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

> 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.

>. 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. 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. 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 ?).

> > Americans know as much as I,
>
> No, they do not.

You find yourself superior ?

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

> Now how would you like to characterize American voters?

American.
I don't see them as a uniform mass.
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 ? 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 ? 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. I'm not
sure they have -globally- more ambition than security and comfort. Maybe
that's just temporary.



> 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.
Better than nothing. 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.

>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).

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

CC