When does it become necessary?
NCfan
Posts: 945
I was watching the CBS evening news last night and was struck by a story about forensic scientist in Iraq doing work on the mass graves they are uncovering there.
The parity of Iraq under Saddam and other dysfunctional Middle Eastern countries really hit me when compared with the West.
As much as people on this message board love to bash America, democracy and capitalism - there is one thing you guys can't dispute. Shit like these mass graves DOES NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA!!! Hell it doesn't happen in other democratic countries either.
Sure, our government has exploited it's citizens and trampled in the affairs of other countries to make a buck. But Uncle Sam does not round up hundreds of women and children in the night and murder them in huge pits. However, this type of shit happens all the time in the Middle East.
I was reading just the other day on Andrew Sullivan's web site where two Iranian teenage boys were hung because they were gay.
So I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I REALIZE it's hard to change people at the point of a gun, but when does that become necessary for the survival of the rest of humanity? Are these people going to catch on by themselves or does it take armed conflict? What would happen if the religous fundamentalist took control. The area would actually go backwards, while the rest of the world is barreling into the future at an unbelievable pace.
You basically have one culture working to land humans on Mars, and another that adheres to such strict religous codes that they couldn't produce penecilin.
I think many people in the Middle East want to change. But I also concede there are many traditionalist that want outside influence to leave them alone.
So the rub is this... the Middle East needs to change - period. The culture over there is breeding ignorance and religous bigotry like crazy. What are countries that have already evolved through this supposed to do? Europe has lived through and survived its hundreds of years with the Catholic Inquisition.
America struggled with the issue of slavery for a few hundred years, and then racial and gender inequality afterwards. Now we are facing a struggle by homosexuals for their rights among others.
But there is a large faction in the Middle East that will stop at nothing short of blowing themselves up to keep that region from evolving. You have many, many corrupt leaders who are pathetically rich and privileged from oil revenue who need the status quo, and then you have the poor masses that are basically ignorant to the ways of the outside world, and are scared of change because we’re all scared of change at heart – that is just being human. And the less educated and worldly you are, the more scared you will be.
You also have the religious fanatics, who not only resist Western influences and change, but want to actually unite that region under their fucked up hard-line and intolerant views.
It’s just common sense that not all countries are going to evolve at the same time. So what are the responsibilities of those countries who have already learned from the same mistakes that others are currently mired in?
The parity of Iraq under Saddam and other dysfunctional Middle Eastern countries really hit me when compared with the West.
As much as people on this message board love to bash America, democracy and capitalism - there is one thing you guys can't dispute. Shit like these mass graves DOES NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA!!! Hell it doesn't happen in other democratic countries either.
Sure, our government has exploited it's citizens and trampled in the affairs of other countries to make a buck. But Uncle Sam does not round up hundreds of women and children in the night and murder them in huge pits. However, this type of shit happens all the time in the Middle East.
I was reading just the other day on Andrew Sullivan's web site where two Iranian teenage boys were hung because they were gay.
So I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I REALIZE it's hard to change people at the point of a gun, but when does that become necessary for the survival of the rest of humanity? Are these people going to catch on by themselves or does it take armed conflict? What would happen if the religous fundamentalist took control. The area would actually go backwards, while the rest of the world is barreling into the future at an unbelievable pace.
You basically have one culture working to land humans on Mars, and another that adheres to such strict religous codes that they couldn't produce penecilin.
I think many people in the Middle East want to change. But I also concede there are many traditionalist that want outside influence to leave them alone.
So the rub is this... the Middle East needs to change - period. The culture over there is breeding ignorance and religous bigotry like crazy. What are countries that have already evolved through this supposed to do? Europe has lived through and survived its hundreds of years with the Catholic Inquisition.
America struggled with the issue of slavery for a few hundred years, and then racial and gender inequality afterwards. Now we are facing a struggle by homosexuals for their rights among others.
But there is a large faction in the Middle East that will stop at nothing short of blowing themselves up to keep that region from evolving. You have many, many corrupt leaders who are pathetically rich and privileged from oil revenue who need the status quo, and then you have the poor masses that are basically ignorant to the ways of the outside world, and are scared of change because we’re all scared of change at heart – that is just being human. And the less educated and worldly you are, the more scared you will be.
You also have the religious fanatics, who not only resist Western influences and change, but want to actually unite that region under their fucked up hard-line and intolerant views.
It’s just common sense that not all countries are going to evolve at the same time. So what are the responsibilities of those countries who have already learned from the same mistakes that others are currently mired in?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Good points, my only objections is that it is not our job to force our ways upon these people. I agree that our democracy is lifetimes better that some fundamentalist dictatorship, but you cannot spread democracy by force. I'll elaborate on this when I have a couple of more minutes, but I'm running off to a meeting right now.
well said.
i don't think 'forcing' any ideas is ever a good one, even if we think our ideas are 'better'...it's not our call, not our lives. if someone askes for help, that is entirely a different story. i am not a believer in 'spreading democracy'...almost sounds like the relgious crusades.....if democracy is wanted, it will get there, but let it be CHOSEN first.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well I agree with you 100% in theory. But the technology of the 21st century is changing that. To say the world is connected now is an understatment.
Not only are countries interacting and effecting each other more than ever, but individuals are affecting others too. We are all more impowered, and that is not a good thing when it comes to fanatics.
So it doesn't make sense to hold an isolationist view or policy. I guess I believe that many of the world's problems are cuased by massive disparity. Well this disparity is only going to grow and grow, which will cause more and bigger problems.
a few dozen fanatics changed the mindset and attitudes of a few hundred million people on 9/11. I believe that groups have the power to change our democracies and ways of living.
I guess I feel the time to act is now, while we have the power to do so.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That's cool, I can respect that.
These posts made me smile.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
yeah...Shock and awe baby
Swoosh! goes Bushies oil powered boomstick...
...
Like, do you think it's okay for Europe to come over here and tell us that the Death Penalty is bad and that if we didn't change it, they would change it for us? You wouldn't have a problem with that?
Hail, Hail!!!
Nobody put us in charge, I don't think that God or some divine being has empowered America and wants us to change the world.
But it is shear reality that the U.S. is in fact the biggest stabilizing force in the world. We create stability for others. And we also have the ability to create change through many different avenues - economic pressure, mititary action, example, diplomacy.
I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not advocating the GOP or Bush or any of that shit. But I think we should try to end state sponsored oppression. I don't want to make everybody in the world buy Nikes and drink Coke. I believe that our society is too decadant and fucks our kids up by the worship of material and celebrity.
That being said, our kids also have freedom and human rights. I think that if everybody had this equality than the disparity would dimminish significantly. I'm not speaking here of wealth necessarily, I'm speaking of disparity in life choices, education, social tolerance and opportunity.
I think that if all countries provided and ensured those things for their citizens that a lot of resentment would diminish for those that have them.
maybe not IN america but we are responsable for mass graves in other parts of the world...the pentagon even admitted in the invasion of panama they dumped 'some number of bodies in the same grave'
they also admitted over 75% of the casulties were civilians
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
And so that proves what? Are you trying to say that we are no better than Saddam's regime?
it proves that you were wrong
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How so? I said that things like mass graves do not happen in the U.S. or other democracies.
I don't see where accidentally killing some civillians in Panama in the 80's equates to disproving what I said.
Even if there are a few exceptions, it's still the rule. Saying otherwise is just grasping at straws.
I talk about the constant and purpose torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians in Iraq by their own government and you try to compare the U.S. to that with a lame example in Panama...
Can't you just admit that the U.S. is not like that?
So we're creating a debt that our great-grandchildren will be paying off, and Americans and Iraqisare dying left and right, for what? They're not going to wind up with anything remotely resembling what you and I think of as a democracy. It's quite possible we could find ourselves dealing with a country that's more troublesome to us than Saddam's Iraq ever was.
I think it would be nice if all countries respected basic human rights too, but I don't think we can make that happen. Hell, we can't even make it happen in our own country. Yes, we treat people better than Saddam did, but a nation that can now imprison people indefinitely without a hearing, without allowing them so much as a phone call, has no business trying to introduce a concept of "human rights" to anyone else.
The arguement that "the U.S. is not like that" only holds water if you look at what we do within our own borders to our own citizens. The shit we've facilitated and have done to civilians in other countries is pretty fucking heinous. I'm not sure how violating the rights of only non-Americans makes it acceptable.
Tell that to the Native Americans and any former colony of the British empire.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Maybe, now just maybe, being on a farm with nary a skyscraper in sight, tending the crops, trading with the community who you actually know, with no polution coming from smoke stacks is a good way to live. Just not in your world though. So by damned you need to change that because it hampers your lifestyle. Yeeeeeeyah!
I don't think you are being bigoted and claiming that Iraqi's aren't "capable" of creating and living in a sustainable democracy - I think you are just saying that Iraqi's "don't want" democracy.
Simple question - how do you know what Iraiqi's want? Over 80% of them have voted 3 times in national elections. Wouldn't that indicate something about their desire to participate and have a say in their future, as opposed to living under a dictator or Inman?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are too quick to pass judgement. The same argument you make now could have been said about many thriving democracies today.
Agreed. And I don't condone the shit we've done to others. But that is all the more reason to establish other democracies. If you look at all the bad shit we've done, none of it has taken place in other democratic countries.
Our system is the best we've got. It's the humans who manage it who are flawed, and that will always be the case.
I guess I'm saying don't trounce democracy becuase of what a particular administration did in the past.
Our policy should be that we do not interfere with any other country unless there is a direct threat of attack or invasion.
Uh, not true. We've removed more than a few democratically elected leaders that we didn't like in other countries.
we killed thousands of civilians (to oust a former CIA agent who stopped following orders AND was a needless war) and to try and hide the fact we dumped their bodies into mass graves...how is that 'lame'? there are a bunch of similarities to the iraq war as well. i'm curious what the cut off point is to deaths vs being lame or not? was the holocaust 'lame'? what about east timor?
what about the death squads we created, armed, trained and funded throughout the region? their purpose was to intimidate the populace thru 'torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians'. what's the difference if we do it or we tell others to?
you need to accept giving someone the tools, money and know how to do these things make you jsut as guilty. that's like saying if i hired a hitman to kill abook, when i go to trial i say 'but i didn't actually do it myself!' so? i still paid someone else to do it and that makes me guilty.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
exactly. just because we don't bury our bodies in our own backyard, does not end any culpability and responsibility.
anyway, i am glad to see that most here agree it is NOT opur place to go spreading our way of life elsewhere. damn, why can't we be the majority of voters?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I didn't say that they don't want to vote, don't want to participate in their future ... I think most human beings want that. I'm saying that it's highly likely that you won't be happy with what they choose.