Threatening China? Begging is more like it...
The Axis of Evil was Iran, Iraq and North Korea, as I recall. So we went after the weakest and most irrelevant of the three. How smart is that? Actually, maybe smarter than it looks, since the other two options might have led to nuclear war. Unfortunately, now that we have exposed ourselves as far weaker and less competant than anyone could have expected (short of nuking people), we really do seem to have run out of options with the two remaining members of the AofE.
The U.S. is suddenly playing the diplomacy game with Iran. How many people think it is because the White House actually learned from its mistakes? Let's not delude ourselves. Condi is talking either because we have no choice, or because we need cover for when we nuke Iran. And then we have North Korea. Lindsay Graham, a Republican senator, threatened China today with "hanging by a thread, diplomatically" if they don't do something, now, about North Korea.
Huh? Just what leverage does he think we have over China? It's time to get real. We pissed on, and pissed off, our allies, and now we have to turn to China to bail us out of a sticky situation. There are those who could say "I told you so...", but who would listen?
The U.S. is suddenly playing the diplomacy game with Iran. How many people think it is because the White House actually learned from its mistakes? Let's not delude ourselves. Condi is talking either because we have no choice, or because we need cover for when we nuke Iran. And then we have North Korea. Lindsay Graham, a Republican senator, threatened China today with "hanging by a thread, diplomatically" if they don't do something, now, about North Korea.
Huh? Just what leverage does he think we have over China? It's time to get real. We pissed on, and pissed off, our allies, and now we have to turn to China to bail us out of a sticky situation. There are those who could say "I told you so...", but who would listen?
posted by Carlos Zapato at 11:21 PM
5 Comments:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/philosophy/fivebasicprinciples.htm
So, you know, Zapats, I've been on this Gandhi thing. Seems if you browse thought some of the above, you'll see some ideals that reverbrate thought not only the ages, but to our dvery topics today.
Also, why don't we recognize that Martin Luther King's approach to the Civil Rightts Movement almost maps out what Gandhi's crew did 25-35 years before? Seems a Christian and western bias to me.
Sorry, meant to proofread above ... anyway ...
Your blog post and the previous post call out sorely that we need a leader of such wisdom and irrefutable truth and conscience that he/she can tie all the mistrust of the different worldly factinos. We don't have that leader today anywhere in the world. It's all about violence, positioning, lies, untruths, spins, lobbies, splinter groups, etc.
There is no one leader who is seen as hitting closest to the truth. I believe that humanity does see truth, and if the masses demand that of our leaders and leaders in training, then groups can do more. This is a job for great spiritual leaders who have transcented ideas into politics, as Gandhi did. He wrote:
"Vision of Truth
To see the universal and all-pervading spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."
Anyway, I don't know how that maps to your thinking, but to me, maybe a good pope-like leader can team up with a movie star, and rather than go after landmines, they can ressurect some of the ideas of Gandhi and MKL, and move a globe rather than just a continent or superpower.
Carlos - one more idea for you from my Gandhi readings:
MAJ founded Pakistan for the Muslims at a great cost of life ... though there was no war. there was great religious fanaticism combined with social change. These religious/societal conflicts have been going on for ages, and we need to understand within our leaders how to modernize the ancient, less knowledgeable mindset.
Interestingly, one of the charter ideas quoted here has not been fulfilled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinnah
"Muhammad Ali Jinnah became the first Governor-General of Pakistan and president of its constituent assembly. Inaugurating the assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah put forward a vision for a secular state:
You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.[28] "
So, how can modern humanity separate church from state? By church, I mean religious fanaticism whether it be a belief in a diety or a cultural or governmental system.
Actually, edman, MLK explicitly referred to Gandhi, and most writers about MLK cite his interest in Gandhi's teachings.
I think that what Gandhi meant by politics and religion being related has nothing to do with today's abuse of religion by factions trying to claim God is on their side. He meant something different is my guess.
Anon -
I didn't know that MLK referenced Gandhi. I'm just sayin' that the press never links the 2. Hey, maybe the press doesn't even say enough about MLK.
Yes, all this killin' in the name of a god isn't what I understand Gandhi to have upheld. Anyway, I was really into learning about his writings for a bit. The web is a nice place if one gets on a good topic.
Post a Comment
<< Home