Dangerous Bear

Discussion in 'World Events' started by ProCop, Apr 25, 2003.

  1. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    I saw an interview on the TV with someone (his name was I believe Kegan(?)). He spoke about US - Europe relations. To explain the different attitudes about Iraq he used a metaphor:

    There is a dangerous bear in the forest and two hunters: One (Europe) with a knife and one (US) with a rifle. The hunter with the knife argues lets leave the bear alone unless he leaves his corner of the forest and atacts us, but the hunter with the rifle says, no I will eliminate the bear because he showed some agressivity before..."

    So said Kegan, it comes to the strength. Europe is weak, and consequently is afraid to fight with potencially dangerous regimes, while America is strong and chalenges them because it is confident that it can handle them.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Johnny Bravo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    272
    Well, America has a large debt
    that will have to be paid in regard
    to military.
    If we spread ourselves to thin-
    fighting several wars at once, a
    economy that's taking a nosedive,
    and a national dept thats in the
    500 billion marks- they will
    divide and conquer us.


    I still don't think Saddam was a
    real threat to the U.S. -still no proof
    of wmd's or dirty bombs.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    well we can talk all day about this and that, i would put to you people, why is european union such a threat to the usa. you work that out, just look at how history shows us how countries live and die.

    does america relise that europe has greater potential than america, or does it just want to get a head start on europe. remember we are talking about world opinion here, whether americans think that world opinion matters or not, it does and history has shown us that.

    and also remember that saying is simplistic at best, the affair was not that simple, but it does end up with america coming out better than they should.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. robsaunders Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    To Pro-Cop

    Hi there. To take up your point...I would have to say that Kegan whoever or whatever he is, is something of a reductionist to the point of being foolish.

    I think it is rather silly to try to analyse something as complex as what has been happening in the world, post 'that date' in 2001 in terms such as that. [On a personal level, I also think what this Kegan says - to use such a childish purile argument to rationalise the many 10's of thousands of humanity who were blown to pieces - is vile and disgusting in the extreme.]

    We could be here all night, but I would say to you this, for a nation such as the USA and all that she stands for, to deploy and use weaponry straight out of science fiction, against a part of our humanity who still cook their evening meals over burning sticks, is an act of unspeakable evil, AND, unsustainable stupidity.

    What if the hunter with the rifle is the one who trained the bear to be a man-eater in the first place.

    Why does the man with the rifle particularly fear the bear? Any hunter who knows much about hunting will tell you that the bear or shark or big cat will do just about anything it can to keep away from you.

    Wake up America.......

    Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

    :m: RS
     
  8. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    So we (US, etc) should have made it an even fight like the eight year Iran Iraq war? How would that have been a good thing?
     
  9. Microzoft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,838
    Well, the US hunter has spent lots and lots of money in his nice shine long range rifle, and he just can’t wait to use it, considering what an insect that Bear must be against the rifle, and of course the money he is going to make with the fur, the US hunter is telling himself all the good reasons to shoot the Bear.

    Not only the US hunter is not realizing that he is in the Bear’s territory, but that if attacked, the Bear is doing what’s natural and expected.

    I wonder what that smart US hunter would say if the European Hunter gives him the knife and ask him to go ahead and use his brains and the knife for the job?
     
  10. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    I would imagine 'Kegan' is probably the imminent British military historian John Keegan, and I'd hardly call Mr. Keegan foolish.

    Why does the man with the rifle particularly fear the bear? If the bear or big cat has tasted human blood previously then it is very likely to stalk a human, and if you're in the water, then a shark is going to consider you potential dinner. I've never known a shark to avoid human contact.
     
  11. robsaunders Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    Dear Coldrake

    An animal will usually only taste human blood when it has been injured by humans. Anyway, it is somewhat off the point.
    As part of my profession, I dive. You clearly know very little about sharks.

    Finally, if Mr Keegan's opinion is of such importance and respect, can you explain why such a purile analogy is all this eminent military historian could manage?

    Rob Saunders
     
  12. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    My opinions are always important to me.

    I'm sure he will be disapppointed to hear that.

    Actually I wasn't wondering at all why you have that opinion. But if I did want to know why you had the opinion I would hardly ask a military leader since I wouldn't put you in that category. And I'm not sure how illustrious Keegan's military career was, but I know that 'Sir' John was knighted and has a panel chair on the Atlantic Partnership, a Euro-American think tank that includes some fairly impressive political minds. Somebody seems to think highly of his opinions.

    Oh dear, I didn't preview my post and you caught my mistake. I'd feel worse except that you apparently don't either. Unless of course, you always spell meant as [menat], perhaps.

    And does that make it any less dangerous?

    So you're telling me that a man-eater the size of a Tiger or White will avoid contact with a man in the water?

    And how do you know that is all he had to say about it? That's all that was posted in this thread. I'm quite sure a man who's written thirteen books had plenty to say. All we got was a soundbyte.
     
  13. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I've never heard of this Kegan guy before, but to characterize the middle east conflict in such a ridiculously simplistic way is indeed very foolish...so Islamic terrorists hate the US because they are like a hungry bear with a taste for human blood? Come on....

    I think a better(although still, I admit, foolishly simplistic) analysis woudl be britain and the US are in the woods together, each with pile of rocks(the USs bigger than the UKs) and the US begins hurling its rocks at a hornets nest...when the hornets respond by swarming and stinging the US it demands that Britain aid it in throwing more and more rocks until the nest is destroyed...
    Britain might be reluctant for obvious reasons.

    for some reason the image of Bush doing this seems very believable
     
  14. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    jps, you're right. The latter was a bad analogy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I don't think Keegan was referring to Islamic terrorists with his comparison to a bear that has shown aggressiveness prior. I believe it was to Iraq specifically, referring to its prior invasions of Iran and Kuwait.
     
  15. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    I still maintain that my analogy is better than Kegans.
    Whoever he was referring to, its rather silly.
     
  16. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    Let's see what sort of mess I can make of this:
    Once upon a time the aforementioned bear in the aforementioned forest decided to take on the neighboring tiger. They fought for 8 years to a bloody draw, much to the embarsment of the bear.
    The bear then went after easier game, a small village of people with slingshots. He tore up the village prety bad and ate some of the villagers before the two aforementioned hunters got off there butts and chased him out of the village. They would have killed that bear but PETA objected.
    For twelve years the hunters tried to do things PETA's way by containing the bear and trying to see that he wasn't overly fed but the bear got smarter and meaner.
    Finally seeing that PETA was full of bear dung, and that the situation was only going to get worse (did I mention the bear assisting Godzilla in the trashing of N.Y. N.Y?) Decided to put an end to it so, while one hunter stabed the bear in the rump, the other shot it between the eyes.
    They then shared the berrys with all the other animals of the forest (except the PETA members) who were now free of bear tyranny and dropings.
    And they all lived hapily ever after (except the PETA members).
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2003
  17. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    Well, about Kegan(?). I think he was an American being interviewd about his recent book about European-American relations, especially about the situation around the recent split. (I tried to find more on him but didn't find anything (Google, Amazon.com))

    He simplified the issue obviously. He saw the difference between European and American vieuws basically as his metaphor describes.

    -----------------------


    Dictators live on the fear of the people they oppress. Their brutality and supression is blatant. Its good to handle them. <B> But</b> American record on fighting dictators is kind of spotty. In Chille their suported a brutal regime and there are still many undemocratic states which do not disturb the "the hunter with the rifle" at all. There is something "artificial" in the Iraq war. Eg. the Americans stated that they were invading Iraq to find and destroy WMD. (First they stated they wanted to take away bears nails, etc.) That and other discrepabtions make the whole thing muddy. A nun I met recently told me (she was in Nicaragua years ago) that even if you do kill bad people from necessity, you as a morally superior soldier shouldn't walk between the dead bodies rotting in dust, you should cover them at least with some white cloth as a symbol: we acted on the side of the Good and we are sorry for the evil it caused...
     
  18. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    So what country does a better job than us (US) at oposing dictators?
     
  19. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    RE: SuperFudd

    Well, we have United Nations and other bodies like Amnesty International, The Hague tribunal, etc. Law is supposed to be superior to simple tit for tat strategies (of the moment).
     
  20. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    Yeah! So how come it isn't?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    RE:SuperFudd

    Law is prefered to well-willed unlaw. Like an enligtened dictator the US won the fight against Sadam. Most people appriciate that. But some have an uneasy feeling about the way it happened. Is an enligtened dictator preferable to slow and less effective UN? Lenin was an enligtened dictator too. Look at what he did to Russia (with the best intentions!).
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2003
  22. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    What would be preferable would be a swift, just, and forceful law instead of the UN sitting with their thumbs up their rears all decade. They want the status quo, not progress.

    When was the last time the UN got real results getting rid of dictators? For that matter, how many UN members have unelected governments?
     
  23. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Definitely true, but laws that are never enforced become ignored and abused and in the end, meaningless.
     

Share This Page