The Political Discussion Thread

[Goose]

But that's because Al-Qaeda didn't manage to score any more flashy successes, plus it shot itself in the foot by blowing up people in Muslim states. (That big drop in Jordanian opinion took place because of the 2005 Amman bombings). As the time passed, the glory faded.


There are. But the picture isn't terribly different for Quatar or Bangladesh. There are polls which include them, too.

Can you point me in the direction of said polls?

We've got a tag team match going on here. I'm rooting for Goose, just to make things even.

Why thank you

[lordofseas]

Can you point me in the direction of said polls?

Why thank you

I'm not counted, because I'm on ignore.

[Goose]

I'm not counted, because I'm on ignore.

That's a shame, would've made it all the more interesting!

[lordofseas]

That's a shame, would've made it all the more interesting!

It's still amusing.

[Goose]

It's still amusing.

Unfortunately I have to head of for some kip soon, so I hope you guys don't have too much fun without me!

[lordofseas]

Unfortunately I have to head of for some kip soon, so I hope you guys don't have too much fun without me!

Too much fun. Such is impossible!

[aretood2]

Historically, leaders have brought people together by pitting them against a common "enemy" - real or perceived. Hitler was masterful in doing it with the Jews. He made them the "enemy" of the German people, thus uniting them at a very difficult point in their history. It made it possible for them to come back after WWI and the heavy reparations, and economic turmoil to fight WWII so quickly. Both sides in the current situation seem to have made an enemy of the other to help in uniting their own people.

My emphasis is on how he managed to rally the German people to the exclusion of minorities. It was by developing an "Aryan" identity and the enemies of the "German" people became those who threatened that identity. Jews represented the principle threat, Gypsies were the second largest group (interesting that you failed to recall that group in your other post and did remember Homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses, especially when you compare the millions of Gypsies dead to a few thousand Jehovah's Witnesses, not that they shouldn't be remembered. But that is another interesting topic about how we remember history and why).

I'd say it's more to do with propping up Middle Eastern dictators they like, and then toppling ones they don't, personally. Not to mention their blind support of Israel.

Here's the question, why? And how would you go about propping up "favorable" dictators? How would you justify this action if you were the American policy makers, or rather how do they justify it?

[Nolamom]

(interesting that you failed to recall that group in your other post and did remember Homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses, especially when you compare the millions of Gypsies dead to a few thousand Jehovah's Witnesses, not that they shouldn't be remembered. But that is another interesting topic about how we remember history and why).

You're absolutely correct. I don't know why I failed to include Gypsies, total brain lapse I suppose. About the JW's, that's easy - my mother, who died this summer, was one so I tend to remember trivia about them.

[aretood2]

You're absolutely correct. I don't know why I failed to include Gypsies, total brain lapse I suppose. About the JW's, that's easy - my mother, who died this summer, was one so I tend to remember trivia about them.

Well I also tend to remember them too, and not Gypsies. Though the reasons why I recall Jehovah's Witnesses more are not nearly as personal as your reason here. They were mentioned more in my High School history class than Gypsies, interestingly enough. Though the main point I had in mind is how the Holocaust is remembered more of a Jewish thing. But that is a historical thing, and history, and well...politicians tend to avoid the study of history

[Nolamom]

Some politicians, like Sarah Palin for instance, avoid studying history as an art form!

[aretood2]

Some politicians, like Sarah Palin for instance, avoid studying history as an art form!

I always say that the one thing politicians fear the most is a country full of historians. On that thought line, don't you think it's rather interesting that the rulers of the US are mainly Lawyers who pretend to be experts at Economics, History, Psychology, and so on?

[Nolamom]

Probably because those are all social sciences. People (in general) don't seem to have a great deal of trust in lawyers. Social scientists are viewed more positively as they are seen to be more "in tune" with people and their problems. I could be way off-base here, but it seems to me that given a choice between a historian who has hopefully learned the lessons of history and therefor won't (easily) repeat the mistakes and a lawyer, folks would opt for the historian. Likewise an economist - practical applications to the economy vs. a knowledge of pure law. Psychology - understanding of the human psyche - what makes people tick as it were, how is the other guy going to react in a given situation, useful stuff.

[aretood2]

Reminds me of this one Tariff that a President signed on for in the early 1900's despite the dire warnings of about a thousand economists...it ended up causing more problems than solutions. I forgot what it was called >.<

[Nolamom]

There was more than one of those! Protectionism ran pretty rampant in the first half of the 20th century. It wasn't until later that politicians finally got it through their heads that trade is more beneficial to both parties than mutual tariffs.

[lordofseas]

Protectionism is rather heavily suggested in Obama's new bill for Congress. "Made in America"...