America and the Middle East

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

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.

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.....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

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

---

Arabic numerals! Terrorist/Sharia world domination!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

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

---

They weren't Islamic when they developed algebra.

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