More and more I come to the conclusion that the actual behaviour of the USA is inevitable. The promised land of the free is only becoming what every other nation is: a country grabbing and maintaining power to survive at all costs. So does Israel, another nation that thought they where different or chosen. Should we therefore blame the USA or Israel or any other nation? I only dislike their lies, the ugliness of their defensive walls. The Ancients knew they often fought solely for ‘the caprice of the Gods’ and built beautiful fortresses. If you want power you will have to kill, woman, children and old man included. If you want to be a human resource manager of a big company, you have to condemn some people to the cardboard box in the street too. It is the law of power: the weak and the poor shall perish the most. War or life threatening situations (like 9/11 or the holocaust) really change insight and behaviour. But we still can dream of a better life, nevertheless. Maybe it is a good idea to nurse our childish dreams, even if they are called childish.

Jan T

I don't think that the comparison between Israel and the US is accurate.
And I did not write about Bagram to invite cheap America-bashing. (I'm not implying that your comment is cheap America-bashing.)
Don’t think that Europe is standing on the moral high ground.
And don’t think that the collapse of the American empire will lead to a better world with more justice.

'Don’t think that Europe is standing on the moral high ground.'

Perhaps took out of context, but really ...'moral high ground' , i would say it exists only us a utopia in the works of some philosophers and a couple of prophets. I was quite suprised to see Éurope' only us an object.
'Moral high ground' , I'm puzzled .
By the way, wasn't it '' Frantic' by Roman Polanski with Harrisson Ford which you mentioned yesturday?

@Arnon
I can only agree with your thinking about the ‘moral high ground in Europe’ and the ‘collapse of the USA’. But I think there is more similarity between Israel and the USA than with any other nation, although every comparison tends to be inaccurate. They are both born out of immigrants and have a strong sense of being an almost divine promised land. It is their strength and their weakness too, it is their burden.
When will you visit Martin van Creveld?

Came to this site out of curiosity. Finally, after reading all your books over the years, Arnon. I guess “Omdat ik u begeer”, gave me the last push for the search. Only did it once before, searching for Wim Kayzer. Never mind. Never thought I would find a group of – always the same - people thinking “in boxes”…. (America?…. in general? Europe?…. in general? The burden of being immigrants? Aren’t we all immigrants? What are you talking about? I am not getting into detail, seeing your previous correspondence…) You are obviously trying to save worlds – with narrow minds and fancy “intellectual” pretending- while sitting behind your computers, sending mails to each other. Present company not excluded for once, but then again there are stranger ways to pass time… Why don’t you meet, have a few drinks together, and get it over with? Send the resolutions to the number one in America, Europe (?), Asia (?)…. Oeps, there's a problem…
The situation is hopeless, but not serious. But you do need another website, Arnon. I will keep enjoying your books.

Louise F

The reality is that in many discussions the US is positioned next to Europe. The fact that the euro might take over the over the dollar as the most important or most secure currency is only a small example that these discussions are not complete without merits.
Of course we simplify – what’s Europe, what’s the US etc etc – but without these simplifications many discussions (and exchange of information) would be impossible.
Your rhetorical question “aren’t we all immigrants” is nice example of gross simplificationin order to make I guess a political statement?
Your opinion that we think “in boxes” is rather funny. I’m sure you have not spent much time reflecting on the process of thinking.
As to your invitation about having drinks, if you want to date certain correspondents feel free to do so. I’m not available before 2018.

Dear Arnon

Simplification is never an answer to complex problems. History has shown that. It even is dangereous. As for the process of thinking... It is a way of life. I even earn my money with it. Enjoy your website and the interaction on it with your site-friends. My warmest regards.
Oh, and the invitation.... You misunderstood. I have not invited you or one other person for a drink or a date. To me, it seemed a good way for you and your friends to solve the world problems sooner and quicker :-) All the best.

Louise

Simplification is unavoidable. You talk about reality you simplify reality. Which is not to say that simplification should always be glorified.
You earn a living with what activity exactly? You seem to have problems with precise answers and statements.
Regarding problems, I’m here to solve the problems of Louise F. God knows that this is not an easy task.

Zirilla

Some people would argue that Chirac for example by opposing the war in Iraq took the moral high ground. He might even have thought this himself -- but I think he is too clever for that.
Yes, I meant Frantic.

Dear Arnon

Well, on one point you are right. Leave it up to you to decide on which one exactly. Clear statements? One can only stay close to what or who he or she is. If he / she knows. That is a big pitfall of course. As for me, I know. And that is not a coping strategy. And I am not being defensive :-) Noticed that this is personal? Despite the fact that I am on your site with your site-friends ? Pretty brave, is it not?

according to my (ex) profesor of history, the answer of question why some countries decide to send their army and alian with US lies at the history of politicis and wars within 100 years. Perhaps the cleverness of Chirac was based on the hard lessen of I and II WW, which devastated France and it´s volk greatly.

Dag Arnon!

Het hoogdravend - en tegelijk weinig zeggend - gehalte op jouw site is me te veel. Ook nauwelijks of niet authentiek. En vaak getuigt het van (te) weinig inzicht. Dat noem jij dan de dingen simpel voorstellen. Het is maar hoe je het benoemt en bekijkt. Het discours is "salonfähig" en die houding - die voorkomt in vele stromingen - heeft nog nooit veel veranderd of zoden aan de de dijk gezet. Zelf verander ik veel meer over wat "jullie" fout vinden in de wereld, louter op mezelf. En dat doe jij waarschijnlijk ook. Jouw boeken doen me vaak lachen. Los van het feit dat ze me ook inzichten opleveren. Die ik dan weer op mijn beurt gebruiik. En ja, dat "utilitaire" is iets moois. Dat vind ik natuurlijk ook bij andere auteurs en soms bij "andere "mensen :-) Schrijf nog vele schone dingen!
PS. Het liefst van al had ik je gekust op een koud strand in Barcelona natuurlijk, maar goed, jij kiest voor iets anders. :-)
Het ga je goed.

Zirilla

Perhaps.

Louise

Why Barcelona?

@ Louise

As one of Arnon's site-friends (we call ourselves blogpees/bloggies), I feel the need to react. What makes you Think you are the only Thinker here? And I won't even begin to quetsion whether Thought should be given such merit.
Clearly, you too have submitted to the urge the sitefriends all find ourselves victims of and trapped in: the desire to be heard by someone of importance, by Arnon Grunberg, being acknowledged and being seen. The rest (such as the discussions) is subordinate, which is not to say these discussions shouldn't take place. They are a vehicle, in my opinion. What lies beneath them is much more interesting.
My guess is you are a yogi and are practicing the art of detachment (there are other meas to do so, such as writing) and you must know alot about spiritual healing and/or philosophy. What puzzles me is that it seems it makes you feel you have the right to make a distinction between the select group consisting of Arnon and yourself, and the group consisting of the rest of us. This, in itself, contradicts your own analyses of yourself and the workings of this site.
So, Louise, if you're the analytical thinker you say you are, I urge you to think again about us, and about the motivation behind your urge to ask for a kiss in Barcelona. With that, you yourself know, you are in fact human, like us.

On Chirac

One doesn't wage war with a country that owes you money.

Pjötr

Exactly, I don't think the war against Iraq would have been very lucrative for France, the war against Iran might me be more interesting for France.

‘I think therefore I am’

Noa,
Stating you don’t exist a little while ago kinda made you a non-thinker in my opinion.

noa

why aren´t we solidare, us women? why have you been so hard on her? why on her?

Zirilla

I’m glad you’re here. Finally someone new to take over the drama queen title. love ya girl!

@Zirilla. I'm not sure what you mean as I don't feel I'm being hard? Please explain what was hard about my reaction as I honestly tend not to like hardness in discussions. I agree that we women should show each other some solidarity. But I'm merely reacting to the comments Louise herself made in which she basically states that the regular commentators of this site are a bunch of brain-dead nitwits who should stop 'blah blah'-ing and should start acting.
@Ilanit - you're funny and I still think you're the best.

Ilanit

u made me laugh :), but really, it it frustrating that there is so much strange energy between women, it really is. You should look at a special kind of gay who pretends to be a woman, he/she exagerate in womeness and at the same time dislike the women...

Noa

you know, i ´ve even not noticed that this girl wrote such a thing, and even if she really think so, let it be, it´s stiil like a roleplay for some of us, un extention of A.G.books, for some rather without the others...

Zirilla but what was so hard about my words? Again, I didn't mean to be, I simply argued a different position. Women should be loyal to each other, but we can still at the same time be critical.

Noa, i had an impression that you´ve tried to categorise this woman, and of course you may criticise an other woman, but there was something strange in your comment which made me alert , i had an impression that you were quite annoyed with vision of that woman kissing A.G. on the beach in Barcelona.
: )

USA vs Europe

For centuries Europe has exported its criminals and opportunists to America and now we expect them to behave?

Zirilla, read closely. ~ She emphasized how superficial the comments and discussions on this website are (I'm not saying she wasn't right by the way). She then put her own line of thinking and reasoning on the same level as Grunberg, hence she was doing the categorizing and not me. My argument to her was simply to point out that perhaps it's not solely all about the (level) of the discussions but people find something else here on this site. And then I pointed out that she -in fact- was ultimately looking for the same by speaking of a kiss in Barcelona, which in other words puts her in the same category (or box) she hesrelf put the other commentators in. Plain and simple ad reasonable argument, nothing hard. And as for kisses, ach....

Sander

How about Australia?

Zirilla

The strange energy between women is a myth originated in adolescence period.
Your question for Noa was in fact a question she herself could ask and probably asked, maybe in different wordings, since she is the seeker of peace and harmony and if not so a battle where women should stick together. I disappointed her once not wanting to settle with the ’boys’ once and for all by posting a killing entry of some kind.
She does however tend to be over protective the moment a female is being to direct with mister Grunberg. As far as I am concerned Louise F. shouldn’t get a special treatment because she is a female.