War...get it over with already.

[tasty]

Also, you say countries don't dislike us for having rights, etc.. but then what's the antiwestern sentiment about? I don't recall the US trying to station a McDonalds in Osama's hood... yet things are still taken out on them. Why? It's the principle of things in many situations. Even if we are good people and upstanding citizens, we will always be the enemies in many eyes because we have different principles and beliefs, and we embody to them what they believe is immoral. We are not humans, we are lesser beings that threaten their way of existence just by existing. It has nothing to do with actions in many circumstances.

Come on cookie, you know that globalization affects the Middle East just as much as anybody else. Look at Egypt. They have McDonalds, American movies, etc? and as far as us being "good people and upstanding citizens", look at how US oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon interact with Middle Eastern countries. I'm sure that government supported takeover of oil fields at the hands of US transnationals isn't exactly their favorite thing. And if we threaten their way of existence by just existing wouldn't it be more polite of us to just ignore the region completely?

As far as the culture thing, I agree with both cookie and loudnotes to an extent. Cookie, I agree that not all Muslim women enjoy their treatment or their lifestyle. But culture is learned. If Muslim women are growing up to be socialized into such a society, than generally that's what they are going to believe is right. Their religion even guarantees a certain sub-western degree of oppression for their gender, and I doubt that many of them are going to go against their religion. So while such treatment is unnatural to us, these women are growing up firmly believing that they are inferior. Can culture ever be "wrong"? Maybe, it's a complicated subject. And surely if these women were subjected to a Western education they would begin to resent their upbringing. But is it our place to provide that? The Middle Eastern fear of Westernization is well-founded, because they understand that once their cultures are exposed to elements of the West that they can never go back. We probably all believe in the supremacy of our more open, liberalized Western beliefs about gender, sex, race, and religion. But I think we need to tread these water lightly and not be forceful with our beliefs in relation to other countries.

[cookie]

Come on cookie, you know that globalization affects the Middle East just as much as anybody else.

Sure, but it's incredulous to say globalization was caused solely by the US.

and as far as us being "good people and upstanding citizens", look at how US oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon interact with Middle Eastern countries.

So all the citizens in the US should be judged by what big buisnesses do abroad?

And if we threaten their way of existence by just existing wouldn't it be more polite of us to just ignore the region completely?  

If we ignored the region, that still wouldn't change the fact that we exist, that doesn't make us any less of a western enemy in their eyes.

But culture is learned. If Muslim women are growing up to be socialized into such a society, than generally that's what they are going to believe is right.

But the question still remains: do they like what's right? Very, VERY doubtful.

But I think we need to tread these water lightly and not be forceful with our beliefs in relation to other countries.

see, this is what i've had trouble with recently: people thinking that all nations in the world are morally equivalent and we have no right to tell people how to think. This is going to sound terribly arrogant: but thats bs. There are certain beliefs that ARE wrong, truth is not relative in this case, end of story. One such belief i feel is absolutely wrong is the mistreatment of people based on gender, and if we're trying to instill that belief into other nations, then more power to us.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

When you look at morality outside of religion, yes, there are some cases in which you could say one way is better than another.  I don't believe the freedom of speech, equality, and certainly not capitalism are morally enforcable.  Life is, liberty is questionable because it is vague, and property is most certainly not a moral issue.  These things that America tries to force on others...democracy, capitalism, and liberties of religion, speech, protest...they are not great moral issues that deserve to be forced onto a nation whose culture doesn't support them.

Yes, I value those ideals (well, less so capitalism) and the Western world in general does as well, but that does not make them empirically morally superior.

[jn.loudnotes]

Well said tasty, and Mort.  I assure you I'd much rather be chillun than sounding smart.

Cookie, have your quotes back:

1.  The US propagates globalization far more than any other nation.
2.  No, but those corporations are the major international face we present.  With that being the primary exposure to the West that many people have, no wonder they hate us.  Anyway, again who's to say which society is more upstanding and good?
3.  Tasty's point is that our existence isn't the problem, except that we affect them.  If we ceased to affect their lifestyles, it would be as if we didn't exist.  And then, of course, there would be no reason to vilify us.
4.  Of course it's doubtful in your eyes.  But perhaps in their eyes, it's doubtful that you would enjoy your life.  It's just an analogy to get you thinking from their perspective.  That is really the whole point - before we go bombing other countries, we ought to at least walk a ways in their shoes.
5.  Here's the issue with that statement tasty.  Lots of people believe in absolutes.  Generally, most of us believe in the total infallibility of most of our arguments.  I believe that racism is always wrong, for example.  And through debate and discussion, we try to influence our culture, to cultivate people into the same frame of mind.  There will always be disagreement.  However, society exists to regulate this disagreement, to impose absolutes on issues (such as racism) which need enforcement over the dissenters.

The problem, then, is that different cultures have built societies with different views of these absolutes.  And these people are no less human than we are.  I'm not going to say I agree with them - as far as my culture is concerned, I'm equally appalled at much of Muslim treatment of women.  What I don't think is right is that we completely reject their culture.  What I ultimately believe is that while individual ideas can be superior, they are only so within the context of their cultures.  No one culture can be superior to others, and thus we should not advocate dominance of other cultures.  In effect, that's what a war on Iraq represents.  Specifically, there is little real evidence that the Iraqi culture threatens ours, and thus we needn't retaliate over nothing more than our differences.  Eventually, if any culture is truly inferior to another (cannibalism, for example) it dies out.  People are capable of thought, and culture can be changed.  However, that change has to come from within, lest we foster perpetual discontent.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

3.  Tasty's point is that our existence isn't the problem, except that we affect them.  If we ceased to affect their lifestyles, it would be as if we didn't exist.  And then, of course, there would be no reason to vilify us.

People are capable of thought, and culture can be changed.  However, that change has to come from within, lest we foster perpetual discontent.

Bingo, that is the essance of the issue (the second part of the quote)...forced change isn't real change.  The change must come from within to be true and strong.  The US doesn't understand that and has made a habit the last half century forcing those changes, and in such being very unsuccessful...not only that but creating all sorts of hatred in the process.  For a successful change in the Middle East, the countries need to take it upon themselves to have a better situation, whatever that is to them.  Just like Europe and most colonies have excerted their own rights in overthrowing monarchies and colonialism, so the Middle East needs to make its own change.

As for the other part, I think that works in this case but also in the case of religion in America...the stuff from the pledge debate.  The existance of religion in America is ok, but that it affects me against my will.  If it didn't, I wouldn't have a problem with the existance of religion.  But I don't want to get this thread off-topic.

[kami]

To use yet another inappropriate analogy, that would be like if another country, in opposing America, boycotted freedom.  And don't tell me that any anti-American is against freedom.

Actually, ones of the reasons many nations dislike western society/ America is the freedoms we give some people, namely women, occasionally minorities and such.

Just one thing about that, there are a lot of anti-American sentiments here in Sweden but they're absolutely not about you having freedom, they're more about how the American foreign politics being 'fascistic' or whatever. I'd also like to say that our society is even more equal than the American society when it comes to women's rights and all that, one of the things that makes me proud to be Swedish is that it's about the most equal country in the world according to a lot of studies.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Going by the Gender Empowerment rankings, Sweden is actually third...behind Norway and Iceland.  The US is 13th.

Some other Sweden/US comparisons
Educationally both are similar in Male/Females getting advanced training (which is to say more females than males in both)...in terms of income earning, women in the US make 80% of what men do where as it is 89 in Sweden.  In temrs of GDP per capita, in the US men make 14k more than women, in Sweden it is only 4k more than women...mind you the men make only slightly more than the women make in the US.  In the US females are 44% of the "administators" where as women are 28%...so the US is actually better there.  The US is also ranked higher in the Gender Development Index (4th compared to 6th for Sweden, Canada is 1).

I think the main thing that sticks out is in pay, gender earning equality is much better in Sweden than in the US and for that matter most other top countries such as Canada (which is the same as US)...Sweden is 1st in this very important category.

[abe(safari)]

k, people. 4 things:

1) loudnotes, your notion of "globalization" is a little skewed. its a pretty sketchy term to begin with, but if you look at the post-73 oilshock and the eurodollar-market that resulted, arab countries such as kuwait, iraq, uae, bahrain, qatar, oman etc. benefitted from this trend, as did european banks and transnational corporations. dont "blame" america for globalization. furthermore, iraqis would greatly benefit from opening their markets to the world since a us-installed "democratic" ruler is likely not spend all the oil revenue on pursuing wmds and will allow the revenues from oil receipts to go to the iraqi people (right now, the only ones who benefit from the oil wealth are saddams extended family).

B) Bondo, you admit that there are some of our principles that are "morally cautionable" (im not sure if this is the term u used). now, currently, iraqis (esp. kurds) enjoy no rights whatsoever to either life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. they are persecuted and their villages are constantly attacked by the iraqi army (notably with mustard gas in 1988). this situation is no different than what slobodan milosevic was doing in croatia, kosovo and bosnia throughout the 90s, yet in that circumstance it WAS justifiable on humanitarian grounds......and here it isnt? and guess what else? when NATO bombed in 1998, the UN hadnt approved it either. France participated, Russia did too eventually.

iii) cookie. woot!

[jn.loudnotes]

Actually, I'm not really against globalization - I just don't think the United States should impose it's culture on nations that don't desire it.  Otherwise, it's generally a good thing for all the nations in the world to cooperate, and even share common ideals.  But when they don't, it shouldn't be a streitpunkt.

Besides, no matter who started it, the United States has been the biggest proponent of globalization of any sort.  Most of those transnational corportations you refer to are based here in the states.  

Furthermore, my point is that who are we to decide that a US-installed government is better than the current one?  Besides, if it is installed by the United States, that rather defeats the idea of a democracy doesn't it?  The Iraqis haven't had the will or the strength to successfully oppose Hussein - that should be an indication of how urgently they desire change.  

To pretend altruistic motives of helping the Iraqi people in a war of aggression against them is ludicrous.

[Cow]

First of all about we all stop posting about War in the forums its old hat and makes the forums suck.
 For my opinion i think we should kill any country that does not join or comply with NATO therefor idealy forming a United World.  Maybe then we can stop wasting dollars fighting and shit.  If we had a United World money would no longer be wasted fighting and lives would be saved.  With all the money saved and cooperation from other countries i think the world as a whole could excel a lot better.  Find cures for diseases and maybe do some research in NANO Tech.  I know i would feel a lot safer in a United World.

[cookie]

Actually, I'm not really against globalization - I just don't think the United States should impose it's culture on nations that don't desire it.  

Look at history. Would you say imposition has always been a BAD thing? I think in the case of many countries today, and in the past, imposition is a damn good thing. Look at Kenya and India. While they aren't in the best of shape, both are the richest of their regions and are progressing nicely. This is a result of British colonialism. Long term, Britain did good for both by leaving behind their law and government ideology (the only thing about Kenya is they are still highly tribalistic, and that seems to be hindering them from realizing full potential). India is also predicted to be the 3rd richest nation in the world in a decade or two. They STILL benefit from railroads left behind, and the economic nationalism cause by British occupation continues to fuel their market. I could also give more examples of times when imposition has been good as well, but i digress. But as a final question: do you find the US to be morally equivalent to that of say, Iraq?

Otherwise, it's generally a good thing for all the nations in the world to cooperate, and even share common ideals.

Common ideals such as equal rights? Hmm?

Besides, no matter who started it, the United States has been the biggest proponent of globalization of any sort.? Most of those transnational corportations you refer to are based here in the states.?

Once again, I have a large problem with you intepreting the actions of large, NG buisnesses actions as being those representative of the US. They represent that particular sector of the market and are basically the only kind of buisnesses that can have overseas operations. Why is it the US that gets the rap for all this terrible globalization? Last time i checked the US was comprised of people from all classes and backgrounds.

Furthermore, my point is that who are we to decide that a US-installed government is better than the current one?

Judging from how the Iraqi government has treated it's citizens in the past, I think almost anyone could make the same call the US is right now. I'd say most people would opt for a less psychotic, less oppressive dictator-esque administration, no?

Besides, if it is installed by the United States, that rather defeats the idea of a democracy doesn't it?

You make it seem as if we're going to be there forever, and that we're never going to give up our hold to the people. However, last i check the general plan was to take over post-conflict, try to reestablish stability, and eventually hand over power to the people in an open election. It would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to let the Iraqi people have an open election immediately after the war.

The Iraqis haven't had the will or the strength to successfully oppose Hussein - that should be an indication of how urgently they desire change.

I find this repugnant. Just because people don't fight back doesn't mean they don't want to. Just look at the world, pre global abolition. There weren't many slave revolts aside from Haiti and minor ones sporadically, but it didn't mean the people were happy with their situation. They feared the repercussions, just as I'm sure the Iraqis do. Hussein has hyper-deadly vx gas, chemical bombs, tons of munitions... what do they have but their fists?

[cookie]

now the other post (skipping to the ideas i haven't already addressed)

3.? Tasty's point is that our existence isn't the problem, except that we affect them.? If we ceased to affect their lifestyles, it would be as if we didn't exist.? And then, of course, there would be no reason to vilify us.

My point is how do we not affect them short of ceasing to exist? The ONLY way we would be able to have no affect on them whatsoever is to remove all signs of the western world in their region, to withdraw from our prominent position in the world, to stop advocating the rights we do, and to cease exporting/importing anything, even gas, from their region. Yes, we should do all this just to appease the radicals.

4.? Of course it's doubtful in your eyes.? But perhaps in their eyes, it's doubtful that you would enjoy your life.? It's just an analogy to get you thinking from their perspective.? That is really the whole point - before we go bombing other countries, we ought to at least walk a ways in their shoes.

I try to look at things from a human perspective rather than from a western one. As a human being, more specifically a woman, I believe that I would not like to be oppressed. Sorry if my logic is somehow skewed.

What I don't think is right is that we completely reject their culture.

With the exception of what is spewed out of 13 year old mouths, I haven't witnessed any widespread rejection of Islamic culture aside from their policies on women. Of course some people in the US provide stupid, ignorant reasons for disliking Muslims but discrimination is bound to happen no matter what country you're in. What we DO reject on a widespread basis, however, is the radical Islamic fundamentalist ideology but that is NOT what Islam has come to be about.

What I ultimately believe is that while individual ideas can be superior, they are only so within the context of their cultures.

Ok, so if the zeebos(theoretical race) believe in smacking puppies, killing all 6 year olds with blue eyes, and ritual bloodletting that's a perfectly ok idea as long as it's a part of their culture? I think that there are ideas that transcend cultures and should be practiced worldwide, such as human rights.

Specifically, there is little real evidence that the Iraqi culture threatens ours, and thus we needn't retaliate over nothing more than our differences.

Who said we're waging a war on Iraqi culture? The government we oppose is most decidedly NOT representative of the peoples values and culture.

However, that change has to come from within, lest we foster perpetual discontent.

Change frequently happens through cultures influencing eachother, such as the industrial revolution. It's not like every advancement and change the US has made has come solely from within itself.

[kami]

One really good thing that came from the middle east (more specifically turkey) is the kebab, AWESOME fast food Don't know if you have it over there in the US but it's really wide-spread here in Sweden anyway.

[MOD BFG]

I do not see how america can play the 'legal' lets uphold the will of the UN card when the US coninues to bac the actions of Israel. Israel continues the illigal occupation of westbank etc, and the UN has orderd that it ceases the illegal settlement of israeli's on this land etc. Yet Israel has totally ignored this. even flaunting the fact that it has done so. WHY then do the americans support these actions? why? becasue the buss administration is too scared that it will loose the jewish vote if it applys any pressure whatsoever on israel.

Saddam Hussain is a threat. But the biggest threat to world piece is the ape sitting in oval office in the white house.

[cookie]

DONER KEBABS KAMI!!! AAAH those rule. when i wasn't a vegetarian those were sooOOoOooO good.

[jn.loudnotes]

Yeah kebabs are great.  Cookie, this is turning into a Buccaneeresque line-by-line debate - you misinterpret one line, I have to correct you, I misinterpret you, you have to correct me.  

Going with the major ideas, take this for an example:

hindering them from realizing full potential

You were discussing Kenya's tribal "backwardness".  Have you ever read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?  I highly recommend it to you, if only to foster a little more thought from different perspective.  The issue cookie is that even when you try to view things from a "human" perspective, you still are affected by your own opinions and society.  Recognize that not every culture has the same view of barbarism as yours.  Why should we, simply because we believe strongly in our cause, try to change other cultures?  And a war against Iraq, if we try to justify it in the name of "oppressed" people, is really a war against the culture of Hussein.  Recognize that if his rule were so terrible by THEIR standards, they would have done something about it.  It simply isn't the responsibility of the United States to make the change.

People don't hate the United States for our presence or even our corporations as much as they hate the country for its pervasive propaganda - "life is better in the US".  Well, it is by our standards, but it's time we became aware that other standards of living exist.

Ultimately, we shouldn't make value judgements that determine that our life of big houses, materialism and waste is better than others' relative hunger and shortened life.  I prefer my existence to theirs, but were I in their position I don't know that I would prefer to be filthy rich.  Sometimes it's better to be dirt poor.


Ok, enough generalization.  If the United States attacks Iraq, it won't do anything to improve American security, would likely increase the chance of terrorism, and will potentially set off a chain reaction of unrest throughout the Middle East and the world.  furthermore, it will destabilize the UN, creating a world with no moral authority, allowing "bad" dictatorships to flourish and requiring the United States as policeman forever.

Or, instead of harping on the fact that Iraq doesn't want to disarm and is doing so gradually, we could just let the UN slowly push them toward it.  As long as Iraq is sanctioned as much as it is, the country is no threat to anyone, whether it has a few weapons or not.  Minor detail:  27 countries have nuclear capabilities. . .simply having weapons doesn't mean you'll use them.  Saddam is in no position whatsoever to use weapons of mass destruction.

[tasty]

oops while I was writing this loudnotes wrote something short & sweet and undercut me. oh well. kudos loudnotes.

I think in the case of many countries today, and in the past, imposition is a damn good thing. Look at Kenya and India. While they aren't in the best of shape, both are the richest of their regions and are progressing nicely. This is a result of British colonialism.... But as a final question: do you find the US to be morally equivalent to that of say, Iraq?

I have seen this same pro-colonialism argument played out far too many times. There are several problems with it. The first problem is the fact that it only examines the current state of India and pays no respect to conditions when India (or whatever other country) was actually under colonial rule. The people were cruelly oppressed under the colonial system, and much loss of life had to occur to get Britain out. Can you say that the oppression of multiple generations is worth the economic progress India is making now? This same argument can be applied to Iraq. Many Iraqis are going to have to die in order for the US to get where it wants to be in terms of regime change. Are their lives worth the change that will happen? Especially when there is no guarantee on when or what type of changes will happen? Even if Iraq eventually became democratized, would it be worth those lives? An oppressed life is better than no life at all.

Another problem with your pro-colonialism argument is that it judges countries only on economic status. It also assumes that steps toward modernization and industrialization would not have occurred without imperial presence. There was a point in history where well over half of the world's landmasses were controlled by the British empire. What about all the countries in Africa and South America that were raped by colonialism? It's both unfair and a copout to decree that the only reason they have modern problems is because they are not sufficiently westernized. There's no worse vision in my mind than all of the world emulating America. Morally, we are far superior to a nation like Iraq. On the whole though we are a very immoral nation. We are greedy, solipsistic, and have a wealth of domestic and international problems that deserve more attention than Iraq.

Once again, I have a large problem with you intepreting the actions of large, NG buisnesses actions as being those representative of the US.

Why shouldn't they be representative of the US? After all, the US government is representative of them. They are the most powerful political force in this country. They are also run by US citizens. Our free market economy is running all over the world and they have full support of the government. Look at international organizations like the IMF and World Bank. Government and business are practically intertwined.

However, last i check the general plan was to take over post-conflict, try to reestablish stability, and eventually hand over power to the people in an open election.

How often has this actually worked cookie? I remember quite a few failures in this policy (Latin America, anyone?) and off the top of my head can't think of a success.

I think that there are ideas that transcend cultures and should be practiced worldwide, such as human rights.

Agreed. But the Bush administration has ignored the two major attempts at worldwide agreement on public goods. Kyoto and International Criminal Court were both pooh-poohed. So why are we waging a questionable war of shaky moral integrity and goals while more concrete objectives are ignored?

Change frequently happens through cultures influencing eachother, such as the industrial revolution. It's not like every advancement and change the US has made has come solely from within itself.

Yeah, but those were changes in the US were changes that the citizens agreed on and wanted to make. We think that Iraq wants democracy, but there isn't really any way to be sure. I guess we'll just have to wait and see  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'd like to present the example of Tibet prior to the Chinese persecution.  They didn't have a democracy.  The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama was found and he was leader until death.  The goverment was run by the religious institution of Tibetan Buddhism.  There wasn't great economic improvement and it was largely just a agriculture based, self-sufficient nation.

By American standards there are many things wrong with what I described above.  But can you really say Tibet would be best changed to being a democracy, capitalist, globalized country?  I think what they had was perfect for them.  They were a peaceful country and were largely satisfied.  So if you see from this that the US ideals aren't always the best, why should that not be a case in other places as well?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Why is advocating for peace a bad thing? Some people put peace above "security" and that's their business, I don't think it makes them stupid. Are you saying people with strong moral convictions are stupid? Are all quakers stupid? I don't understand why having strong beliefs makes a person dumb.

Tasty, maybe you need to put in the "at any price" part.  Do I think that peace at any price is wrong, absolutely.  I don't think it's worth being a slave in order to have peace.  You see, the "peace at any price" people, being on an extreme, blind themselves as much as any war hawk.

Oh, and I used the word blind, not stupid Tasty.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Forgive me if it seems haughty of me when I try to discourage personal attacks on this board.  Obviously that didn't work, and it got turned against me.  However, Buccaneer:

I forgive you for not knowing a real personal attack Loudnotes.  I pointed out that Bondo makes a general statement about idiots boycotting, and how wrong that is, especially since it seems that any attempt for anyone to agree with anything the USA does seems to be idiotic (like supporting the removal of military bases, etc).  Bondo defends the peaceful demonstrations, and political pressures of the rest of the world against the USA, but not when the same tatics are used here.  It's very disgusting.  But, all that said, it's not a personal attack.  A personal attack would sound more like "Loudnotes, you are a fucking idiot.  I wish your mother had believed in abortion, and taken care of you before we ever had to put up with you."  That is a personal attack.  I, on the other hand, attaced his statement and stance.

And for you to tell me to "grow up" as you yourself dismiss me out of hand is ridiculous and offensive.  

I don't dismiss you out of hand, otherwise, that statement would be all I said.  But it is obvious that you do need to grow up.  For one, like I just said, you need to be able to tell determine what is a personal attack, vs what is an attack at a statement or stance.  That, for one, is a place you really need to grow up.  Find that offensive?  Too bad.

 rather like the way you tend to write off any forum poster who disagrees with you as being beneath you.

There you go, another good example.  There are plenty of people that I disagree with here, that I don't write off.  Abe to name one.  Why?  Because Abe makes good points, and ones that backs up what he is saying.  Because he doesn't fall into stereotypes and other weak vocabulary (like "everyone does it").  He also doesn't ignore when strong points are made against his argument.

But now you've followed the Bondo trend, of saying that I belittle anyone that doesn't agree with me.  When what I really do is belittle weak little arguments.

But protesting for a war is ridiculous, and going to the extreme of boycotting anti-war nations' products is stupid as well.  

It's called demonstrating support, not protesting for a war.  And it's no more or less ridiculous as the people demonstrating their protest.  Think about it.  If you support what the president is doing and saying, why in the hell would it be ridiculous to show your public support of that, in the face of public demonstrations of protest?  

What you don't seem to get, Loud, is some people seem to think it's time for the last resort.  You don't have to agree with them, but you just dismissed them out of hand.  Hmmm.  What does that say?

And, btw, some people are pissed at France because of how they shit on Turkey Loudnotes.  Stop putting this into simple "us vs them" terms Loud.  I'm not upset at all about France's stance in the UN.  I'm upset only in the way they vetoed Turkey's request for planning.  What bothers me even more is the people that support that kind political game, while blasting the USA for any political pressure they apply.  It's childish.  The whole "it's ok for them to do it because they are on the right side" argument.  

So, loudnotes, what is it?  Does everyone have the right to voice their opinions in demonstration and boycott, or just the ones that agree with you?  Because you seem to be falling into the "it's ok for them" camp.