LH: Perhaps we could get a coalition of the willing together,... This IS meant as a joke, isn't it? Forget it, Lawrence. Iran as much as has a nuke right now. Get over it. Your boy Bush painted himself in a corner in Iraq -- despite the whole world telling him not to paint there -- and now there's nothing he can do that won't destroy the last vestiges of American honor in the world. Learn to speak Farsi, that's all I can suggest. Mike Geary Memphis ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] America Against the World The following review by Walter Russell Mead makes this as yet unpublished book sound interesting: America Against the World: How We are Different and Why We Are Disliked by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes. "Using a Wealth of domestic and international polling data, Kohut and Stokes ask just how exceptional Americans are and examine the impact of this exceptionalism on world opinion. Overall, they find that Americans are unique but not uniquely unique - that is, the differences of opinion between Americans and others on the range of topics (happiness, religious conviction, and individualism, among others) are striking but not shocking. Because liberal and democratic values have been in the ascendancy since the nineteenth century, Kohut and Stokes argue, Americans are less out of step with the global mainstream than they were a century ago. The most significant differences between Americans and others have to do with individualism: whether from red or blue states, Americans tend to be more optimistic than most people about their ability to shape their own lives and more pessimistic about both the propriety and efficacy of using government action to solve social problems. As individualists, Americans tend to be skeptical of organizations like the United Nations; as optimists, they underestimate the dangers and obstacles that lie ahead. These attitudes, Kohut and Stokes suggest, are likely to create enduring problems as long as the most individualistic people on the planet continue to bear the greatest responsibility for solving problems that demand united global action. Kohut and Stokes make a strong case for this central contention, and the results of their global surveys and their interpretative essays make for interesting and enlightening reading." Comment: I can't see that this sheds light on matters like whether we should or should not take out Iran's nuclear facilities, but it implies that whatever we do of a military nature we are going to get flack from 1) those who don't want us to do anything, and 2) those who don't want us to do anything unless our military action is controlled or agreed to by others in the West. I have gotten support for Kohut and Stokes' thesis from the articles and books I've read recently about Iran. The authors of these articles and books don't expect any useful help from our Western allies. If we waited for them, we would do nothing and Iran would develop their nukes. So if Iran's having nukes is truly unacceptable, we are going to have to deal with the matter on our own because we can expect no help from most of the other nations in the West. but the big names that we seem to hold over ourselves and need for self-justification, France and Germany, won't be with us. Chirac is making noises that that might change, but the authors I've read are pessimistic about that. Lawrence