America and the Middle East

[RandomGuy]

We need more foreign aid, and we need it right now. We fucked up the chance to help Pakistan with its floods, and are paying the price for that missed opportunity.

The Arab Spring is, as the Economist notes, a golden opportunity for us to do the right thing, live up to our own fundamental principles, and drive another stake in the heart of Al Qaeda's failed ideology.

---------------------------------------------------------------(begin article)

FOR many Americans the killing of Christopher Stevens, their ambassador to Libya, this week crystallised everything they have come to expect from the Arab world. In a country where the West only last year helped depose a murderous tyrant, a Salafist mob attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, killing Mr Stevens and three colleagues. The trigger for this murder, the riots in neighbouring Egypt and the storming of the American embassy in Yemen? A tacky amateur video about the Prophet Muhammad that the Obama administration had already condemned. Why on earth, many Americans are asking, should the United States try to police a region, when all it gets in return is mindless abuse, blame for things it cannot control, and mob violence?

The slaying of Mr Stevens is hardly the only recent example of Arab dysfunction. Just to take the seven days prior to the killing: in Iraq scores of people were killed in bombings on one day and the vice-president was sentenced to death in absentia for alleged murder; in Yemen the defence minister survived an assassination attempt; in the Gaza Strip Israel killed six militants; in Tunisia extremist Salafists smashed up a bar that serves alcohol to the town where the Arab spring began; and most graphically of all, in Syria the death toll in the gruesome civil war continued to rise exponentially—to over 25,000.

On the campaign trail Mitt Romney has been clobbering Barack Obama for being too keen on the Arab awakening. Many conservative Americans associate it with hostile Islamists, like the Muslim Brothers and their friends who now run Egypt and Tunisia, and see it as a threat to America’s ally, Israel. Americans of all sorts are nervous about being dragged into Syria and worried about Iran getting the bomb. They are fed up with being described as anti-Islam when their country is in fact far more welcoming to Shia Muslims than, say, Sunni Saudi Arabia is. With their troops now mercifully out of Iraq, their efforts to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process going nowhere and shale gas reducing their dependence on Arab oil, surely it is time for them to leave the world’s least grateful people to make a mess of their lives by themselves?

This is a seductive narrative—and no doubt it will play even better on the campaign trail after Mr Stevens’s death (see Lexington). But it is deeply wrong in both its analysis and its conclusions. Many parts of the Arab world are in fact heading in the right direction. And in the parts that are not, notably Syria, the United States is more needed than ever.

From one lunatic to another

Begin with the killing of Mr Stevens. Armed jihadists were involved, but other aspects seem more accidental than symptomatic. One misguided extremist in America made the video, and another lot of misguided extremists in the Arab world picked on it. Far from encouraging the violence, the Libyan government deplored Mr Stevens’s murder (though Egypt was less clear) and Libyans mourned a popular ambassador.

This underscores a much bigger point. The Arab spring, for all its messiness, is still broadly moving in the right direction. In Tunisia, Egypt and Libya tyrants have been replaced with democratic governments. These are more hostile to Israel than some of the dictators were, but just as in Turkey greater sympathy for the Palestinians reflects popular opinion (as democracies tend to). The Muslim Brothers hold unpalatable views on women, education and much else, but in government they have had to temper them because voters want jobs and bread on the table more than they want sharia law.

It will take many years, but these democracies promise eventually to embrace a style of government that is more like Turkey’s moderate, democratic Islamism than Iran’s harsh theocracy. At that point America would be spared its outsized role: Turkey and Egypt could emerge as effective regional powers and the Arabs could take more “ownership” of their problems.

But until then, America will remain essential to progress. Libya’s relative success, despite the murder of the ambassador, was largely thanks to American firepower at the start of the campaign against the Qaddafi regime. It was the State Department, in effect, that told Hosni Mubarak’s people that the game was up in Egypt. America is needed to put more pressure on the Gulf monarchies it supports to loosen up their political systems. And in the nascent Arab democracies, it can give vital economic support. Unemployment is rising in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as governments struggle to replace the crony capitalism of the dictators. Small amounts of aid, especially if it is contingent on economic reform, could make a huge difference. If the Arab economies fail, the cost to the world of ever more angry young men being turfed out of work could be immense.

From Tehran to Damascus

Helping the Arabs sort themselves out is not naive do-goodery; it is rooted in Kissingerian realpolitik. The Middle East is still the crucible of Islam: so much that affects American diplomacy around the rest of the world, from Pakistan to Indonesia, Nigeria, and even the suburbs of Paris, has its starting point here. It is the world’s energy centre: the Middle East still sets the price at America’s petrol stations (something that could be rapidly proved if Israel attacks Iran). And the region is home to many of America’s most committed enemies, including Iran.

In general, America should do more in the Middle East, not less. Two issues look especially neglected because of American domestic politics. One inevitably is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Palestinians are themselves divided; but America should vigorously point out that each new (illegal) settlement that Israel builds in the West Bank makes it harder to make peace between Jews and Arabs. The conflict still enrages much of the region. Mr Romney’s electioneering on this, as on bombing Iran, has been especially crude.

The other issue is Syria. The number of dead is rising by as many as 200 a day, as fast as in the worst period in Iraq. So long as Bashar Assad remains free to kill with impunity, the slaughter will devour Syria and its people, sectarian hatred will eviscerate the country and its institutions and Syria’s poison will spread across the Middle East. Even now Jordan and Lebanon are under threat.

As our briefing this week makes clear, there is an alternative: to protect the Syrian people by enforcing a no-fly zone over their country. It is far from an easy decision, but depriving Mr Assad of his aircraft and helicopter gunships could save many thousands of lives. Bringing a swifter end to the fighting could yet give Syria a chance to emerge as a nation at peace with itself and its neighbours.

In the week of Mr Stevens’s killing, the idea of intervening in yet another Muslim country might seem far-fetched to many Americans. But if they think that today’s Libya is dangerous and violent, imagine what it would have been like were battle still raging (see article). The humanitarian and strategic costs of standing back from Syria would be even higher.

So it is with the entire Middle East. Ultimately, anti-American violence thrives under the tyrants and the dictators. Because the Arab spring promises to put the Middle East into the hands of the people for the first time, it offers a better future. There are no guarantees, but America has everything to gain from being at the heart of this great awakening.
------------(end)

http://www.economist.com/node/21562914

[DarrinS]

No

[vy65]

Shitty article. No real mention of specific policies other than pressuring Israel on settlements (which I agree with even though it's hella vague).

Promoting democracy in the ME is the problem, not the solution.

[vy65]

Oh and lol Turkey. We want a quasi-military controlled state that executes political dissidents to be a regional power?

[Winehole23]

that cow's out of the barn. Turkey already is a regional power.

[coyotes_geek]

If we spend enough money on them, eventually they'll like us.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't see why we necessarily have to provide foreign aid. Addition by the subtraction of our meddling is the course of action I'd prefer to see.

[MannyIsGod]

Generally the view of terrorism is greatly exaggerated as a threat. We need to spend that money here at home - not abroad. Its about damn time we got our own house in order and actually have enough faith that the middle east can do the same for itself.

[Winehole23]

Promoting democracy in the ME is the problem, not the solution.agree.

let's be honest: the clear result of humanitarian intervention in the ME has been increasing violence and instability, leading to ever more aggrieved cries for humanitarian meddling and war. self-reinforcing feedback.

[RandomGuy]

Shitty article. No real mention of specific policies other than pressuring Israel on settlements (which I agree with even though it's hella vague).

Promoting democracy in the ME is the problem, not the solution.

Meh. Which set of victims are you going to blame this time?

[RandomGuy]

If we spend enough money on them, eventually they'll like us.

The problem with saying that as snark is that we don't spend much money at all, other than military aid to Egypt.

How much of our federal budget goes to USAID?

[RandomGuy]

Generally the view of terrorism is greatly exaggerated as a threat. We need to spend that money here at home - not abroad. Its about damn time we got our own house in order and actually have enough faith that the middle east can do the same for itself.

We need to be giving money and expertise to the moderates, because ceding everythig to the salfists, wahabbists, and other idiots is not an option.

We tried that with Afghanistan.

[vy65]

Meh. Which set of victims are you going to blame this time?

Your childish inability to accept that people might not always agree with you, much less your inability to have an adult conversation, is noted.

lol facts
lol lists
lol nazis

[RandomGuy]

No

As usual, you have us all in the crushing grip of reason.

We stand in awe of your well constructed arguments, erudite rebuttals, and stunning grasp of the issue at hand.

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

agree.

let's be honest: the clear result of humanitarian intervention in the ME has been increasing violence and instability, leading to ever more aggrieved cries for humanitarian meddling and war. self-reinforcing feedback.

Agreed

[RandomGuy]

Your childish inability to accept that people might not always agree with you, much less your inability to have an adult conversation, is noted.

lol facts
lol lists
lol nazis

I understand, and even like, quite a few people who disagree with me, jackboot.

Have you figured out the difference between legal and moral yet?

[vy65]

Meh. Which set of victims are you going to blame this time?


As usual, you have us all in the crushing grip of reason.

We stand in awe of your well constructed arguments, erudite rebuttals, and stunning grasp of the issue at hand.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Your childish inability to accept that people might not always agree with you, much less your inability to have an adult conversation, is noted.

lol facts
lol lists
lol nazis

... and you didn't answer my question.

Which group of victims are you going to blame this time?

I am genuinely curious to see which group is to be sacrificed on the altar of your need to feel superior.

[RandomGuy]

bla bla bla

You might get an erudite rebuttal, if you could say something intelligent or educated about foreign policy that wasn't some emotionally driven pap.

Do you have anything to say like that?

[vy65]

... and you didn't answer my question.

Which group of victims are you going to blame this time?

I am genuinely curious to see which group is to be sacrificed on the altar of your need to feel superior.

I'm not blaming any groups. What makes you think that I am?

As usual, you're talking about shit that's wholly irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Why are you deflecting from the points I raised earlier in this thread? Do you not have *facts* or *reasons* to support your position? Have you not spent the better part of the day researching why America should be doing those things mentioned in the op?

lol lists
lol nazis
lol jackboot

[coyotes_geek]

The problem with saying that as snark is that we don't spend much money at all, other than military aid to Egypt.

How much of our federal budget goes to USAID?

Obama's 2012 budget proposal was $47B. Where they're coming in relative to that number I can't say since we don't have an official, passed, budget.

How much more do you think we need to spend on top of that to buy back our reputation as the Great Satan? What's the Islamic world's pricetag on their friendship?

[boutons_deux]

"The Middle East is still the crucible of Islam"

uh, no. First, M/E is still the barrel of oil.

The Muslim oil countries have plenty of $100Bs to help their own.

I doubt US generosity to Muslim countries would be returned as any benefit to USA. The extreme Muslim minorities will continue to intimidate/murder the Muslim moderates into silence.

[vy65]

You might get an erudite rebuttal, if you could say something intelligent or educated about foreign policy that wasn't some emotionally driven pap.

Do you have anything to say like that?


Shitty article. No real mention of specific policies other than pressuring Israel on settlements (which I agree with even though it's hella vague).

Promoting democracy in the ME is the problem, not the solution.


Oh and lol Turkey. We want a quasi-military controlled state that executes political dissidents to be a regional power?

Your need to be spoon-fed is astounding.

[Winehole23]

for all his talk about the importance of reason, erudition and a sturdy grasp on the facts, RG sure seems to gravitate toward the online war of insults. even seems keen to start it.

this was not always the case. pity.

[CosmicCowboy]

for all his talk about the importance of reason, erudition and a sturdy grasp on the facts, rg sure seems to gravitate toward the online war of insults. Even seems keen to start it.

This was not always the case. Pity.
x2

[vy65]

wh, with the voice of reason goods, per par, etc.

[vy65]

But it is also the case that people in the Islamic world feel that they, for the most part, live in polities and states, in countries, ruled by unpopular regimes all of whom without any exception that I can think of in one way or another—of course, Iraq is an exception—but are supported by the United States.

I mean one mustn’t forget, in the first place, that the Mujahedeen, who preceded the Taliban, sort of the previous incarnation of the Taliban, were supported by the United States as fighters on the side of Islam against the godless communists in the Soviet Union in 1980s. And when their leaders came to Washington—I’ll never forget this as long as I live—and these beared people, to my mind, being a secular person from a part of the world that produces monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, I was horrified that Reagan greeted these people as, in fact, the moral equivalent of the founding fathers, our founding fathers.

You know, it suited the United States to coddle these people, as it has all these years, the government of Saudi Arabia because of its oil, not because of its enlightened policies. And in many people in these countries, there is a healthy secular opposition. There’s women’s movement, there’s human rights movement. So, in all respects, I think one can find not only the elements but the wide currents of modernity inside contemporary Islamic societies.

The question is that they are engaged in a political struggle with people who want to take Islam back to some earlier state. Just as in this country, we have people who want to return—well, we have [Jerry] Falwell and [Pat] Robertson and all the hundreds of thousands, millions even, of fundamentalist Christians in this country who want to return us to a puritanical and simpler society.

So that’s the war. It’s not between Islam and the West. It’s between ideas of the past that exist in the West and ideas of the past and of the correct tradition that exists in the Islamic world and indeed everywhere.

Jewish world, look at the struggle within Israel between different interpretations of Judaism. So, I would say it’s really the struggle of interpretations and not the struggle between modernity of the West and the success of America, which most people in the Arab world that I know find very attractive and somewhat at odds with America’s behavior internationally, as a major, as the only superpower on one hand. And people want to, who want to return society to its earlier, pure, less sinful state, I mean that exists everywhere.

http://readingchomsky.blogspot.com/2010/09/edward-said-on-911-and-others-democracy.html

Said doesn't say this outright, but seems to suggest that there is rank paternalism, if not outright colonialism, in suggesting that the US is necessary to bring about democracy in the region. As if the struggles of internal humans rights groups, and eventually, ME states themselves were incapable of becoming adequately 'civilized' (read democratic)

[Winehole23]

also, the OP (and RG) leave unstated the degree to which US policy in the region is (partly, right?) responsible for for keeping corrupt, nasty, unpopular authoritarians in power, as well as for fomenting Islamic fundamentalism -- you guessed it -- using Kissingerian realpolitik as the rationale.

"plus ca change, plus ca meme chose"

[DarrinS]

What those people need is a good information campaign, ala radio free Europe to fight against the bullshit they are being fed. But those people are pretty damned brainwashed at this point.

[Winehole23]

that's a weak variant of the cultural imperialism RG just got behind, D. even if our bullshit and lies tend to trump theirs, the result is likely to be even more bloodshed and far less political stability.

as it is, our efforts to improve the lot of Muslim countries are likelier to be met with distrust and skepticism given the recent trajectory of US policy.

[RandomGuy]

for all his talk about the importance of reason, erudition and a sturdy grasp on the facts, RG sure seems to gravitate toward the online war of insults. even seems keen to start it.

this was not always the case. pity.

I am more than a bit appalled these days by the number of people who have swallowed the hyper-individualistic propaganda of the right with little regard for the value of human beings, truth, or morals. All are sacrificed on the alter of rank elitism.

The rights utter distain and rank condescension oh-so-frankly spelled out by Romney's recent recorded/released remarks pretty much should remove any doubt in anybody's mind what the people controlling the Republican party think about anybody who hasn't lucked into wealth and priviledge.

It is just as bad as the other extreme, leftish propaganda that eschews individual worth, achievement, and responsibility. Worse, because so many people swim in the turd-ridden sewer of the right wing propaganda machine, thinking they smell like roses.

[RandomGuy]

Oh and lol Turkey. We want a quasi-military controlled state that executes political dissidents to be a regional power?

Turkey should be pushed, and supported towards the rule of law, protection of human rights, and basic Democracy, by the tools we might have to do so, just as we have always done around the world.

It is the best in us, and we have some moral duty to further respect for human beings.

They will be a "regional" power, as they have been for thousands of years, quite literally. It is neither good nor bad, but it just is.

[RandomGuy]

Shitty article. No real mention of specific policies other than pressuring Israel on settlements (which I agree with even though it's hella vague).

Promoting democracy in the ME is the problem, not the solution.

By all means flesh out your own solution.

While you are at it, please describe why democracy is the problem.

You have insisted that these comments are worth responding to, the onus is on you to give something substantial enough to merit a cogent response.

[RandomGuy]

http://readingchomsky.blogspot.com/2010/09/edward-said-on-911-and-others-democracy.html

Said doesn't say this outright, but seems to suggest that there is rank paternalism, if not outright colonialism, in suggesting that the US is necessary to bring about democracy in the region. As if the struggles of internal humans rights groups, and eventually, ME states themselves were incapable of becoming adequately 'civilized' (read democratic)

Is that your opinion?

If someone asks for your help, is it paternalistic to give it to them?

I don't think we are strictly necessary to the development of Democracy, but we can act to accelerate a trend in which the values that we can almost univerally agree on are accepted and overall human misery are reduced.

[boutons_deux]

"why democracy is the problem"

Obviously, with democracy in USA now irredeemably replaced by kleptocratic plutocracy, the Muslim countries are decades away from the USA's mythical, apocryphal "democracy".

democracy? Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Bahrain (crushed by SA with USA silent agreement), not Libya, not Syria.

[coyotes_geek]

I doubt US generosity to Muslim countries would be returned as any benefit to USA.

:tu

Pretty much a given.

[Clipper Nation]

No, our republic's been replaced by oligarchic democracy, tbh....

[RandomGuy]

:tu

Pretty much a given.

No, it isn't a given.

I would contend just the opposite.

Unless you can provide some rationale?

[RandomGuy]

cultural imperialism

Is it possible that there is a line between cultural imperialism and basic morality?

You seem to be implying there isn't one.

[coyotes_geek]

No, it isn't a given.

I would contend just the opposite.

Unless you can provide some rationale?

That little thing about being a nation of 'infidels' seems like it would be a pretty significant hurdle to get over...........

..........the whole Israel situation being another............

..........our history of meddling in their affairs for the better part of a century being another.........

There's also the problem of the middle east having a large segment of the society who is uneducated and poor, and the U.S. making the perfect scapegoat for ME governments looking to deflect their rage away from themselves.

I also think it's a safe bet to assume that when some suffering middle easterner gets some form of aid made possible by U.S. taxpayer dollars, the local government isn't telling them "don't thank us, thank the United States of America". So even when we're helping them, I doubt we're getting the credit.

[coyotes_geek]

Basically, I just think it's a pretty ridiculous concept to think that we can buy our way out of "Great Satan" status with some humanitarian aid.

AT BEST, you'd get a Pakistan situation with a nation of people that hate our guts and a government that will play along just enough to keep the money coming.

[boutons_deux]

"between cultural imperialism and basic morality"

some French guy said: "nations don't have friends, they have interests".

groups, such as nations, Corporate-Americans, Catholic Church, no matter how religious, moral, or ethical the members may be, have one priority: to defend, protect, immortalize the group, at all costs, including hurting or killing their members and any out-groups.

Ask Bradley Manning, Assange, Wilson/Plame, boys/men raped by priests, etc.

US is in the M/E for its oil, not for spreading democracy.

US garrisons the planet to defend itself against puny threats many 1000s miles away (murderer Petraeus and his planetary SOCOM + CIA drone war) and to make it safe for its predatory corporations.

[vy65]

Turkey should be pushed, and supported towards the rule of law, protection of human rights, and basic Democracy, by the tools we might have to do so, just as we have always done around the world.

We disagree on whether that's possible. Thinking that Turkey can be pushed and supported into a bastion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law is worse than having the fox guard the hen house for two reasons.

1. Unlike previous despotic states known for genocide, i.e. Germany, Turkey hasn't undergone a cultural change that recognizes its previous crimes and seeks atonement for them. Hence the continuum from Armenia to the Kurds.

2. The strong military presence/influence in government.

Let alone the overarching question to all of this which is: why *should* Turkey conform to *our* notions of democracy, human rights, rule of law, etc...


It is the best in us, and we have some moral duty to further respect for human beings.

One man's moral duty is another's colonialism. Your elevation of the western point (the reference to human rights, democracy, rule of law - all of which are western notions) as the universal by which all other nations should be elevated to is in my mind a form of cultural and political colonialism.


They will be a "regional" power, as they have been for thousands of years, quite literally. It is neither good nor bad, but it just is.

Seems teleological to me: it is because it is. But who knows, you might be right.

[vy65]

By all means flesh out your own solution.

Pull out of the ME. End all support for Israel. If they want democracy, they can do it on their own.


While you are at it, please describe why democracy is the problem.

Get smarter and read better. Democracy isn't the problem. The US promoting democracy in the middle east is the problem.


You have insisted that these comments are worth responding to, the onus is on you to give something substantial enough to merit a cogent response.

You're throwing a fit again. Get the sand out of your vagina.

[vy65]

Is that your opinion?

It is not *mine* but it is a position I agree with. Why's that relevant?


If someone asks for your help, is it paternalistic to give it to them?

In the abstract, I don't know, maybe? I would need more details before answering.

In this situation, the notion that ME nations *need* the US to instill democratic, humanitarian regimes that respect the rule of law (your words) because they can't do it on their own is paternalistic and prelude to colonialism.


I don't think we are strictly necessary to the development of Democracy, but we can act to accelerate a trend in which the values that we can almost univerally agree on are accepted and overall human misery are reduced.

Given our track record, I'd say that we have done a whole hell of a lot more to hamper the development of democracy.

But more to the point - what are those universal values you speak of? Why are you in a position to legislate morally what is acceptable to others in different cultures, with different religions, different politics, etc...

[symple19]

idealism is cute

[RandomGuy]

Get smarter and read better. Democracy isn't the problem. The US promoting democracy in the middle east is the problem.


I stand corrected. I did indeed mis-read your statement.

[RandomGuy]

We disagree on whether that's possible. Thinking that Turkey can be pushed and supported into a bastion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law is worse than having the fox guard the hen house for two reasons.

1. Unlike previous despotic states known for genocide, i.e. Germany, Turkey hasn't undergone a cultural change that recognizes its previous crimes and seeks atonement for them. Hence the continuum from Armenia to the Kurds.

2. The strong military presence/influence in government.

Let alone the overarching question to all of this which is: why *should* Turkey conform to *our* notions of democracy, human rights, rule of law, etc...

One man's moral duty is another's colonialism. Your elevation of the western point (the reference to human rights, democracy, rule of law - all of which are western notions) as the universal by which all other nations should be elevated to is in my mind a form of cultural and political colonialism.

Seems teleological to me: it is because it is. But who knows, you might be right.

The rule of law is not a "western" notion. A basic reading of Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern history, would show that many of the things you are claiming are "western" values have been discovered by all these people.

When I get some time, I will provide some support for this.

I would not share the assuption that things cannot change in Turkey, but again, have to wait for time to get there.

bis spater

[MannyIsGod]

The main problem as I see it - and its proudly on display within this thread - is that Americans constantly feel the need to somehow shepard the people in the middle east to mindset and lifestyle of American's choosing. Its always frustrating to see because while I do agree that there are basic human rights everyone should be entitled to, our society has numerous flaws in and of itself and we have yet to reach a point where everyone in our society is equal and treated well.

Its time to stop attempts to manipulate people around the world and its time to let people figure it out for themselves. America comes off as a selfish helicopter parent but whats worse is that we've yet to get our own shit together and we propose to dictate what is best for others around the world.

It may come as a shock to many people, but Americans did not invent democracy or the concept of equal rights and other people around the world are quite capable of figuring it out on their own if they're just allowed to do just that.

[clambake]

The main problem as I see it - and its proudly on display within this thread - is that Americans constantly feel the need to somehow shepard the people in the middle east to mindset and lifestyle of American's choosing. Its always frustrating to see because while I do agree that there are basic human rights everyone should be entitled to, our society has numerous flaws in and of itself and we have yet to reach a point where everyone in our society is equal and treated well.

Its time to stop attempts to manipulate people around the world and its time to let people figure it out for themselves. America comes off as a selfish helicopter parent but whats worse is that we've yet to get our own shit together and we propose to dictate what is best for others around the world.

It may come as a shock to many people, but Americans did not invent democracy or the concept of equal rights and other people around the world are quite capable of figuring it out on their own if they're just allowed to do just that.

take your rationality and stick it up your ass!

[Winehole23]

Is it possible that there is a line between cultural imperialism and basic morality?

You seem to be implying there isn't one.I don't think I implied there wasn't. On the contrary, I doubt cultural imperialism (and the purportedly humanitarian wars that accompany it) could get very far without the conceit that it is merely extending basic morality.

[MannyIsGod]

And just to be clear I don't think our governments actions are driven by these feelings but I feel that the general American mindset that says we know whats best for others is what allows our government to take the actions it does because it gives politicians a set of emotions to appeal to.

[Clipper Nation]

Actually the problem is both democracy AND our attempt to "spread it".... pure mob-rule democracy is THE most easily-rigged system in the world.... are we really expecting fair elections to be conducted in these unstable countries?

You know what would really advance our way of life? Getting the fuck out of everyone else's business and returning to our constitutional republican form of government.... let our best and brightest patriots provide a check against both the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority without being intimidated or slandered.... once we have our republic back, we can take our liberties back, raise our standard of living, and set a good example for the rest of the world, tbh.....

[Winehole23]

Remaking the rest of the world to suit our "basic morality" and our political preferences is foolish, arrogant and probably insane. The targets of our humanitarian solicitude are right to hate us for it.

[MannyIsGod]

Remaking the rest of the world to suit our "basic morality" and our political preferences is foolish, arrogant and probably insane. The targets of our humanitarian solicitude are right to hate us for it.

Indeed

[vy65]

The rule of law is not a "western" notion. A basic reading of Chinese, Indian, and Middle Eastern history, would show that many of the things you are claiming are "western" values have been discovered by all these people.

When I get some time, I will provide some support for this.

I don't know exactly what you're referencing, so I'll reserve comment for later.

But taking you at your word, the colonial attitude MIG described is on display in your comments. Essentially, what you're saying is: *they* (we'll leave who or what *they* are alone for a moment) are just like *us* (same caveat) and our obligation is to humanize/educate/reform/change them to conform to our notions of what is right and proper (i.e., a western notion of human rights, democracy, rule of law as enshrined in various Euro-American legal texts). The problem is three-fold

1. the patronizing attitude that *they* can't do it on their own
2. the necessity that their iteration of democracy look like ours
3. the violence that comes about from the praxis of these ideas to reality

[vy65]

Remaking the rest of the world to suit our "basic morality" and our political preferences is foolish, arrogant and probably insane. The targets of our humanitarian solicitude are right to hate us for it.

Since most of us (shockingly) are in agreement - let me play devils advocate.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this position suggests a form of relativism, i.e., since any attempt to spread democratic ideas is necessarily colonial when confronted with others who do not share western values, it appears impossible for a state or states to denounce otherwise abhorrent human rights violations taking place in non-western states.

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence? If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?

[clambake]

Since most of us (shockingly) are in agreement - let me play devils advocate.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this position suggests a form of relativism, i.e., since any attempt to spread democratic ideas is necessarily colonial when confronted with others who do not share western values, it appears impossible for a state or states to denounce otherwise abhorrent human rights violations taking place in non-western states.

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence? If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?
it just depends on the country's resources that are ripe for the taking.

[CosmicCowboy]

Since most of us (shockingly) are in agreement - let me play devils advocate.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this position suggests a form of relativism, i.e., since any attempt to spread democratic ideas is necessarily colonial when confronted with others who do not share western values, it appears impossible for a state or states to denounce otherwise abhorrent human rights violations taking place in non-western states.

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence? If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?

The world is like a zoo. Some animals are cute and fuzzy and some are deadly and have to be kept in a cage. Some of these third world shitheads need to be kept in the cage of Authoritarian Dictatorships.

[Winehole23]

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence?No.

Besides, no world community as such exists, just a congeries of states and peoples variously allied, opposed or indifferent to each other. Absent threats to one's own people/interests, states should leave each other alone.

If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?
It's your burden to show that taking no action wrt humanitarian atrocities (in countries in which no vital interests of the political state are at issue) is equivalent/comparable to committing those atrocities, not mine to disprove it.

[vy65]

No.

Besides, no world community as such exists, just a congeries of states and peoples variously allied, opposed or indifferent to each other. Absent threats to one's own people/interests, states should leave each other alone.

As such? No. But there are, to borrow from Benedict Anderson, imagined communities (organized along political, economic, socio-cultural, etc.. lines). Is the fact that there is no a priori world community significant?


It's your burden to show that taking no action wrt humanitarian atrocities (in countries in which no vital interests of the political state are at issue) is equivalent/comparable to committing those atrocities, not mine to disprove it.

Here's my attempt to carry the burden: in my mind, there is a difference between complicity with an act vs. active commission of an act. I agree that non-action is not equivalent to committing an atrocity.

I'm referencing, for lack of a better descriptor, a "Levinasian" ethical model where the visibility of anothers suffering inspires an ethical obligation to alleviate such pain. Hence, while non-action may not be equivalent to commission of the crime, it nonetheless bears some sort of culpability.

If this is a fruitless exercise, I'll shut up.

[Winehole23]

As such? No. But there are, to borrow from Benedict Anderson, imagined communities (organized along political, economic, socio-cultural, etc.. lines). Is the fact that there is no a priori world community significant?By bad. I thought you were speaking of "the world community" as a fait accompli, and not an imagined community. It makes sense to me to distinguish between politically constituted communities and notional ones, but I realize postmodernists and cultural marxists often reject the distinction.

I'm referencing, for lack of a better descriptor, a "Levinasian" ethical model where the visibility of anothers suffering inspires an ethical obligation to alleviate such pain. Hence, while non-action may not be equivalent to commission of the crime, it nonetheless bears some sort of culpability.anthropomorphism. it hardly follows from any of this that any obligation lies on the political state, besides to its own people, its own power and its own political constitution.

conscientious citizens can lay their moral burdens on the state or take them up on their own. but I reject the notion that the political state is or ought to be a moral agent.

[Ginobilly]

Remaking the rest of the world to suit our "basic morality" and our political preferences is foolish, arrogant and probably insane. The targets of our humanitarian solicitude are right to hate us for it.

It's kinda freaky what the bible says about Arabs(today's Muslims). It says that the descendants of Ismael will always be a hostile people. The bible describes their behavior like that of a wild donkey and that they will be always be fighting among themselves and against the world.

[Ginobilly]

I blame France and England for never setting them straight during the colonial years. They should of established some strict Christian missions(like the Spanish did in the Americas) and forcefully fed the love of Jesus/Mary and new testament into their heads, instead of that Mohammed/72 virgins BS that they feed their poor people with. I'm not saying to kill them or use violence, but we do have to treat them with kids gloves.

[LnGrrrR]

I highly doubt US's ability to affect long-lasting change in a positive way in the ME as this point. If it is possible, it's likely to do so at a cost to us that's just not worth it. As the OP mentioned, look at all the US has tried to do, and one stupid director is enough to cause thousands to riot in multiple countries.

At this point, while it really sucks for the enlightened people in the countries who want change, I think America would be much better off investing those resources in helping their own citizens, and letting the people in those countries figure it out themselves.

[LnGrrrR]

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence? If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?

I think the obligation would only be there if said community had both the means to do so, and the knowlege on how to do so. I'm doubtful the community has either.

[boutons_deux]

Remaking the rest of the world to suit our "basic morality" and our political preferences is foolish, arrogant and probably insane.

America isn't trying REALLY to do that. That's the marketing campaign to US and foreign people to cover the imperial corporate/military control of the planet, esp its resources.

Even "Christians" going abroad under the cover of humanitarian/medical aid are really going to recruit the natives to their probably cultish flavor of Christianity.

eg, giving GMO seeds after the HAITI earthquake was really bait, like a drug pusher addicting a client, to get Haitian farmers hooked on buying sterile GMO seeds every year.

In India, 1000s of farmers who took that bait committed suicide when they couldn't afford the seeds.

iow, "follow the money". It's the priority of American foreign/commercial policy.

and read up on the Trans Pacific Partnership if you want a good feel for how corporations now feel so emboldened and unthreated by any govt anywhere. Even Congress and the Exec are excluded from TPP negotiations.

[CosmicCowboy]

I blame France and England for never setting them straight during the colonial years. They should of established some strict Christian missions(like the Spanish did in the Americas) and forcefully fed the love of Jesus/Mary and new testament into their heads, instead of that Mohammed/72 virgins BS that they feed their poor people with. I'm not saying to kill them or use violence, but we do have to treat them with kids gloves.

You realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, right? The primary difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, born through divine conception (legitimate rape?) whereas the prophet Mohammed came along later and said, no, Jesus was a great man and a great prophet, but he wasn't the son of God.

Which one seems more logical?

[MannyIsGod]

Since most of us (shockingly) are in agreement - let me play devils advocate.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this position suggests a form of relativism, i.e., since any attempt to spread democratic ideas is necessarily colonial when confronted with others who do not share western values, it appears impossible for a state or states to denounce otherwise abhorrent human rights violations taking place in non-western states.

Is there an obligation on the part of the world community to end this kind of violence? If not, how is that any different than complicity in these rights violations?

Tough to answer because sometimes trying to end the violence simply makes things worse for all parties and sometimes it actually succeeds. It is likely there is no blanket one size fits all answer on whether or not intervention is merited but rather the entire context of the situation need be looked over.

[Ginobilly]

You realize that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, right? The primary difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, born through divine conception (legitimate rape?) whereas the prophet Mohammed came along later and said, no, Jesus was a great man and a great prophet, but he wasn't the son of God.

Which one seems more logical?

I know that. So they were further along the evolutionary path than Native Americans. That's why I say that the French and England should of westernized them when they had the chance back in the day because it would of been easier on us nowadays. We would be able to travel the middle east and enjoy a nice cold beer(while enjoying the pyramids) without the paranoia of being blown up. I've read the Quran and the Bible and that's why it's no surprise to me that the reason they are the way they are is because they are still ignorant of what is "God". Christianity is evolving every day to fit in with the changing of time, but our morals remain the same of loving one another and religious freedom without the threat of violence. The point is you can't move into higher levels of abstract thinking without going through the growing pains first. The Koran doesn't allow for the people to evolve because they can't read the bible or torah and make a decision for themselves of what is it means to be a true follower of god. I'm not talking about moderate Muslims who come to the US and are blessed to have access to everything and do study the bible and torah. But the majority of people of the middle east still don't know the truth and good news about Jesus. Mohammed was the false prophet Jesus talked about swaying people away from the faith and truth and that he would deny him, even though he never mentions him by name. Without Jesus teaching, this great nation would of never been born. It's crazy when you look at it that all the prophecies from the bible are being fulfilled as we speak; whether you believe in God or you don't.

[leemajors]

Islamic mathematicians developed algebra without being capable of abstract thinking. That's impressive.

[Ginobilly]

Islamic mathematicians developed algebra without being capable of abstract thinking. That's impressive.

yes they did. But what happened to their progression afterwards??? Let me guess.... fundamental Islam hampered their social, political, and intellectual evolution and that's why they are poverty stricken nations that are always fighting with everybody and among themselves. The bible clearly says that they are their own worse enemy by being hostile and ignorant with the changing of times. Somebody has to bring them into the 21st but nobody wants to do none of the missionary social work involved with the people because they are the human version of the Pitbull.

[boutons_deux]

Islamic mathematicians developed algebra without being capable of abstract thinking. That's impressive.

Arabic numerals! Terrorist/Sharia world domination!

[CosmicCowboy]

Islamic mathematicians developed algebra without being capable of abstract thinking. That's impressive.

They weren't Islamic when they developed algebra.

[vy65]

Lemme get this straight: the muslim world is ignorant and backwards because the bible says so?

[Wild Cobra]

Lemme get this straight: the muslim world is ignorant and backwards because the bible says so?

No, because of the teachings of the Quran.

[TDMVPDPOY]

islamic = marxis theory...all backward thinkers....

[TDMVPDPOY]

i think its simple, if the ME doesnt want democracy, maybe we should all gtfo of that region...just stick to foreign trade policy to make money only....

if they dont want foreign trade? we should just stop selling them shit, and look at them live like in the stone ages where they come begging again...