• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How long before THIS guy has a death mark on his head?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.



<< Look at the last 50-odd years, since the colonial powers left. What have the Arabs accomplished? What have they built? Where in the Arab world is there a trace or a spark of democracy? Of constitutionalism? Of laws independent of the ruler's whim? Of free inquiry? Of open public debate? Where in your house is there any article stamped "Made in Syria?" >>



Yep, that pretty much sums it up. At least the Israelis have made something out of their country.
 
PS. here's some direct quotes which will illustrate my point quite nicely:

"These people [the arabs as a whole] are hopeless"

"Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens."

" [The Palestinians] have been huddled in some squalid refugee camp ever since, living off UNRWA handouts."

Please tell me what ones are not correct. What achievenments have come from Arab countries in the last 50 years?
 
PleasantlyDisturbed,

I disagree that Nazi propaganda concerning Jews is identical with the Arab stereotyping in that article. Germany was concerned with their large Jewish population that did not support them in their efforts. They didn't have it in for the Jews because they were nonproductive. If anything the oppositie was true. They resented the Jews for their success.

Sems opposite to me. The article blasted the Arabs for backwardness. I don't think Nazi Germany considered the Jews backwards. I think they considered them subversive.
 
This thread is making me a little sick to the stomach. I agree that I can't find any facts in the article that are false. I, having grown up in the United States and Canada, would not wish to live in anything like the conditions most Arabs in the Middle East live in. And maybe it's none of my business caring about people half a world away. The truth is, I don't spend any time thinking about it; but to call an entire race of people hopeless because of the actions of their leaders in the last 50 years doesn't sit right with me. Practically all of Africa, East Asia, and India have contributed little in the last 50 years to the American way of life. Are they all hopeless as well? How about the fact that it took 1700 years for the Western world to create a non-totalitarian state (I mean, as in no one person- King, Chancellor- in charge) after the fall of the Republic in Rome. Or how about the fact that the measurement of all of these peoples is based on our value system. What?? they don't have a free market? No democracy? No scientific achievements? No consumer secular industrial society?? Or course I think all of those things are the best there is. I wouldn't want to live any other way. But I am an American, with American value. Palestinians and Arabs are people. People with different values and less successful government. But they still deserve compassion, even if you don't want to be politically correct.
 


<< But they still deserve compassion, even if you don't want to be politically correct. >>


I don't think anyone here wants to turn them into "crispy snack treats", but their lot is THEIR OWN making. Not mine, not your's and not the Jews efforts are holding that regon of the world back.
 
I thought this was worth repeating. :

<< This thread is making me a little sick to the stomach. I agree that I can't find any facts in the article that are false. I, having grown up in the United States and Canada, would not wish to live in anything like the conditions most Arabs in the Middle East live in. And maybe it's none of my business caring about people half a world away. The truth is, I don't spend any time thinking about it; but to call an entire race of people hopeless because of the actions of their leaders in the last 50 years doesn't sit right with me. Practically all of Africa, East Asia, and India have contributed little in the last 50 years to the American way of life. Are they all hopeless as well? How about the fact that it took 1700 years for the Western world to create a non-totalitarian state (I mean, as in no one person- King, Chancellor- in charge) after the fall of the Republic in Rome. Or how about the fact that the measurement of all of these peoples is based on our value system. What?? they don't have a free market? No democracy? No scientific achievements? No consumer secular industrial society?? Or course I think all of those things are the best there is. I wouldn't want to live any other way. But I am an American, with American value. Palestinians and Arabs are people. People with different values and less successful government. But they still deserve compassion, even if you don't want to be politically correct. >>




The main problem I have with the artice is that the author assumes that the western system of government is unequivically superior. The author then uses this assumption as the basis for his claim that Arabs are a politically inferior race. For some reason, this doesn't sit well with me!

The author of this article, when claiming that all Arab nations have extremely poor and inferior governments, seems to ignore the fact that our 'superior' US government has largely been responsible for keeping these governments in power.

Yes, the truth is dangerous. Even more dangerous, however, are half truths.
 
Maetryx,



<< I disagree that Nazi propaganda concerning Jews is identical with the Arab stereotyping in that article. Germany was concerned with their large Jewish population that did not support them in their efforts. They didn't have it in for the Jews because they were nonproductive. If anything the oppositie was true. They resented the Jews for their success.

Sems opposite to me. The article blasted the Arabs for backwardness. I don't think Nazi Germany considered the Jews backwards. I think they considered them subversive. >>



You misunderstood me, i didn't mean the nazi's behaviour against the jews, i meant their behaviour against the eastern europeans. Do you know that the nazi's did in poland/ukrain? They also made it appear like they were backwards people, and that the german citizens needed the land far more than they would. That strikes me as very familiar when i read that article.

Jimbo,


<< Please tell me what ones are not correct. What achievenments have come from Arab countries in the last 50 years? >>



By changing arabs to eastern europeans, and israelis with nazi's, i find the article to be very similar to german propaganda. Those cruel poles were making the poor german citizens suffer. Does that make the nazi invasion right? Oh, and what achievements have come from eastern europe from 1890-1940?

Pleasant


 


<< but their lot is THEIR OWN making. Not mine, not your's and not the Jews efforts are holding that regon of the world back. >>


That doesn't seem to be the point of the article or anybody's post here. It appears to me that the opinion is that Arabs are hopeless, therefore we should do what we want with them - support a minor form of ethnic cleansing because they're not democratic. That idea sounds similar to moving everyone from Harlem to another part of New York state. That way, the rich productive people can have more room for living accommodations close to where they work. I know, there are no poor black/Puerto Rican men threatening the security of those in Manhattan...

edit:spelling
 


<< The main problem I have with the artice is that the author assumes that the western system of government is unequivically superior. >>

It is. What system of government in the Mid East would you rather have?

 


<<

<< The main problem I have with the artice is that the author assumes that the western system of government is unequivically superior. >>

It is. What system of government in the Mid East would you rather have? >>



That is invalid point. Of course we would prefer a system of government that resembles our current system. For the sole reason that we were born in to this system, it's the one we grew up with, it's the one we work with. Most people would resist the idea of changing political-systems suddenly and it would harm the society as a whole. If you want evidence, just look at former Soviet Union. They changed the system, and the end result has been a disaster. Slowly they are getting better, but large parts of the population don't have a thing, and many feel that the old communist-system was better (who can blame them? Back then they had what they needed to live, right now many have nothing)

Just because WE prefer our system doesn't make it superior. There are other political systems out there, and people who live under those systems don't necessairly think that our system is the best system. We think our system is the best, they think their system is the best.
 


<<

Just because WE prefer our system doesn't make it superior. There are other political systems out there, and people who live under those systems don't necessairly think that our system is the best system. We think our system is the best, they think their system is the best. >>



Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't.
 


<<

<< Just because WE prefer our system doesn't make it superior. There are other political systems out there, and people who live under those systems don't necessairly think that our system is the best system. We think our system is the best, they think their system is the best. >>



Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't. >>



What systems are you talking about? There are several countries whit royalties as head of state, they aren't failing. Japan has an emperor, they aren't failing, there are socialist countries, they aren't failing. Cuba is communist, they aren't failing (if it weren't for the US embargo they might be doing really well!). There are countries with several parties, they do well, there are countries with just two big parties (USA and UK come to mind) they do well... There are countries with several states (USA and Germany for example), and there are countries with no such states (like Finland). Both systems are different, yet both do well. Neither is inherintly superior to the other system.
 


<<

<< Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't. >>



Ever heard of the great depression?

Pleasant. >>



Our system isn't perfect. We saw our mistakes in regards to monetary policy, and adjusted to rectify those mistakes.
 


<<

<<

<< Just because WE prefer our system doesn't make it superior. There are other political systems out there, and people who live under those systems don't necessairly think that our system is the best system. We think our system is the best, they think their system is the best. >>



Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't. >>



What systems are you talking about? There are several countries whit royalties as head of state, they aren't failing. Japan has an emperor, they aren't failing, there are socialist countries, they aren't failing. Cuba is communist, they aren't failing (if it weren't for the US embargo they might be doing really well!). There are countries with several parties, they do well, there are countries with just two big parties (USA and UK come to mind) they do well... There are countries with several states (USA and Germany for example), and there are countries with no such states (like Finland). Both systems are different, yet both do well. Neither is inherintly superior to the other system. >>



Touche. It was a blanket statement.. I'm not exactly cheerful right now, so I may have said something rashly.

Actually... *sigh* I give up. I'll try and talk about this tomorrow, I'm just very tired right now. Sorry.
 
What systems are you talking about? There are several countries whit royalties as head of state, they aren't failing. Japan has an emperor, they aren't failing, there are socialist countries, they aren't failing. Cuba is communist, they aren't failing (if it weren't for the US embargo they might be doing really well!). There are countries with several parties, they do well, there are countries with just two big parties (USA and UK come to mind) they do well... There are countries with several states (USA and Germany for example), and there are countries with no such states (like Finland). Both systems are different, yet both do well. Neither is inherintly superior to the other system. >>



err??japan has an emperor but he has no power, he's a bloody figure head. they are capitalist/democratic. cuba is "communist", trying to open its markets using capitalism. hell many places use dollars down there. your examples of of countries with states etc isn't so great, finlands small, therefore unlikely to have much use for states😛 pure communism = north korea = failing system. other places pretend to cling to their old ways while really becoming capitolist societies like the chinese.

i'm not saying all places should have democracy, democracy requires a framework be built up to support it. a large middle class, educated populous etc or else it does more harm then good. but super conservative fundamentalist states never do any good. a good example of a nondemocratic but fair transformation would be singapore. harsh at times yes, but it worked.
 


<<

<<

<< Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't. >>



Ever heard of the great depression?

Pleasant. >>



Our system isn't perfect. We saw our mistakes in regards to monetary policy, and adjusted to rectify those mistakes. >>



You said our system hasn't failed, i gave an example where it did. Many westerners work in those emirates, so apparently, it isn't all that bad there. Economics isn't black and white.

Pleasant
 


<< << Yes, and their systems quickly failed. Ours, so far, hasn't. >>



Ever heard of the great depression?

Pleasant. >>


Talk about a non sequitur. Please explain this statement. I am curious how the great depression was a failure of the system of government defined by the Constitution of the US. If anything it demonstrated the flexibility of our system to deal with a serious economic situation without revolution or radical change of government.
 


<< err??japan has an emperor but he has no power, he's a bloody figure head. they are capitalist/democratic. >>



True, but the politics is still different. The political landscape is different in Japan when compared to USA. So the systems are different, but neither system is superior to others.



<< cuba is "communist", trying to open its markets using capitalism. >>



Yet, their system is still different from the western-system and they do well. They would be doing alot better if not for the US embargo



<< your examples of of countries with states etc isn't so great, finlands small, therefore unlikely to have much use for states😛 >>



Well, there are bigger countries that have no states. I just used Finland as an example, since that is the country I'm most familiar with 😉



<< pure communism = north korea = failing system. >>



Not really communist. Sure, they have communism (well NA is not really communist either, in the true sense of the word) there, but they have mixed in up with ruler-worship (true communism would have no rulers) and isolationism. Neither which are characteristics of true communism and both are the reason why NA is about to collapse.



<< a good example of a nondemocratic but fair transformation would be singapore. harsh at times yes, but it worked. >>



Yep, they have a different system than the traditional "west" does, yet their system is not ihmerintly inferior to ours. It's just different, not better or worse.

For information regarding communism/socialism, read the FAQ Here.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm NOT a communist/socialist! I would never vote anyone who is communist or socialist! I believe in capitalism!
 


<< Talk about a non sequitur. Please explain this statement. I am curious how the great depression was a failure of the system of government defined by the Constitution of the US. If anything it demonstrated the flexibility of our system to deal with a serious economic situation without revolution or radical change of government. >>



Politics and economics are closely connected, if an economy fails, it probably points at a political failure too. How about Argentinia currently? Under the dictatorship their economy flourished, and now, with democracy, it has collapsed. It just shows one political/economical system can never be the right one.

To come back to your point, i consider the great depression also a political failure to keep the economy healthy, if a government allows an economy to overheat, it will collapse. It took quite a bit of government intervention to get the american economy healthy again, and it didn't recover fully until the wareconomy started.

Pleasant
 


<<

<< Truth can sometimes be dangerous. >>



That is so true. When I told my babysitter that she had a large butt when I was little, she punished me. >>



You're lucky. My babysitter took all her clothes off and proved to me her butt wasn't big. :Q


















ok maybe not 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top