the progress in 19th century, and already getting archaic and
> causing conflicts in 20th century, and now that's getting anachronic and
> causing situations I don't have a word for like in Israelopalestine or in
> Irakokurdistan.

And what of nations and regions who have not advanced to the level that you
would like. You can think that way about France or Europe, but what about
developing or unstable regions? What about them? Should they be administered by
"foreign" forces, perhaps against their wills, to allow them to merge with the
rest of the world in peace and stability?

> > Why, when they do not see the future?
>
> Nobody sees the future, everybody takes decisions. Not everybody tries to
> report (a posteriori ) the choice they made on other's reponsability. I
> don't complain responsible people. I don't complain in fact. And I hate
> being complained no matter what happens.
>
> > *I* know the US media produces pro US propaganda, and told you so. It was
> YOU
> > claiming last night, what you saw in the US over the period of months was
> NOT
> > different from what you saw elsewhere.
> >
> > Are you changing your mind?
>
> Not at all. Elsewhere too, media produces propaganda in a similar way. Have
> you seen what they've done in England last week ? They've tried to block the
> publication of foreign media on their territory, not that of national media
> as those ones seem to obey the official orders not to write about the
> subject. It's about a no-story nobody cares about, but that shows how the
> government can and does interferes. So if that happens even in London, you
> can be sure there is no country of completely free and objective media on
> the planet.

Then why did you claim that what you saw in the US (pro US propaganda) over a
period of months was not different from what other people see (not as much
propaganda, balanced news, or anti US propaganda)?

> >. Americans watched what they wanted to watch, and
> > believed what they wanted to believe.
>
> At least we agree on that.
>
> > > > the way Middle Eastern, Eastern or European and Japanese covered them?
> > >
> > > None of these media shows or says more than the American ones.
> >
> > Now you are being ignorant again, despite what you just admitted twice
> above.
>
> I can be idiot but not ignorant.

No, I don't believe you are an idiot. It is highly possible that you do not
have all the information, however.

> During the active part of the war, I've
> followed more or less the news on Japanese, English, French and
> occasionnally others like Spanish media. I could compare. For every country,
> the mass media present a narrow point of view -not the same everywhere or
> for each media, but you could always find more documented articles that
> presented the same data base in each language.
>
> Everybody that has been in highschool knows the TV news are a biased digest,
> and you need a little personal effort to go to see the factual information,
> anytime a news topic interests you. And they do...But, do you think most
> people are really interested in Iraq ? I'm sure there are people that are
> able to cross check data from everywhere about a thing they care about (ex :
> the whales and dolphins) and never trust one word US media says on that
> subject, but when it's Iraq, they put the news 2 minutes and say "Oh, enough
> for me !".
>
> > How many images of dead and bloodied civilians did you see in the US
> media?
>
> A few, enough to deduce there are others and worse ones.

That's people like you and me. Now how about the red blooded American patriots
who simply don't like to hear or believe negative things about their government
or nation, or those who do not have as much information?

> I don't need
> images, even worse, I don't believe in images as they can't be objective
> (I've never managed to take a non subjective photo so far, do you know the
> trick to achieve that ?).

Why can't factual images be objective, as opposed to how they are presented or
interpreted?

> > > Americans know as much as I,
> >
> > No, they do not.
>
> You find yourself superior ?

No, but I do get to see what many Americans do not. Balance in coverage on the
war in Iraq is what is superior in Japan.

> > > but many made their own opinion differently from mine. That's not
> possible ?
> >
> > It is certainly possible when they are ignorant or fed propaganda.
>
> There is no possibility they are right and we are wrong ?

You mean that it is good to unilaterally invade Iraq without verifiable
justification and lack a clear plan (or perhaps even the will) to rebuild?

> I think there is no "right" opinion about politics, history will give
> answers but not even clear ones.

Really? Even about the Nazis and WWII? No "right" opinions?

Do you actually entertain the possibility that much of the world would have
been better under Nazi rule, or without Allied intervention?

> > Now how would you like to characterize American voters?
>
> American.
> I don't see them as a uniform mass.

You can see them as groups according to how they vote, such as, there were and
are people who support the Bush Administration, no matter what misgivings they
may have about them and their actions, even if it means military action abroad
for the foreseeable future.

> The most qualified and informed people about politics, international
> relations and history are American, that's their books and articles  I (and
> the rest of the world) read to get elements of reflections. The guy in the

> street can be as ignorant, indifferent and manipulated as anywhere else.
> The difference (I compare with the French if you don't mind) is more...how
> to say, many people have principles, ethic, values they refuse to doubt
> about, and that influences their choices. And many people see your country
> is very heteroclite and want/need to see projects involving everybody. (the
> French, like the Japanese don't see themselves as heteroclite like that).
> I mean even if their knowledge and intelligence tells them a certain project
> (like invading Iraq) is a mistake, many people can decide to support it
> because they want to believe in it. They hope a miracle, or that's just for
> the pleasure of having Americans of all classese/groups doing something
> together.
> You don't think ?
>
> > unlike those who preach only the alleged superiority of their own
> countries,
>
> That'd be who ?

The people who do so. I know many. The kind of people who for example, will
never admit to anything bad about Japan, or believe theirs is the best country
in the world.

[Note: I am not so about my own country.]

> I said anything about "superiority" ? My only point was the
> US had possible alternatives to their war-driven society, that was just an
> example. (I was amazed to hear all your arguments about Americans not liking
> taxes, etc. I know that. But everything is about choices and their cost)
>
> > such as how well informed and educated their militaries are, or how well
> the
> > government takes care of its citizens without conducting wars.
>
> That'd be where ?

Places you were referring to.

> In my country, the government are a bunch of useless guys
> that do nothing and we've been lacking of real leaders for decades(go to any
> cafe and ask if that's not wrong) but citizens manage to have the system
> take care of themselves and avoid wars and misery to themselves.

How if not the government or leaders?

> I'm not sure they have -globally- more ambition than security and comfort.
> Maybe
> that's just temporary.

Coming decades will see how the European social system will support itself. And
it will be unfortunate if it fails. I like watching the European systems.

> > Yet you believe I can educate the American public or change Bush's mind,
> ....
> > Just how do you believe I can do so?
>
> You can try.Maybe, if you are talented, you'll influence a few persons.

Not if they have the freedom to listen to what they want to listen to, to
interpret what they see, and to make their own decisions.

> Better than nothing.

I do try to influence people. Have been doing so the entire time I have been in
Japan.

On the JET Program, my school had many problems which were readily apparent.
The blame for such as what came to be called "classroom breakdown" was laid at
the feet of the Ministry of Education. Individual teachers, administrators, the
teacher's union fighting for years can't beat the Japanese government. What did
I accomplish in three to improve the situation of the school? Nothing important
that I could see. Some kids became more comfortable being around foreigners.
Whoopie.

In the real world I have resources that can be seen. A camp of homeless people
living under the train tracks next to the city bicycle parking area, within one
block of the station and shopping areas is about as in your face as you can be.
But people still deny the existence of homeless. Those who acknowledge them,
immediately interpret it to mean they are doing so by choice, or are lazy, and
they make the decision to think nothing, do nothing, or worse, spread
negativity about them or actually bar intervention to improve the situation.
Luckily, most homeless seem able to feed themselves (in this camp, they
actually cook over a burner, sitting in a circle), and they have some futons. I
wish they relieved themselves somewhere other than on the ground, polluting
their own living space and damaging their own image.

> If others also do that are their level, the sum of
> efforts can mean a change of mentality deeper and longer-lasting than a
> short span media campaign of the Pentagone.
>
> > Indoctrination is part of the training and experience.
>
> I disagree.

How does an army function without chaos otherwise?

> >They can't be acting like self-centered individuals on the battlefield.
>
> Yeah, they need self-sacrifice, but they also need to keep the capacity to
> be critical of what they are doing. Just to know at what point they have to
> stop obeying orders and become a victim/a traitor/ a desertor/whatever that
> takes  to avoid finishing as an ordinary obeying monster (like all those
> Japanese soldiers in Nanking).

You are talking about what are now recognized as illegal orders, and meant to
be disobeyed, though some slip through. I meant in general. They act as they
were trained to act, and do what they are told.

And perhaps you've seen or read some accounts of US pilots who went on strikes
in Iraqi territory. The ones I read about did not dwell on the possibility that
theirs was the one which was causing civilian casualties.

> In other case, how do you want to reduce/avoid what you've called
>  "inhuman behaviors" ?