The World is Lining Up Aganst American Imperialism

[Black Dog]

As usual, you decline to respond to the a major portion of my remarks, which I culled from my post and left quoted. That is imperialism.

So you're not upset with the historically accurate portrayal of America as an state actor like any other that will not shy away from immoral acts in the name of its own self-interest. You specifically endorse a doctrine, the express purpose of which is establishing and maintaining the U.S.'s hegemony anywhere it deems to have a interest in. But you just don't want to be called "imperialist". Well, I happen to belive the U.S. is imperialist, if not by dictioonary definition, at least in spirit.

[August1991]

You specifically endorse a doctrine, the express purpose of which is establishing and maintaining the U.S.'s hegemony anywhere it deems to have a interest in. But you just don't want to be called "imperialist".

Is "hegemony" the new post-modern word for "imperialism"?

Wow, that gets two Leftist habits into one idea. First, if you change the symbol (or word) for something, it somehow means you can change the reality (or something). Second, whether it's hegemony or imperialism, it still means that the US is dominant and everyone else is an oppressed victim.

In Left world, the ideology is simple. Defend oppressed victims and stand up to the oppressors.

Interesting you used the "white guy" analogy given that I attended a Martin Luther King celebration, at an NAACP event, just yesterday, where I listened to several "white guys" using the term "we". I guess like me, they assumed that people had brains.

Well, we tend to do things a bit differently in Canada. A recent candidate for the Liberal leadership used the word "we" when writing in an American publication and this caused him some grief.

I guess we are proud of our distinct society.

[Liam]

I would hardly characterize the friendship between Chavez and Ahmenijad as the world's lining up against US imperialism.

Of course not. Not by themselves. Coincidentally, they aren't by themselves.

No, they're not alone. They have Rober Mugabe on their side and probably Syria's Assad and perhaps would like Kim Jong Il as a friend.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to draw a line of morality between the US and the likes of Kim Jong Il by claiming the US only does good, and I'm not saying that nations like Bolivia or Angola don't have justification for not liking US policy, but I'm trying to address the initial claim that "the world" is aligning against US imperialism. I think the friendships of convenience among a handful of despots, socialists and holocaust deniers does not exactly evidence of a global showdown where the US faces the globe. I'm sure if you gave Britain, Egypt, Indonesia, Holland, Mexico, Germany, India and a hundred other countries the chance of aligning on the side of the US or against it, I think you'd find the "against" camp very very sparsely populated.

[Black Dog]

Is "hegemony" the new post-modern word for "imperialism"?

No.

First, if you change the symbol (or word) for something, it somehow means you can change the reality (or something). Second, whether it's hegemony or imperialism, it still means that the US is dominant and everyone else is an oppressed victim.

Yeah dude. Whatever.

In Left world, the ideology is simple. Defend oppressed victims and stand up to the oppressors.

Zzzzzzzz.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Second, whether it's hegemony or imperialism, it still means that the US is dominant and everyone else is an oppressed victim.

Not sure how familiar you are with the workings of mobsters, like Al Capone, etc. It has to do with 'turf' mostly. The mob expects a 'cut of the pie', and you could expect bad things to happen if they didn't get it. Doesn't matter who you are, even the president of a country could be killed if it was needed.

[sharkman]

No, they're not alone. They have Rober Mugabe on their side and probably Syria's Assad and perhaps would like Kim Jong Il as a friend.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to draw a line of morality between the US and the likes of Kim Jong Il by claiming the US only does good, and I'm not saying that nations like Bolivia or Angola don't have justification for not liking US policy, but I'm trying to address the initial claim that "the world" is aligning against US imperialism. I think the friendships of convenience among a handful of despots, socialists and holocaust deniers does not exactly evidence of a global showdown where the US faces the globe. I'm sure if you gave Britain, Egypt, Indonesia, Holland, Mexico, Germany, India and a hundred other countries the chance of aligning on the side of the US or against it, I think you'd find the "against" camp very very sparsely populated.

Good analysis, we have differred on many topics, but I must agree with you here. This is what those who believe the world is against the U.S. fail to see, the silent majority.

[Guthrie]

... This is what those who believe the world is against the U.S. fail to see, the silent majority.

"silent majority"

[blackascoal]

On top of new China and Russia alliances, and alliances throughout the arab/Persian world being formed to repel American military and political imperialist intentions, many Latin American countries are now joining together to stand against us.

Many of these countries that are lining up against us are oil producing nations and are fast moving to the euro as a way of attacking our colonialist nature.

Instead of galvanizing the world against "terror", all the hapless Bush Administrtaion has managed to do is distance and isolate us. Even the British people want no part of our reign of terror.

Soon, the only "ally" we'll have left is Israel, a country devoid of resources, and one that consistently spies on us and marches to its own drummer.

I would hardly characterize the friendship between Chavez and Ahmenijad as the world's lining up against US imperialism. Chavez and Ahmenijad are politicians who can fan the flames of their own supporters by rallying against the evil Yankee. Chavez realizes the grandfather of Latin Socialism, Fidel, will soon be joining Lenin in some bleak, nihilistic void, and wants to set himself up as the go-to guy in terms of Latin America's poor. Ahmenijad's popularity is on the decline in Iran and he wants to shore up his political support. Ask the average Venezuelan or Iranian what they think of the US and you'd probably get a mixed response trending toward positive. American movies, TV, innovations, economic successes, medical research, etc. are huge plusses. US military activity and lack of diplomacy, Guantanamo, etc. are huge minuses.

The thing is, most of the minuses can be directly attributed to the Bush administration. Once Bush is gone and the US strikes out on a slightly different trajectory, I wager that US popularity will certainly not go down.

For what it's worth, I think if you polled all the nations asking "would you rather be an ally of the US' or an ally of Iran/Venezuela's?" you'd find out pretty quickly that the US is far more popular, globally, than you're portraying. Without any scientific studies to back it up, I'd be willing to wager the results would be somewhere in the vicinity of 10:1 in favor of the US over Iran/Venezuela.

I wouldn't characterize Iran and Venezula as the world either .. nor did I. Nor do I suggest that "the US will go down". But it doesn't take genius to recognize the waning influence of America and the push against American inperialism in the world today. I doesn't take genius tp recognize that America is no longer "the leader of the free world" nor any world outside of Hollywood.

I agree with you that most of the minuses have come by way of the worst US Administration in American history, however, what this idiot has done is expose an underside of America foreign policy that has been resident in all US Administrations since WWII. Bush has stripped the Emperor naked and he has exposed the gaping hole in the concept democracy .. MONEY. Inject enough money in a democracy and it will morph into a plutocracy where the will of the people will be replaced by the will of corporations.

But money is also our Achilles Heel. While we (America) spend untold money on weapons that only a demon could love .. our would even possess .. to "protect" America from outside threats, the bomb that threatens us most will come wrapped in money to attack our economic infrastructure. Put aside the countless NEEDLESS deaths that come of this war, Bush has spent nearly half a trillion dollars waging it, and in the meantime, he has borrowed more foreign capital than all previous US presidents COMBINED. The US dollar is based on nothing more than the paper it's printed on and its status as the international currency. Since 2002 and the start of the mindless war, the euro has rapidly moved to replace the dollar as the international currency.

Do you believe that the rush to replace the dollar had nothing to do with the war on Iraq?

Saddam replaced the dollar with the euro and we attacked and lynched him. Iran has now replaced the dollar with the euro and guess what? Now we want to attack them. The noise about nuclear weapons, terrorism, WMD, 9/11, liberty and democracy is all bullshit. This is all about money and the world recognizes that even more clearly now. Do you think the rest of the world is too dumb to realize why we attacked Iraq and too dumb to recognize the proposed Iraq law that turns its oil resources over to foreign corporations isn't proof of what this war is about?

Forget about polls for a moment, even though there are plenty of world opinion polls that dispute the love of America that you stated, how many of our allies do you see left in Iraq? After the british leave, the Japanese have already said they'll be right behind them.

How many allies are demanding tough sanctions on Iran? Are there tough sanctions on Iran?

How many allies do you see joining us in the "global war on terror"? Do you believe our recent attack on Somalia will bring much of the free world along?

Iran and Venezula are symbolic of what is happening all over the world .. even in England. Have you not noticed the dramatic shift to the left throughout Latin America and the forming of alliances all over the world that do not include the US. Have you not noticed that many leaders who got in bed with Bush were removed from office by their own citizens .. with Tony Blair next on th chopping block? A majority of brits think the best thing they can do to avoid terrorism is to distance themselves from America.

My point to you is that yes, absolutely, America will survive. But we've spent all the capital we had from our leadership in WWII. The only sane way forward for us now is to become a better global partner and to cast off our imperialistic manner of foreign policy. The Emperor has no clothes and no one is afraid of our nakedness. America opened the door to nuclear destruction and there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle. Nations that want nuclear weapons will acquire them and as North Korea has clearly demonstrated, all you need is one.

Our (America) failures in Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan have also clearly demonstrated the limits of military power. With all our shiny new jets, fresh off the line tanks and armor, spify uniforms, and enough nuclear weapons to blow earth into another galaxy .. and we still cannot defeat any nation the size of Ohio by ourselves .. unless we nuke them.

America will recover, but our days as the Emperor are over.

[blackascoal]

Liam,

I'm sure if you gave Britain, Egypt, Indonesia, Holland, Mexico, Germany, India and a hundred other countries the chance of aligning on the side of the US or against it, I think you'd find the "against" camp very very sparsely populated.

They all have that opportunity right now.

How many of them are in Iraq?

How long will the british be there?

What is the sentiment of the british people, our so-called closet ally?

I'm not suggesting that nations are lining up to attack the US, but the loss of American influence, stature, power, and respect all over the world is undeniable.

What's an even worse slap in the face .. Iraq will soon be lining up against the US as well.

All those dead bodies, all the resources spent and lost .. only to have the Iraqi people and government stand against us.

Any doubt this is true .. take a closer look at Iraq's new found relationship with Iran.

[August1991]

Is "hegemony" the new post-modern word for "imperialism"?

No.

So please tell us what the difference is. (And while you're at it, if you've got the time, you can also explain the difference between "socialist" and "progressive"?)

[Liam]

I wouldn't characterize Iran and Venezula as the world either .. nor did I. Nor do I suggest that "the US will go down". But it doesn't take genius to recognize the waning influence of America and the push against American inperialism in the world today. I doesn't take genius tp recognize that America is no longer "the leader of the free world" nor any world outside of Hollywood.

I agree with you that most of the minuses have come by way of the worst US Administration in American history, however, what this idiot has done is expose an underside of America foreign policy that has been resident in all US Administrations since WWII. Bush has stripped the Emperor naked and he has exposed the gaping hole in the concept democracy .. MONEY. Inject enough money in a democracy and it will morph into a plutocracy where the will of the people will be replaced by the will of corporations...

America will recover, but our days as the Emperor are over.

Well, I am perfectly willing to admit that I misinterpreted your intial point, but you did present an excerpt from a news story about Venezuela and Iran in the context of a growing global movement to oppose US imperialism.

Regardless, I stand by my point that if you asked the people of the world which side of an argument, dispute, who would they want as an ally, whatever and the choices were limited to 1) the US, or 2) an alliance of states like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, even Russia, I would still wager that the overwhelming majority of both governments and their citizenry would align themselves with Washington over Caracas-Tehran.

And I also feel very strongly that once Bush is out of office (and maybe even beforehand if the Democrats are able to influence foreign policy away from Bush's long list of disasters), the pendulum will swing back a few degrees to be more in favor of US policy. Not overshelmingly so, but I don't see that there is possible room for the pendulum to swing farther from the midpoint than it is right now.

[blackascoal]

I wouldn't characterize Iran and Venezula as the world either .. nor did I. Nor do I suggest that "the US will go down". But it doesn't take genius to recognize the waning influence of America and the push against American inperialism in the world today. I doesn't take genius tp recognize that America is no longer "the leader of the free world" nor any world outside of Hollywood.

I agree with you that most of the minuses have come by way of the worst US Administration in American history, however, what this idiot has done is expose an underside of America foreign policy that has been resident in all US Administrations since WWII. Bush has stripped the Emperor naked and he has exposed the gaping hole in the concept democracy .. MONEY. Inject enough money in a democracy and it will morph into a plutocracy where the will of the people will be replaced by the will of corporations...

America will recover, but our days as the Emperor are over.

Well, I am perfectly willing to admit that I misinterpreted your intial point, but you did present an excerpt from a news story about Venezuela and Iran in the context of a growing global movement to oppose US imperialism.

Regardless, I stand by my point that if you asked the people of the world which side of an argument, dispute, who would they want as an ally, whatever and the choices were limited to 1) the US, or 2) an alliance of states like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, even Russia, I would still wager that the overwhelming majority of both governments and their citizenry would align themselves with Washington over Caracas-Tehran.

And I also feel very strongly that once Bush is out of office (and maybe even beforehand if the Democrats are able to influence foreign policy away from Bush's long list of disasters), the pendulum will swing back a few degrees to be more in favor of US policy. Not overshelmingly so, but I don't see that there is possible room for the pendulum to swing farther from the midpoint than it is right now.

I don't completely disagree with you my brother, and I hope that the pendulum does indeed swing back a bit. But it ain't just Bush to blame. As much as I dispise that evil bastard he didn't create America's penchant for war as a business. My point is that America must now re-examine our foreign policy. If we (America) continue on this disastrous course the blowback will destroy us from within.

I posted the article on Iran and Venezula as symbolic of what is happening throughout Latin America, the middle east, and Asia. Even the Iraqis will stand against us.

We need the rest of the world more than it needs us.

[Liam]

They all have that opportunity right now.

How many of them are in Iraq?

How long will the british be there?

What is the sentiment of the british people, our so-called closet ally?

I'm not suggesting that nations are lining up to attack the US, but the loss of American influence, stature, power, and respect all over the world is undeniable.

What's an even worse slap in the face .. Iraq will soon be lining up against the US as well.

All those dead bodies, all the resources spent and lost .. only to have the Iraqi people and government stand against us.

Any doubt this is true .. take a closer look at Iraq's new found relationship with Iran.

I am not praising Bush policies. I mostly stand against them and think his entire Iraq policy is a folly that will come back to haunt us for a generation or more. However, you are speaking only in terms of Iraq whereas I view the discussion as being about US "imperialism" globally (and in terms of economic and social and political terms).

Given my perspective on this issue, adding or losing allies in the Iraq war cannot be an accurate measure of siding with the US over some Venezuela-Iran alliance because, as I said, I am considering the broader global picture of US imperialism on a variety of fronts. If you want to limit the scope solely to Iraq policy, I would agree: there will be no new allies fighting in Iraq and the ones that are there will only remain in as long as they feel the need. But someone posited the Chavez-Ahmenijad friendship as a sign that the world is aligning against US imperialism (not just its Iraq policy), hence my looking at the topic with a more broad scope.

There's no doubt that US influence, stature, economic power, etc., have declined under Bush. I am not a fatalist, though, in believing that the trend cannot be reversed under different leadership and with the development of different policies. And, despite all the perceived warts of the US, I still believe that if you asked the entire globe would they rather have Iran or the US as the so-called "world leader", I think the vast majority of people would prefer the US to Iran. Oh, there will be some countries that would favor Iran just to stick it to the US (Cuba, Sudan, possibly Myanmar) and there would absolutely be a number of lefties both in the US and Europe who would love to see Washington rebuked (you should read the last question asked of Martin Amis in this article published a couple of days ago in The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profi...cle2154795.ece), but I think the majority of people around the world would look upon US "imperialism" in a much more predictable, acceptible, and favorable way than if Iran was setting the global standard if such a referendum were to be held.

[blackascoal]

Liam,

I'll try to be more clear in my point. I find you to be an honest and intelligent poster so perhaps the fault is mine.

Do you agree that America has a long history of overthrow of governments, including democratically elected ones, war as a business, and corporate inspired military intervention?

In the simplest terms, my point is that those days are numbered because governments all over the world are no longer afraid of America, we do not have the power to force the world to bend to our will, and many nations are aligning to ensure that they are never again pawns to US imperialism.

I'm not a fatalist either .. in fact, I see the lessening of US power as a good thing. The way forward for us (America) is by becoming a more honest broker of peace and seeking another direction other than war for profit.

That conclusion is not based soley on what's happening in Iraq nor what is happening with Iran and Venezula nor the idiocy of Bush. As I've stated, Bush isn't solely the blame for the disaster of Iraq. There are a great many democrats whose hands are also dripping with blood.

What we see before us is blowback from many years of faulted US foreign policy. Even after Bush leaves office, the stench of one-sided US foreign policy will remain.

The rest of the world doesn't have to make a choice between the US or Iran as "the world leader". I'm not sure if the world needs a leader. But every country can make a choice if they are going to follow America into disaster and war. The truth of that is not only apparent in Iraq, but also the reluctance of other nations to commit more troops to Afghanistan, force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, or attack Somalia or anywhere else America claims is a threat. This will not change after Bush is gone.

The way forward can actually become a brighter day .. but that will not happen if we continue to think that world is our puppet and if we do not alter our militaristic pattern of terrorism and CIA led attacks on sovereign nations.

This is not 1950, and we must adjust to the changing nature and new alliances all over the world .. and the rest of the world will make sure that we do. Other nations, even small ones like Iran and Venezula, have weapons to fight against our intervention, not the least of which is oil and our economic vulnerabilities.

I don't really think we are that far apart in our perspectives.

[jbg]

I would hardly characterize the friendship between Chavez and Ahmenijad as the world's lining up against US imperialism.

Of course not. Not by themselves. Coincidentally, they aren't by themselves.

And to which countries are people desparately trying to get into?

[Guthrie]

I would be desperate to get into Switzerland but my closest Swiss ancestors are 14 generations back -- too far to pull a, 'returning home,' claim

[Liam]

Liam,

I'll try to be more clear in my point. I find you to be an honest and intelligent poster so perhaps the fault is mine.

Do you agree that America has a long history of overthrow of governments, including democratically elected ones, war as a business, and corporate inspired military intervention?

In the simplest terms, my point is that those days are numbered because governments all over the world are no longer afraid of America, we do not have the power to force the world to bend to our will, and many nations are aligning to ensure that they are never again pawns to US imperialism.

I'm not a fatalist either .. in fact, I see the lessening of US power as a good thing. The way forward for us (America) is by becoming a more honest broker of peace and seeking another direction other than war for profit.

That conclusion is not based soley on what's happening in Iraq nor what is happening with Iran and Venezula nor the idiocy of Bush. As I've stated, Bush isn't solely the blame for the disaster of Iraq. There are a great many democrats whose hands are also dripping with blood.

What we see before us is blowback from many years of faulted US foreign policy. Even after Bush leaves office, the stench of one-sided US foreign policy will remain.

The rest of the world doesn't have to make a choice between the US or Iran as "the world leader". I'm not sure if the world needs a leader. But every country can make a choice if they are going to follow America into disaster and war. The truth of that is not only apparent in Iraq, but also the reluctance of other nations to commit more troops to Afghanistan, force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, or attack Somalia or anywhere else America claims is a threat. This will not change after Bush is gone.

The way forward can actually become a brighter day .. but that will not happen if we continue to think that world is our puppet and if we do not alter our militaristic pattern of terrorism and CIA led attacks on sovereign nations.

This is not 1950, and we must adjust to the changing nature and new alliances all over the world .. and the rest of the world will make sure that we do. Other nations, even small ones like Iran and Venezula, have weapons to fight against our intervention, not the least of which is oil and our economic vulnerabilities.

I don't really think we are that far apart in our perspectives.

I agree that we're not far apart -- and I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. But I also think that the US can get back a lot of its lost influence provided American voters elect a leader who is willing to do the right thing and really push the US to a point where it leads by example. But that's a big "if". I think thirty, forty, seventy years from now when China is ascendant, a lot of the world will look upon the US lament what once was and is now gone (why is it that I hear Simon & Garfunkle: "...where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...") Anyone who thinks the US is a bad imperial power -- you will look fondly upon today once China, and its two billion hungry and energy starved people with powerful armed forces come looking for food, water and raw materials.

[jbg]

I agree that we're not far apart -- and I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. But I also think that the US can get back a lot of its lost influence provided American voters elect a leader who is willing to do the right thing and really push the US to a point where it leads by example. But that's a big "if".

Bah humbug!!! Jimmy Carter led "by example"; the result - Canadians having to rescue Americans from their embassy in Teheran. Leading in that manner may gain the praises of university professors and the editorial pages of the New York Times and Toronto Star. In the real world it's called "surrender".

I think thirty, forty, seventy years from now when China is ascendant, a lot of the world will look upon the US lament what once was and is now gone (why is it that I hear Simon & Garfunkle: "...where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...") Anyone who thinks the US is a bad imperial power -- you will look fondly upon today once China, and its two billion hungry and energy starved people with powerful armed forces come looking for food, water and raw materials.

Agreed. The Left is making a major mistake by romancing those that hate the US.

[margrace]

Isn't one of our Ministers over in China right now drumming up trade. I think he is Conservative, at least that was my last impression.

[frogs]

"I don't know, I think the world would rather ally with Israel, than a country which denies the holocaust, and has dream's of wiping out the Jews."

Ah, yes, good point. Instead, we should encourage jews to purchase little boys from strangers and cut skin off their "you know whats." Since that is what the jews proclaim their religion is founded on (Genesis 17). This not only sounds like fun, but makes perfect sense.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jbg,

I agree that we're not far apart -- and I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. But I also think that the US can get back a lot of its lost influence provided American voters elect a leader who is willing to do the right thing and really push the US to a point where it leads by example. But that's a big "if".

Bah humbug!!! Jimmy Carter led "by example"; the result - Canadians having to rescue Americans from their embassy in Teheran. Leading in that manner may gain the praises of university professors and the editorial pages of the New York Times and Toronto Star. In the real world it's called "surrender".

Don't forget, Jimmy Carter sent in a couple of 'Delta teams', or special forces to rescue those hostages. They all died when their choppers 'crashed'. Then, the hostages were released because of secret negotiations behind Carter's back to sell Iran missiles, and the proceeds were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Who was involved, you ask? GHW Bush, as VP to Reagan, and Reagan's campaign manager-cum-CIA director William Casey (nicknamed 'the spookiest of all spooks').

So Carter's efforts with the hostages looks like it failed due to tremendously bad luck, yet when all the circumstance is examined, it looks a lot like sabotage.

[Canadian Blue]

"I don't know, I think the world would rather ally with Israel, than a country which denies the holocaust, and has dream's of wiping out the Jews."

Ah, yes, good point. Instead, we should encourage jews to purchase little boys from strangers and cut skin off their "you know whats." Since that is what the jews proclaim their religion is founded on (Genesis 17). This not only sounds like fun, but makes perfect sense.

Purchase little boys from strangers and cut their skin off, what are you talking about?

I believe their is more to the Jewish faith than circumcision.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't forget, Jimmy Carter sent in a couple of 'Delta teams', or special forces to rescue those hostages. They all died when their choppers 'crashed'....

Say what? They "all died when their choppers 'crashed'? Got any details on that? I recall that Eagle Claw was aborted at Desert One, and the Herc/chopper crash resulted in 8 killed, not "all" ingress forces.

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0401/hostage.html

[sharkman]

"I don't know, I think the world would rather ally with Israel, than a country which denies the holocaust, and has dream's of wiping out the Jews."

Ah, yes, good point. Instead, we should encourage jews to purchase little boys from strangers and cut skin off their "you know whats." Since that is what the jews proclaim their religion is founded on (Genesis 17). This not only sounds like fun, but makes perfect sense.

Wow dude, what a profoundly stupid thing to say. Your time here will not be long if this is the typical kind of contribution you will be making. There's no point even debating the point.

Thelonius, it may look like sabotage except for the fact that the delta force wasn't tricked into crashing on their rescue mission.

[scribblet]

"I don't know, I think the world would rather ally with Israel, than a country which denies the holocaust, and has dream's of wiping out the Jews."

Ah, yes, good point. Instead, we should encourage jews to purchase little boys from strangers and cut skin off their "you know whats." Since that is what the jews proclaim their religion is founded on (Genesis 17). This not only sounds like fun, but makes perfect sense.

Good grief, that is quite the statement. You do know that one does not have to be Jewish to use circumcision. Many non Jewish people do it for health reasons, or did.