When you have two pathways for achieving the same goal; one
voluntary and the other coercive, civilization will invite you to choose the
voluntary way, whereas savagery will nudge you to choose the coercive way.
Of course, all cases are not so perfect as to offer a clear
choice between the two possible pathways. For this reason, conditions, caveats
and other factors are taken into consideration when weighing a decision as to
which pathway will make the better choice. The following real life examples
should help illustrate these concepts.
Example 1: Four Arab countries were unhappy with the conduct
of Qatar ,
another Arab country. They asked the leaders of Qatar to change their ways but the
pleas were ignored. And so, the four countries severed relations with Qatar knowing that this will make life a little
more difficult for Qatar
without troubling the population too much given that the country is extremely
rich. It will provide the necessary goods and services for its people, though
at a higher cost to the treasury of the regime.
The response of the four Arab countries to the conduct of Qatar is a
classic example of Arab civilization in practice. The four countries warned Qatar and gave
it a chance to remedy the situation. When Qatar
did not respond favorably, the four took measures to pressure Qatar ; a
gesture meant to show they were serious. And they will maintain this posture as
long as necessary to give Qatar
the time to change its ways voluntarily, doing so gradually to save face by not
appearing to capitulate under outside pressure.
Example 2: When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait , the
Arab League asked him to withdraw his troops, but he refused. Because it was
clear there was nothing more they could do to convince him that he should
withdraw voluntarily, they decided to employ a coercive method. To that end,
they entered into a military alliance with the United
States of America , and forced the Iraqi army out of Kuwait . This
too was civilized conduct – even if coercive – because force was used as a last
resort, was proportional to the offense, and did not go beyond pushing the
invader back to his territory, stopping there despite calls to invade Iraq .
Example 3: Having learned his lesson, Saddam Hussein made
sure not to violate any rule that would bring calamity on his country or his
regime again. He also took all necessary measures to ascertain that the world
knew he had nothing to hide, and the world was satisfied. The exception were
the Jews of Israel; those of America and everywhere else in the world, who
wanted to see the destruction of Iraq the same way that they want to see the
destruction of every neighbor of Israel. To satisfy this insatiable hunger for
horror, they pulled all the tricks they had developed over the centuries to
convince America it must
destroy Iraq .
And America
did.
The mentality powering the Jews who attacked unarmed Lebanon twice, attacked helpless Gaza three times, teamed up with France and Britain
to attack Egypt , and
convinced America to attack Iraq , is a
savage and coercive mentality. It is proper to the Jews who do not seek to
resolve conflicts they may have with others. What they'll do instead, is cower
and play dead if they know they are outmatched. They'll maintain this posture
till they can develop the means to crush the neighbor, or team up with a
“friend” more powerful than they, and do the crime together. Better still,
they'll try to entice the friend to go it alone and do the crime for them in
exchange for a smile and a pat on the back. Just ask the American Congress.
These examples trace a clear demarcation line between the
civilized Arab and the savage Jew. But things can get more complicated for
someone trying to judge a situation involving an extra player. An example of this
came in the form of an article written by Clifford D. May under the title: “The
Kurdish test” and the subtitle: “Iran 's mullahs are betting that
trump, like Obama, will choose appeasement.” It was published on October 24,
2017 in The Washington Times.
The author makes his point in the first sentence of the
article. It is this: “In a just world, the Kurds would have a state of their
own,” and he sets out to develop the case. Our purpose being to judge which
pathway – the civilized or the savage – Clifford May is using, we do not dwell
on the merits of the case, but concentrate on the mentality that's reflected by
his logic.
Here is what he says: “To make America great again requires
demonstrating that America is the best friend and the worst enemy any nation
can have ... It is essential that Mr. Trump make clear that any advance on
Erbil will be met with stiff sanctions and, if necessary, force”.
The fact that he threatened force does not necessarily mean
he chose the savage pathway of the Jews. What we must do, therefore, is try to
determine if he had sufficient reasons to make that choice. And so, we comb
through the article where we find the following:
“When Americans invaded Iraq , the Kurds greeted them as
liberators. Nowhere in the so-called Muslim world will you find a people more
pro-American. Iran 's
rulers are testing Mr. Trump. They are betting that, despite the tough talk, he
won't have the stomach to do what is necessary to frustrate their ambitions”.
What is Clifford May saying here? He is saying that America should threaten Iraq and its ally Iran ,
with force if they don't let the Kurds breakaway because the Kurds seem to like
America
– at least for now. If America
does that and gets away with it, it will become great in the eyes of others because
they will guess that America
has the qualities of being a generous friend or a fearsome enemy. And that is
sufficient reason to “Shock and Awe” Iraq
again, and do the same thing to Iran .