On 72nd A-bomb anniversary, Hiroshima highlights Japan’s refusal to join U.N. nuke ba

[Saleh]

Good point, but the Japanese were already looting, raping and devastating the Far East many years before Pearl Harbor or any blockade. When I state that I am glade the USA won that war and the Japs lost its not because I love Murica or hate the Japanese. It has nothing to do with that. Its all about the way they both saw the world: for the fascistic Japanese regime everything was about them while the rest of the world should submit to their militarism. But Western liberal democracy, despite all its flaws, offers us something different and exceptional. For the very first time in human history a political systems offers individual freedom, private property, peace, understanding, international cooperation and to some extend, reason.

I have been taught to appreciate what exceptional and unique things, and democracy its indeed something exceptional and unique. Thats why I am glad Americans won the Cold War: their system is the less bad option and has brought a lot of prosperity, peace and development to our planet. No wonder the most developed countries in the world are those who adopted the Western economic and to some degree political system.

It seems you are merely adopting a Western supremacist world view. It has similarity to the rhetoric Euros made up to justify opression of non-Euros. (''Ei. ruling the others is for their own good'').

Like I said, regardless of which group were dominating the world, you would've more or less the same level developement in their societies. There is only so many ways to design a wheel. The West have had luxury of unerupted developement the last 400 years. The same cannot be said of the rest of the world.

Once world powers lost the upperhand, their developement ended. ancient Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Caliphate Muslims, etc. are all examples of this.

[Firdousi]

It seems you are merely adopting a Western supremacist world view. It has similarity to the rhetoric Euros made up to justify opression of non-Euros. (''Ei. ruling the others is for their own good'').

Like I said, regardless of which group were dominating the world, you would've more or less the same level developement in their societies. There is only so many ways to design a wheel. The West have had luxury of unerupted developement the last 400 years. The same cannot be said of the rest of the world.

Once world powers lost the upperhand, their developement ended. ancient Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Caliphate Muslims, etc. are all examples of this.

Yeah exactly man I am brainwashed Nazi wannabe lol

Come on its not just a theory, its a fact. Most developed countries ever all of them have something in common: they adopted the Western system. Check it out yourself:

400 Bad Request

400 years of unerupted development????? What the hell are you talking about???? West has been several times devasted and burned to the ground in the last four centuries. Have you ever heard about the WW1, WW2, the Napoleonic wars and so on??? Now you have proved to be a biased person.

You can not compare any of those empires with modern systems. In the modern world many things have changed: we have better technology, populations are educated, we are better connected, we have rights to some degree, we know that problems can be and should be tackled from different fields (socially, scientifically, anthropologically, politically, and so on), we have limitless access to information, and so on. All these are Western contributions. If you are seriously going to compare the old Persian Empire with the modern American Empire that mean that you are s tupid and its to worth to even talking to you.

[Firdousi]

BTW I find hilarious how people talk about "Western civilization" as such thing even exists. Well, it doesn't. Modern "Western civilization" is a complex system of several social, political and economic theories, laws and principles such as rule of law, social liberalism, multiculturalism, capitalism, liberal democracy, individualism, separation of powers, and so on. You don't need to be from Europe or America in order to adopt them. South Korea, Japan or Turkey are not white countries nor christians still have adopted this system to a huge degree.

Ethnicity, race, religion or nationalism play a secondary role in the modern West. People like Trump, Bannon or Le Pen disagree with this modern post-cold war West and they want to give a more important role to those elements in the Western politics and society (just like other people in non Western countries want their religion to have a more important role in their societies, such as Erdogan in Turkey. Its the same phenomenon).

[khushal]

Good point, but the Japanese were already looting, raping and devastating the Far East many years before Pearl Harbor or any blockade. When I state that I am glade the USA won that war and the Japs lost its not because I love Murica or hate the Japanese. It has nothing to do with that. Its all about the way they both saw the world: for the fascistic Japanese regime everything was about them while the rest of the world should submit to their militarism. But Western liberal democracy, despite all its flaws, offers us something different and exceptional. For the very first time in human history a political systems offers individual freedom, private property, peace, understanding, international cooperation and to some extend, reason.

I have been taught to appreciate what exceptional and unique things, and democracy its indeed something exceptional and unique. Thats why I am glad Americans won the Cold War: their system is the less bad option and has brought a lot of prosperity, peace and development to our planet. No wonder the most developed countries in the world are those who adopted the Western economic and to some degree political system.

I'm not saying the Japanese were angels or victims, at least not its government, but the clash of empires was inevitable. It is the A bomb that has prevented current empires from clashing directly but only through proxy and because of this A bomb, the smarter empire has conformed to granting liberties rather than taking them away like they did in the past because the A bomb has taken away the power of force against other empires. The Soviets failed to realize what the West did, that the cold war was going to be won with winning hearts and minds(politically and economically) and not through sheer force.

[Firdousi]

I'm not saying the Japanese were angels or victims, at least not its government, but the clash of empires was inevitable. It is the A bomb that has prevented current empires from clashing directly but only through proxy and because of this A bomb, the smarter empire has conformed to granting liberties rather than taking them away like they did in the past because the A bomb has taken away the power of force against other empires. The Soviets failed to realize what the West did, that the cold war was going to be won with winning hearts and minds(politically and economically) and not through sheer force.

West was always ahead of URSS. It was not just soft power what defeated the URSS but also superior economy. In the 80th after the "Evil Empire" Speech, Reagan started a huge and hardcore military and economic program to defeat the URSS. Basically it helped to beat the commies for good.

Well I don't think this current liberal system created by the USA is because of the A-Bomb. Actually it was the Brits who set the foundation. Americans developed it. Americans have this amazing skill when it comes to creating solid nationwide and global wide institutions such as UN, FMI, WB, NATO, and so on. Basically the modern globalization lays down on American international institutions and American technology. Its remarkable and admirable.

[khushal]

One thing I would like to add is that the Japanese believed that Asia should be ruled by Asians and they were fighting a defensive war on home turf(Asia) against Europeans.

[khushal]

West was always ahead of URSS. It was not just soft power what defeated the URSS but also superior economy. In the 80th after the "Evil Empire" Speech, Reagan started a huge and hardcore military and economic program to defeat the URSS. Basically it helped to beat the commies for good.

Well I don't think this current liberal system created by the USA is because of the A-Bomb. Actually it was the Brits who set the foundation. Americans developed it. Americans have this amazing skill when it comes to creating solid nationwide and global wide institutions such as UN, FMI, WB, NATO, and so on. Basically the modern globalization lays down on American international institutions and American technology. Its remarkable and admirable.

The demise of the USSR was its own making. It went into military expansionism to a point where its economy could not handle the expense and went bankrupt. The same thing happened to the British Empire and others before them. Hitler did not defeat the British but he bankrupted them and Ghandi did not kick the British out, they left all their colonies because they were bankrupt.
This was OBL thought process where he wanted American military expansionism. He made Neocon warhawks as his bitches cause they were the ones falling for it.

[Firdousi]

The demise of the USSR was its own making. It went into military expansionism to a point where its economy could not handle the expense and went bankrupt. The same thing happened to the British Empire and others before them. Hitler did not defeat the British but he bankrupted them and Ghandi did not kick the British out, they left all their colonies because they were bankrupt.
This was OBL thought process where he wanted American military expansionism. He made Neocon warhawks as his bitches cause they were the ones falling for it.

Did you know thats actually what many former CIA agents such as Michael Scheuer have been claiming? That despite all the Western propaganda OBL was not just a "barbaric goatfuc ker" but a quite clever man who wanted the USA to engage constantly in endless and impossible to win asymmetric wars? He just wanted Uncle Sam to waste its resources in hopeless conflicts.

The guy had a long term strategy. He knew he would never see the defeat of the USA but was sure that it would arrive one day.

You see the main difference between Islamist forces and the West its their mentality. Westerners are obsessed with the present. Despite all their bragging they can't make long term strategies. They want to win as fast as possibles and as cheap as possible. But Islamists are different. They are thinking and planning ahead not for years or decades but centuries and generations. Westerners are willing to give up. Islamists are not. Westerners are not willing to die for their civilization. Islamists are. Westerners are individualists. Islamists are collectivists who don't care about individuals. It doesn't matter how many of their people die if that benefits their collective cause. Thats why the West will never defeat them.

[Toramana]

West ist not more developed than the islamic world because they "discovered America" or "looted the rest of the world". There are many factors and reasons behind what its called the "Great Divergence". Westerners seriously worked for many centuries in order to change their collective mentality. Thats what led them to develop and create what we now call "modernization". Muslims discovered or conquered many regions before the West such as the Far East or the Indian Subcontinent and still we didn't develop. You shouldn't underestimate nor dwarf Western accomplishment which are remarkable.

Western obsession when it comes to Human Righs and Humanism started mainly after WW2, when horrible crimes that were committed seriously struck the West. Several constitutions and declarations have declared that human beings have some inherent rights that can't be taken away (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) although many others claim the same thing (American Constitution or the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen). Actually Western secular humanism can be traced back to old Christian scholars such as Thomas of Aquinas and his Natural Law. You see there are plenty of wealthy islamic countries out there but you can't find any humanism in there. Thats why Muslims prefer to risk their life and reach Europe instead going there.

I do agree. Some hierarchy and order exists and will always exist. Its part of the human nature and complex human societies.

There is no denying the fact that there were internal factors that contributed to the advancement of the West. But the availability of almost unending economic resources through the most extensive colonization of foreign land (a kind of global empire) also was an important factor. Widespread modernization and innovation at an unprecedented (almost industrial) scale could be spurred only through constant supply of resources.

Democracy itself was the product of affluence and the involvement of swathes of masses in the productive activity contributed to individual economic self-sufficiency and triggered individualism. Also note that most of the Western modernization occurred under autocratic rule not democracy. A society which is still stuck to agrarian and tribal economic and social tradition is less likely to have notions of liberty and individualism.

There are multiple development paths as for early modernization. If history is any evidence, it usually occurs under reform minded strong authoritarian leadership. Usually, there is too much inertia in the system to be broken through a democratic process.

[Toramana]

BTW I find hilarious how people talk about "Western civilization" as such thing even exists. Well, it doesn't. Modern "Western civilization" is a complex system of several social, political and economic theories, laws and principles such as rule of law, social liberalism, multiculturalism, capitalism, liberal democracy, individualism, separation of powers, and so on. You don't need to be from Europe or America in order to adopt them. South Korea, Japan or Turkey are not white countries nor christians still have adopted this system to a huge degree.

Ethnicity, race, religion or nationalism play a secondary role in the modern West. People like Trump, Bannon or Le Pen disagree with this modern post-cold war West and they want to give a more important role to those elements in the Western politics and society (just like other people in non Western countries want their religion to have a more important role in their societies, such as Erdogan in Turkey. Its the same phenomenon).

Western Civilization does exist if it didn't exist historically. It is embodied in race (Europanism or Whitism), Judo-Christian tradition, and specific ideas and models of economic, political, and social governance. The core is though a deep consciousness of Europeanism. It is a fact that many ideas of economic and political governance of thye West are worth emulating and many countries have borrowed and adopted them, it is less likely that a country of non-European origin such as Turkey and Japan would ever be considered part of the West because of the origin in a different cultural tradition.

Actually, what we see in the form of the divide between nationalism/populism and globalism is a different approach to how to respond to the "rise of the rest". The globalists think they can continue leading the world by spearheading the globalization process. The nationalist on the other hand consider that as an extension of the opportunity to others to also to rise and therefore a risk to their power. There of course are other factors.

[khushal]

Did you know thats actually what many former CIA agents such as Michael Scheuer have been claiming? That despite all the Western propaganda OBL was not just a "barbaric goatfuc ker" but a quite clever man who wanted the USA to engage constantly in endless and impossible to win asymmetric wars? He just wanted Uncle Sam to waste its resources in hopeless conflicts.

The guy had a long term strategy. He knew he would never see the defeat of the USA but was sure that it would arrive one day.

You see the main difference between Islamist forces and the West its their mentality. Westerners are obsessed with the present. Despite all their bragging they can't make long term strategies. They want to win as fast as possibles and as cheap as possible. But Islamists are different. They are thinking and planning ahead not for years or decades but centuries and generations. Westerners are willing to give up. Islamists are not. Westerners are not willing to die for their civilization. Islamists are. Westerners are individualists. Islamists are collectivists who don't care about individuals. It doesn't matter how many of their people die if that benefits their collective cause. Thats why the West will never defeat them.

Brezinsky had the same idea about Soviet military expansionism. He was the one who was preaching that Soviet military expansionism is self destructive while all other Western leaders were terrified about it.

The Irony was that the man born in Warsaw saw the demise of the Warsaw Pact before most Western leaders could even imagine.

[Firdousi]

There is no denying the fact that there were internal factors that contributed to the advancement of the West. But the availability of almost unending economic resources through the most extensive colonization of foreign land (a kind of global empire) also was an important factor. Widespread modernization and innovation at an unprecedented (almost industrial) scale could be spurred only through constant supply of resources.

Democracy itself was the product of affluence and the involvement of swathes of masses in the productive activity contributed to individual economic self-sufficiency and triggered individualism. Also note that most of the Western modernization occurred under autocratic rule not democracy. A society which is still stuck to agrarian and tribal economic and social tradition is less likely to have notions of liberty and individualism.

There are multiple development paths as for early modernization. If history is any evidence, it usually occurs under reform minded strong authoritarian leadership. Usually, there is too much inertia in the system to be broken through a democratic process.

oh its true that the West looted the rest of the world during colonialism but I don't think it was a one way street. I mean Western countries indeed also invested a lot of money and in resources in their own colonies that benefited them to modernize in the long term. Countries who didn't suffer colonialism such as Haiti or Afghanistan lack of proper and basic infrastructures. I think our victory was our dismiss. We use to believe that military victories are good things even when they are not. Our victory over the URSS brought us nothing good. Sometimes its better to make deals than defeating your enemies..

I am not a pro-democracy person per se nor I am in love with individualism. I admire it and believe we should adopt some of the good things that West can offer us (rule of law, legal certainty, stable governmental institutions, modern technology, modern science, modern medicine, etc) but I don't believe we should adopt Western values nor their ways. You see modern Westerners are becoming too decadent. Their men are effeminate, their women are stuck up and bitching 24/7, their youth lack of values and have a serious problem with drugs and alcohol, lack of family values, high divorce rates, low birth rates, pessimism, lack of collective values,.. all these things if not addressed will eventually bring the "Western civilization" down.

Modernization, democratization and Westernization are different things. We should modernize, democratize to some degree and avoid Westernization.

[Firdousi]

Brezinsky had the same idea about Soviet military expansionism. He was the one who was preaching that Soviet military expansionism is self destructive while all other Western leaders were terrified about it.

The Irony was that the man born in Warsaw saw the demise of the Warsaw Pact before most Western leaders could even imagine.

Thats because Brezinsky was a hardcore anti-commie and like so many Polish anti-Russian. They have an obsession with Russians and as I have pointed out before if NATO collapses Poland will try to get nukes ASAP. They won't become a Russian vassal again. Rest this assured.

Overexpansionism has its own natural limits even if your armies are invincible. Monghols had a non stop non stop expansion in the Islamic world. The only thing that could stop it were not Muslim armies but their dry lands: no grass meant no food to feed Mongol horses. As Stalin said once no army and no country is invincible. History has proved this.

[Firdousi]

Western Civilization does exist if it didn't exist historically. It is embodied in race (Europanism or Whitism), Judo-Christian tradition, and specific ideas and models of economic, political, and social governance. The core is though a deep consciousness of Europeanism. It is a fact that many ideas of economic and political governance of thye West are worth emulating and many countries have borrowed and adopted them, it is less likely that a country of non-European origin such as Turkey and Japan would ever be considered part of the West because of the origin in a different cultural tradition.

Actually, what we see in the form of the divide between nationalism/populism and globalism is a different approach to how to respond to the "rise of the rest". The globalists think they can continue leading the world by spearheading the globalization process. The nationalist on the other hand consider that as an extension of the opportunity to others to also to rise and therefore a risk to their power. There of course are other factors.

Oh indeed the Western civilization does exist from a historical and cultural point of view. But the modern post-Cold War Fukuyaman Western civilization its more like a bunch of complicated theories than a civilization per se.

The irony its that the Western Globalization has helped to spread Westernization to almost every corner of our planet but it also helped other civilizations to raise. What we are witnessing now its the triumph of the Western model everywhere but in the West. Its almost hilarious lol

[khushal]

Did you know thats actually what many former CIA agents such as Michael Scheuer have been claiming? That despite all the Western propaganda OBL was not just a "barbaric goatfuc ker" but a quite clever man who wanted the USA to engage constantly in endless and impossible to win asymmetric wars? He just wanted Uncle Sam to waste its resources in hopeless conflicts.

The guy had a long term strategy. He knew he would never see the defeat of the USA but was sure that it would arrive one day.

You see the main difference between Islamist forces and the West its their mentality. Westerners are obsessed with the present. Despite all their bragging they can't make long term strategies. They want to win as fast as possibles and as cheap as possible. But Islamists are different. They are thinking and planning ahead not for years or decades but centuries and generations. Westerners are willing to give up. Islamists are not. Westerners are not willing to die for their civilization. Islamists are. Westerners are individualists. Islamists are collectivists who don't care about individuals. It doesn't matter how many of their people die if that benefits their collective cause. Thats why the West will never defeat them.

The violence in the Middle East is a product of current military interventions and dictatorships which are assets that colonials left behind. While they condemn ISIS's human rights abuses and beheadings, they protect the Saudi regime which are guilty of the same abuses. The West creates violent groups through ignorant and hypocritic policies.