about dialogue

Dialogue is essential in every social process.Probably all political failure is partly a failure of dialogue.However after things get mixed up, the arguments become unveiled in a different way, people incorporate some ideas so far they might even fail to recognise them in others, and strong arguments are often countered with lies or confusing , in an attempt to defuse, a situation.
As a result of that, for example irak can hardly be viewed through the window for dialogue, the reality there is polluted.

It is a continuous fact that when people are allowed no peace with their own history, it is way easier to dissettle a peacefull mind. And as an example of the complexity of the iraki situation, you may perceive bush's attitude towards Iran, not only as colonialist (oil),anti-islam, (islam being a social and thus not capitalism-compatible system from the POV of capitalists), you may perceive it as putting the blame of the results of his own carnage on someone else. Someone kept out of the dialogue...

Likewise in the middle east, lebanon, palestine, denied or starved out of the dialogue, the result is unrest, so the strategy is working. Hezbollah wich is a very legitimate party in lebanon, it has shown to offer everything (their lives) for lebanon, and even halted the israeli agression to some extend, and not in the least prevented escalation into syrian territory. Because it is also obvious Syria is kept out of the dialogue.(1)
And maybe it is the natural thing to become pro-something, if the circumstances of the political reality threaten it with war and major destruction, but they are your neighbours. An example of the work of dialogue in history. Evrything is thrown on a pile, prosyrian or pro-iranian, are the same in those medias reports. Btw. a pro-iranian group is also naturally created this way, because not everyone likes other nations to suffer, and obviously such are just the people, other people in charge need to be kept our of the dialogue.

But actually the best example of dialogue is somalia. The reason for this is somalians and ethiopians have to live with a new historical reality, and their dialogues still have the freshness of discovering new standpoints, points of view, and.. because not so much is yet anticipated, new options to overcome troubles through a creative use of the factual history , as well as to just set aside most of the vengeance or regret, because the historical situation has definetly changed. So although the somalians and ethiopians are due to become radicalised to another to facilitate the invasion and possibly maintain an occupying force. Wich will be the case simply because there is no african unity over the attack on somalia, for example a proper course in darfur would already be expensive, and noone wants to understate the relevance of the kongolese or kenian, chadish or nigerian situation. While the invasion of somalia seems tactless, useless, oportunist, and largely part of the devastation of dialogue between african identity, islam and christanity .

Perhaps it is funny in this dialogue to mention that nor me nor putin nor bush are religious people. Not religious in the sense it means something in politics. It means something in the sense of development and manipulation of ethics. It is a positive and negative social control mechanism, that is related to and probably usurpated or exterminated every, ancient ethic thought or knowledge it encountered. Therefore even bush, that is undoubtedly indoctrinated into christianity, and has a hang to popularise with religion, allows himself privatly a 'heathen' interpretation of the religious complex. This he keeps out of the view and certainly the dialogue, but it is an example of unveiled truths that are not yet spoiling the possibility's of dialogue.
Generally spoken religion is a thing that has to change, that we possibly have to live with, that we definetly want to change on a faster pace then the religious do (at least in our confrontation with christian structures we expect similar in islam). Having attempted to open the dialogue, let me linger to the tempting space offered by the fresh insights in the nature of dialogue in
somalia and ethiopia.

I keep underestimating the naivity, and the ease with what that is abused, of almost each and every local rule. I could give examples, but generally the people are inapt at diplomatics, and the western diplomacy realises and abuses that all to well. (so i am angry about the stupidity and selfrighteousness of the western statements, not about the naivity or rural quality of UIC, i
think here.. there must be dialogue but there has been intrication).

So: Apparently structures are shaped such that in many (more then half at least..) 'proto-decolonised' nations, when anyone outside the scope of western interests gets to some power, they are still a product of the colonialist culture in the sense that they are kept naive and
whereas possible silly (in the eyes of the western public).

Practically out of the (international) dialogue, and not in the least through seperation and cultural interference.It is really easy to exploit a weakness in a national character.Especially if you are antagonising the culture, they will give room to negativity in their expression. To me it is obvious the somali, and ethiopian cultures share such characteristics.
Isn't that refreshing?

(1) Our media call hezbollah (and ayone else opposing siniora) pro-syrian.(they say prosyrian hezbollah always.. never just hezbollah, let alone pro-lebanese hezbollah) Actually they usually say: prosyrian hezbollah that is on the terrorism list where akso al quada and pros-iranian hamas and shia groups are on... or some such repetition with in times of crisis added... 9-11.