War of ideas is what failed Iraq.

[RichardE]

I always thought this and came across this op piece today.

November 9, 2006
No War of Ideas Helped Cause Iraq Failure

The Iraq war was the central issue for voters in the recent mid-term congressional elections. Americans are, with at least some justification, irritated with the lack of meaningful progress toward making Iraq into a stable, Western-like nation.

No Effort to Enlighten
Despite a spectacular initial military success, the U.S. effort in Iraq has faltered. The actions by Iran and Syria to destabilize Iraq and undermine progress are to blame for much of the problem. But another important and often overlooked cause of the failure in Iraq is the lack of any meaningful effort to enlighten the Iraqis with Western ideas and values. In other words, in the ?war of ideas? barely a shot has been fired from the pro-Western side.

The U.S. government should not be held primarily responsible for this failure to spread progressive ideas in Iraq. The war of ideas is properly the responsibility of every individual in the world who values Western culture and world peace. Such individuals could have organized an effort to enlighten and educate Iraqis.

Right after the invasion would have been the best time to have attempted such an effort. This was a time of relative calm, when millions of Iraqis were ready for a fresh start and break from the past. They were likely as open to Western ideas and values at this time as they would ever be. But virtually no educational effort was made. Consequently, a rare opportunity to possibly bring about positive, fundamental change in Iraq was not taken advantage of.

Western Culture Primer
What specifically could have been done? One possibility is there could have been an effort to publish and freely distribute thousands of copies of, say, an introductory book to Western culture. This book could have advocated and explained, in Arabic, the Western ideals and values of reason, individualism, worldly happiness, individual rights, capitalism, science and technology.

And such a book could have introduced the reader to the works of such Western intellectual giants as Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, John Locke, America?s Founding Fathers and others.

How would Iraq be different today if tens of thousands or more Iraqis, or at least the best and brightest, had in their possession such a book? No one can answer this question. But it?s fair to believe that such an effort to enlighten Iraqis would have had at least some positive impact, if not immediately, then in the long term.

And the suggestion by some that any educational effort is doomed to fail because Iraqis, Middle Easterners or Arabs are inherently primitive, mystical, tribal and warmongering is nonsense. All individuals everywhere on earth of every race, nationality and ethnicity have free will and can change.

In other words, the current dismal state of the Middle East is not caused by its inhabitants? race or genes. The current state is ultimately caused by intellectual forces ? by the ideas, values and beliefs that currently dominate the region. And these ideas, values and beliefs can be eventually replaced by better ones.

Prepared for Next Opportunity
It now may be too late to effectively enlighten and educate a significant number of Iraqis. The intellectual vacuum created by the toppling of Saddam Hussein?s regime has been filled largely by pro-Iranian, pro-Islamic and anti-Western ideas. An effort, however, could probably still be undertaken with some success in the northern or Kurdish part of Iraq. This area of the country is somewhat ?Westernized? and may be open to an educational effort.

Perhaps the best that can be done at this point is to learn from Iraq and be prepared for when another such opportunity arises. If the regimes of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba, for example, are toppled, either from within or without, pro-Western individuals around the world should be ready to spread Western ideas and values in these nations. We should not expect the U.S. government to do it. Nor should we expect the people of these nations to enlighten themselves.

Engaging in the war of ideas, much less winning such a war, requires bold action on a global scale. Passive, defensive and timid efforts will lead only to defeat. The time has come to think and act big, to go on offense in the war of ideas and attempt to shape the world in the image of Western ideals and values.

Source

Do you guys agree? I think Iraq would have been much different if after toppling Saddam a reeducation effort was initiated that helped bring the Iraq people out from there historical tribal conflicts to a more Western and accepting culture. Do you think efforts such as this would have made Iraq a much different place than it is now?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I always thought this and came across this op piece today.

Source

Do you guys agree? I think Iraq would have been much different if after toppling Saddam a reeducation effort was initiated that helped bring the Iraq people out from there historical tribal conflicts to a more Western and accepting culture. Do you think efforts such as this would have made Iraq a much different place than it is now?

Isn't it funny how if there's an organization in the Middle East whose goal is to spread their culture to the rest of the world, people here would cite that as horrible, but when we want to spread our culture there - a propagandized version of it - which necessarily means destroying the culture there now - people here think "oh, how nice, what a good idea!" Now imagine that the Middle Eastern one had the world's oly superpower on its side and that it was running around invading one western nation, determining who ran others.

First, we invent the 'war of civilizations', and then we delcare we have to win it, of course, lest our civilizaton be destroyed by theirs, never noticing it's all about our conquering them.

Is there a more arrogant, selfish policy than this sort of 'make the world like our country' and destroy their own culture?

If we were talking about something really benevolent - the spread of 'freedom', of rights, of democracy, but not our power, that'd be a good cause - but not spread at the point of a gun where they come along with our dominance that they have to do what we say on trade, on letting our corporations profit there, etc. But that's not how we do it - in fact, we consistently prop up regimes with tehe opposites of those values. We got rid of democracy in Iran to put in the Shah and gave him a brutal police force, for one example.

Most here are unaware, I suspect, of even our larger agenda in Iraq, though much of it fell apart. For some clues, though, it involved the same sort of MIlton Friedman right-wing economic radical poicies that are horrible for the people but good fur our profiting from them as documented in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" - a whole set of turning Iraq into another right-wing economic laboratory dominted by US corporations, with our puppet Chalabi appointed; we see some pieces such as the world's largest embassy, and bases.

Much of it is laid out in PNAC and elsewhere which viewed Iraq as a place for our forces to have bases from which to target the next countries for attack, from Syria to Iran.

It's corrupting to mix up things like freedom and rights with our agenda for power and economic gain. Remember where it's put us before - alllying with people like Saddam Hussein (insert picture of Rumsfeld's visit to commit us to his assistance, during the Iraq invasion of Iran which we encouraged). Where's our support for 'freedom and rights' for the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq and Turkey? Oops, that's right, doesn't fit our 'interests', and so we're all for their repression.

There are right ways and wrong ways to promote freedom and rights, and the right-wing ways that use those good things like a human shield to hide an evil agenda, are wrong.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE
I always thought this and came across this op piece today.

Source

Do you guys agree? I think Iraq would have been much different if after toppling Saddam a reeducation effort was initiated that helped bring the Iraq people out from there historical tribal conflicts to a more Western and accepting culture. Do you think efforts such as this would have made Iraq a much different place than it is now?

Isn't it funny how if there's an organization in the Middle East whose goal is to spread their culture to the rest of the world, people here would cite that as horrible, but when we want to spread our culture there - a propagandized version of it - which necessarily means destroying the culture there now - people here think "oh, how nice, what a good idea!" Now imagine that the Middle Eastern one had the world's oly superpower on its side and that it was running around invading one western nation, determining who ran others.

First, we invent the 'war of civilizations', and then we delcare we have to win it, of course, lest our civilizaton be destroyed by theirs, never noticing it's all about our conquering them.

Is there a more arrogant, selfish policy than this sort of 'make the world like our country' and destroy their own culture?

If we were talking about something really benevolent - the spread of 'freedom', of rights, of democracy, but not our power, that'd be a good cause - but not spread at the point of a gun where they come along with our dominance that they have to do what we say on trade, on letting our corporations profit there, etc. But that's not how we do it - in fact, we consistently prop up regimes with tehe opposites of those values. We got rid of democracy in Iran to put in the Shah and gave him a brutal police force, for one example.

Most here are unaware, I suspect, of even our larger agenda in Iraq, though much of it fell apart. For some clues, though, it involved the same sort of MIlton Friedman right-wing economic radical poicies that are horrible for the people but good fur our profiting from them as documented in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" - a whole set of turning Iraq into another right-wing economic laboratory dominted by US corporations, with our puppet Chalabi appointed; we see some pieces such as the world's largest embassy, and bases.

Much of it is laid out in PNAC and elsewhere which viewed Iraq as a place for our forces to have bases from which to target the next countries for attack, from Syria to Iran.

It's corrupting to mix up things like freedom and rights with our agenda for power and economic gain. Remember where it's put us before - alllying with people like Saddam Hussein (insert picture of Rumsfeld's visit to commit us to his assistance, during the Iraq invasion of Iran which we encouraged). Where's our support for 'freedom and rights' for the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq and Turkey? Oops, that's right, doesn't fit our 'interests', and so we're all for their repression.

There are right ways and wrong ways to promote freedom and rights, and the right-wing ways that use those good things like a human shield to hide an evil agenda, are wrong.

I would argue there is a very distinct difference in an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals and therefore Western freedoms which are a by product of those ideals and a organization attempted to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies. Western Society is one of the best examples in history of a society that allows the individual the ability to control his own life from birth to death and through hard work can do much, while also protecting and helping those who cannot or will not help themselves. The spread of a culture that promotes freedom of every individual and promoted the ability of every individual to take control of there own life when being free of oppression of the government is superior to the culture of Totalitarion theocracy that is being promoted by Middle Eastern organizations.

Not every culture is valuable, any culture that is based on nothing more than the return of power to the hands of a few and its removal entirety from the hands of the people is a step backward in the role of human progression, which is why Western Culture, Western Ideals and Western thinking is superior than other ideals, and should be preferred. Only the west lets man be free.

With that said, do you think Iraq would be a different situation if this re-education had occurred?



Edit for your edit: Your comments regarding where we are for defending rights of country X/Y/Z is naive and you know better, the military cannot be everywhere.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

I would argue there is a very distinct difference in an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals and therefore Western freedoms which are a by product of those ideals and a organization attempted to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies. Western Society is one of the best examples in history of a society that allows the individual the ability to control his own life from birth to death and through hard work can do much, while also protecting and helping those who cannot or will not help themselves. The spread of a culture that promotes freedom of every individual and promoted the ability of every individual to take control of there own life when being free of oppression of the government is superior to the culture of Totalitarion theocracy that is being promoted by Middle Eastern organizations.

Not every culture is valuable, any culture that is based on nothing more than the return of power to the hands of a few and its removal entirety from the hands of the people is a step backward in the role of human progression, which is why Western Culture, Western Ideals and Western thinking is superior than other ideals, and should be preferred. Only the west lets man be free.

With that said, do you think Iraq would be a different situation if this re-education had occurred?



Edit for your edit: Your comments regarding where we are for defending rights of country X/Y/Z is naive and you know better, the military cannot be everywhere.

I have spoken with communists long ago, where it was clear to me that there was a myopia tainting their ability to see any other side. I see the same thing with you.

It's normal for the empire to be blind to its own arrogance - to ignorantly 'not see any value' in other cultures, so it's doing them a favor by replacing them.

If you saw anyone saying that about doing that to you, you would view it as a crisis and aggression against you. Given the complacaency that comes with being the by far dominant power in the world - the western side - without any chance whatsoever of some other society replacing your culture, you cannot appreciate that at all, and can only view others as some sort of disease or crappy culture to be improved to be like you, utterly blind to others' point of view. Funny, Germany, Japan and others felt the same way.

Indeed, *if* there was the military power in the Middle East to 'spread their culture', do you think they might be able to make some case against the west for its histories of racism and slavery, for its current massive amounts of drug abuse, its high crime rates and imprisonment rates, its record of aggression and colonization of others, its culture of pornography - all laid out as far better reasons than you can give for a 'war of ideals'?

It's rather ironic how you declare the radical side of the Middle East, the tyrannical side of Middle Eastern governments, to be its culture without noting the role of the west in the creation of those things being as much a part of their societies as they are. Do you have a clue about the history of Britain's role in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of splitting the Muslim world, to create an enemy for the Nationalists by backing the religious radicals? Of the US role in creatng the strength for the radicals in Afghanistan for our own purposes in battlig the Russians, leaving the Taliban in power largely as our creation? Of Israel's role in the empowerment of Hamas, which they backed to try to split the Palestenians and undermine the PLO by creating a rival? Of the US in keeping the tyrannies in power in placs from Saudi Arabia (Nixon made a deal in the 70's to guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for guarantees of oil access) to Egypt where the people are prevented from overthrowing them by our financial and military assistance to the regimes, because they do as we want (where were 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers from, again? Did we invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? No, we keep those regimes in power).

One of the most iconic things about the USSR's repression is the phrase 're-education camps' - in theory, a benvolent way to inform ignorant citizens of the civil system, and in practice a tyrannical tool for political repression - and yet you are here calling for the 're-education' of Iraqis, using the same justification, without any awareness of the corruption of that sort of activity. When we can't even tell the difference between 'detaining terrorists' and 'paying warlords $5,000 for anyone they want to hand over no questions asked', abusing terrorist detention by turning it into a weapon of political oppression (do as you are told or you will be detained indefinitely and secretly and quite posssibly tortured), you think that the finer points of a 're-education program' are going to be done appropriately without abuse?

RichardE, there is an old saying about how people who hate tend to resemble what they hate. You would do well to heed the saying, IMO.

I've found that to be true in many cases; look at how the police tend to develop the 'blue shield' culture against 'snitching' on one another just like crimnal groups, while prison groups tend to develop laws and enforce them harshly; cosider how the CIA and KGB came to resemble each other more and more, each more bold in its actions spurred on by the other in a 'race to the bottom', from terrorism to assassination done by both, each sure that *it* was on the right side against an evil enemy.

As I said before, there are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights, and you ned to appreciate the problems with the wrong ways to avoid being a tyrant yourself.

IMO, you have a long way to go on developing respect for others - you have caught a bad case of the 'ugly American' (whether or not you're literally American), where your excrement has a sweet odor as you run around wanting to help the world by making it like your own nation, the same way as every empire in history, each of whom thought that they had the only civilization worthy, and others were crap. 'Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, and you thinking you are not vulnerable to that, proves you are.

Foreign policy discussions here tend to fall into a pattern: the pro-empire side (unaware that's their agenda, they're just 'fighting evil' they think) start out with a very attractive list of all the wonderful moral superioty they have, how they're only helping people by their policy, only battling wrongs - ignorant or blind (they tend to tune out contrary facts) to the wrongs of their own side, how they're fed propaganda to get their complacency and support (just as the Roman government called all of its conquests defensive to get publc support). And the discussion, as the attractive justifications are stripped away one by one by showing the 'real agenda', the hypocrisy, how good things like freedom and rights are used as *pretexts) for aggressive empire - these people are pushed to have to coneded more and more that it is is about their side winning for the sake of their side winning.

That doesn't mean it's not ok to think your side has the better culture in many ways (not every way, is that what you think?), and to want to see freedom and rights spread.

But it means that you need to be aware not to let those things be corrupted by the ulterior agendas of empire - the 'war of civilizations' your side has started and wants to win.

All the while you are convinced you are 'defending your civilization from being conquered', you don't notice that your side has a 100 to 1 advantage, and is the one destroying others.

The very argument you use to justify war is the argument the other side can legitimately use - it's the Muslim world who by far has the reason to feel threatened.

The debate has becoe poisoned by the arrogance of power. Good things the Muslims have done are forgotten, bad things we've done are excused, it's all about 'beating evil'.

Funny, that's what the most evil regimes in the history of the world have said, too. Every 'evil empire' has had some 'evil enemy' it was claiming to oppose.

You need a large dose of learning to respect other cultures and the right ways to try to spread freedom and rights.

The war has already been half won - people around the world largely like the better examples we set on freedom and rights. You don't recognize who a real enemy is of those things, but I've already given you an idea with my previous mention or our *support* for Saddam in his worst periods of tyranny and attacking a neighbor - completely contradicting the things you are claiming you want to spread. A pointer to the major but largely hidden agendas that went along with the war when we did turn on Saddam.

Until you notice the forces who are your enemy in spreading rights and freedom - who corrupt those things by using them for cover - you are not helping those causes.

There are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights.

It's the same issue we've had in the past as we had to choose between our European alliances and their policies of colonization, between dictators and neutral elected leaders.

One thing I'll suggest s that you develop a little humility about your running around judging cultures until you can see the flaws of your own better.

There's a certain seductive 'high' to being the 'world's bestest, most advanced, wonderful civilization' running around helping improve the barbarians. It feels nice.

But that's just the 'absolute corruption of absolute power' to worry about,that you don't want others having about you.

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get people to appreciate the rights of the weaker side when they're the weaker side, than it is when they're the stronger.

You really need to appreciate the agendas involved in these things. Consider Chile - mostly forgotten by the US, because it's inconvenient, but an important example of this 'agenda'. It was nothing more than protecting a few dollars for our wealthy corporate owners that drove our great nation's citizens to pay for the destruction of a healthy, democratic system in Chile - one filled with the freedom and rights you are for - with a terroristic dictatorship which put into place hugely oppressive economic policies under the guise of 'western capitalism', while the people who had the responbility for the policies - the American voters - had no idea it was happpening beyond hearing about some coup 'down there' without mention how it was orchestrated by our presidet Nixon, after the phone calls from the CEO of his former employer Pepcsico and others.

There was a story you could be told about the 'terrible socialist' Allende and the 'wonderful economic improvements to bring prosperity' of the new government, all masking the horrible tyranny we put in place, for the agenda of protecting a few of our corporations' right to economically exploit their nation.

Simple facts: the main export of Chile was copper. Our corporations, through our use of power to get favorable terms, had invested a small fraction of the several billion dollars a year they were profiting to take the copper out of Chile. As Chileans' democracy grew, they were aware of the fact that their nation's rightful wealth was being taken for no good reason by foreign companies, and in the election Allende won, all three candidates from left to right supported ending the foreign corporations' rights to take the copper, to keep the profits for their country. Those billions being taken at the expense of the Chilean people - billlions that democracy was designed to help the people put a stop to being taken because of a government corrupted by the US - resulted in the entire nation's innocent civilian population living in tyranny and terror.

You need to understand that side of the agendas hiding under the skirt of 'freedom and rights' to not be duped into being the enemy of freedom and rights.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Do you guys agree? I think Iraq would have been much different if after toppling Saddam a reeducation effort was initiated that helped bring the Iraq people out from there historical tribal conflicts to a more Western and accepting culture. Do you think efforts such as this would have made Iraq a much different place than it is now?

The Bushwhackos were ideologically driven, and they squandered all legitimacy when they lied about their entire premise for starting the war. Obviously, they could have done a lot of things better, or at least differently, but with that as a start, it would always have been a fuster cluck no matter what they did.

Considering their ineptitude handling other major responsibilities like Katrina and their failure to oversee their Wall Street robber baron contributors, they were so incompetent, they'd fsck up a wet dream. :roll:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would argue there is a very distinct difference between an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals -- and therefore Western freedoms, which are a by product of those ideals -- and an organization attempting to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies.

/agree

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

I would argue there is a very distinct difference in an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals and therefore Western freedoms which are a by product of those ideals and a organization attempted to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies. Western Society is one of the best examples in history of a society that allows the individual the ability to control his own life from birth to death and through hard work can do much, while also protecting and helping those who cannot or will not help themselves. The spread of a culture that promotes freedom of every individual and promoted the ability of every individual to take control of there own life when being free of oppression of the government is superior to the culture of Totalitarion theocracy that is being promoted by Middle Eastern organizations.

Not every culture is valuable, any culture that is based on nothing more than the return of power to the hands of a few and its removal entirety from the hands of the people is a step backward in the role of human progression, which is why Western Culture, Western Ideals and Western thinking is superior than other ideals, and should be preferred. Only the west lets man be free.

With that said, do you think Iraq would be a different situation if this re-education had occurred?



Edit for your edit: Your comments regarding where we are for defending rights of country X/Y/Z is naive and you know better, the military cannot be everywhere.

I have spoken with communists long ago, where it was clear to me that there was a myopia tainting their ability to see any other side. I see the same thing with you.

It's normal for the empire to be blind to its own arrogance - to ignorantly 'not see ay vaslue' in other cultures, to it's doing them a favor by replacing them.

If you saw anyone saying that about doing that to you, you would view it as a crisis and aggression against you, given the complacaency tha comes with being the by far dominant power in the world - the western side - without any chance whatsoever of someother society replacing your culture, you cannot appreciate that at all, and can only view others as some sort of disease or crappy culture to be cleaned up and improved to be like you, utterly blind to other's point of view. Funny, Germany, Japan and others felt the same way.

Indeed, *if* there was the military power in the Middle East to 'spread their culture', do you think they might be able to make some case against the west for its histories of racism and slavery, for its current massive amounts of drug abuse, its high crime rates and imprisonment rates, its record of aggression and colonization of others, its culture of pornography - all laid out as far better reasons than you can give for a 'war of ideals'?

It's rather ironic how you declare the radical side of the Middle East, the tyrranical side of Midddle Eastern governments, to be its culture without noting the role of the west in the creation of those things being as much a part of their societies as they are? Do you have a clue about the history of Britain's role in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of splitting the Muslim world, to create an enemy for the Nationlists by backing the religious radicals? Of the US role in creatng the strength for the radicals in Afghanistan for our own purposes in battlig the Russians, leaving the Taliban in power largely as our creation? Of Israels' role in the empowerment of Hamas, which they backed to try to split the Palestenians and undermine the PLO by creating a rival? Of the US in keeping the tyrranies in power in placs from Saudi Arabia (Nixon made a deal in the 70's to guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for guarantees of oil access) to Egypt where the people are prevented from overthrowing them by our financial and military assistance to the regimes, because they do as we want (where were 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers from, again? Did we invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? No, we keep those regimes in power).

One of the most iconic things about the USSR's repression is the phrase 're-education camps' - in theory, a benvolent way to inform ignorant citizens of the civil system, and in practice a tyrannical tool for political repression - and yet you are here calling for the 're-education' of Iraqis, using the same justification, without any awareness of the corruption of that sort of activity. When we can't even tell the difference between 'detaining terrorists' and 'paying warlords $5,000 for anyone they want to hand over no questions asked', abusing terrorist detention by turning it into a weapon of political oppression (do as you are told or you will be detained indefinitely and secretly and quite posssibly tortured), you think that the finer points of a 're-education program' are going to be done appropriately without abuse?

RichardE, there is an old saying about how people who hate tend to resemble what they hate. You would do well to heed the saying, IMO.

I've found that to be true in many cases; look at how the police tend to develop the 'blue shield' culture against 'snitching' on one another just like crimnal groups, while prison groups tend to develop laws and enforce them harshly; cosider how the CIA and KGB came to resemble each other more and more, each more bold in its actions spurred on by the other in a 'race to the bottom', from terrorism to assassination done by both, each sure that *it* was on the right side against an evil enemy.

As I said before, there are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights, and you ned to appreciate the problems with the wrong ways to avoid being a tyrant yourself.

IMO, you have a long way to go on developing respect for others - you have caught a bad case of the 'ugly American' (whther or not you're literally American), where your excrement has a sweet odor as you run around wanting to help the world by making it like your own nation, the same way as every empire in history, each of whome thought that they had the only civilization worthy, and others were crap. 'Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, and you thinking you are not vulnerable to that, proves you are.

Foreign policy discussions here tend to fall into a pattern: thhe pro-empire side (unaware that's teir agenda, they're just 'fiighting evil' they think) start out with a very attractive list of all the wonderful moral superioty they have, how they're only helping people by their policy, only battling wrongs - ignorant or blind (they tend to tune out contrary facts) to the wrongs of their own side, how they're fed propaganda to get their complacency and support (just as the Roman government called all of its conquests defensive to get publc support). And the discussion, as the attractive justifications are stripped away one by one by showing the 'real agenda', the hypocrisy, how good things like freedom and rights are used as *pretexts) for aggressive empire - these people are pushed to have to coneded more and more that it is is about their side winning for the sake of their side winning.

That doesn't mean it's not ok to think your side has the better culture in many ways (not every way, is that what you think?), and to want ot see freedom and rights spread.

But it meas that you need to be aware not to let those things be corrupted by the ulterior agendas of empire - the 'war of civilizations' your side has started and wants to win.

All the while you are convinced you are 'defending your civilization from being conquered', you don'tnotice that your side has a 100 to 1 advantage, and is the one destroying others.

The very argument you use to justify war is the argument the other side can legitimately use - it's the Muslim world who by far has the reason to feel threatened.

The debate has becoe poisoned by the arrogance of power. Good things the Muslims have done are forgotten, bad things we've done are excused, it's all about 'beating evil'.

Funny, that's what the most evil regimes in the history of the world have said, too. Every 'evil empire' has had soe 'evil enemy' it was claiming to oppose.

You need a large dose of learning to respect other cultures and the right ways to try to spread freedom and rights.

The war has already been half won - people around the world largely like the better examples we set on freedom and rights. You don't recognize who a real enemy is of those things, but I've already given you an idea with my previous mention or our *support* for Saddam in his worst periods of tyranny and attacking a neighbor - completely contradicting the things you are claiming you want to spread. A pointer to the major but largely hidden agendas that went along with the war when we did turn on Saddam.

Until you notice the forces who are your enemy in spreading rights and freedom - who corrupt those things by using them for cover - you are not helping those causes.

There are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights.

It's the same issue as we've had in the past as we had to choose between our European alliances tand their policies of colonization, or right-wng dictators or neutral elected leaders.

One thing I'll suggest s that you develop a little humility about your running around judging cultures until you can see the flaws of your own better.

There's a certain seductive 'high' to being the 'world's bestest, most advanced, wonderful civilization' running around helping improve the barbarians. It feels nice.

But that's just the 'absolute corruption of absolute power' to worry about,that you don't want others having about you.

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get people to appreciate the rights of the weaker side when they're the weaker side, than it is when they're the stronger.

You really need to appreciate the agendas involved in these things. Consider Chile - mostly forgotten by the US, because it's incovnenient, but an important example of this 'agenda'. It was nothing more than protecting a few dollars for our welth corporate owners that drove our great nation's citizens to pay for the destruction of a healthy, democratic system in Chile - one filled with the freedom and rights you are for - with a terroristic dictatorship which put into place hugely oppressive economic policies under the guise of 'western capitalism', while the people who had the responbility for the policies - the American voters - had no idea it was happpening beyond hearing about some coup 'down there' without mention how it was orchestrated by our presidet Nixon after the pone calls from the CEO of his former employer Pepcsico and others.

There was a story you could be told about the 'terrible socialist' Allende and the 'wonderful economic improvements to bring prosperity' of the new government, all masking the horrible tyranny we put in place, for the agenda of protecting a few of our corporations' right to economically exploit their nation.

Simple facts: the main export of Chile was copper. Our corporations, through our use of power to get favorable terms, had invested a small fraction of the several billion dollars a year they were profiting to take the copper out of Chile. As Chileans' democracy grew, they were aware of the fact that their nation's rightful wealth was being taken for no good reason by foreign companies, and in the election Allende won, all three candidates from left to right supported ending the foreign corporations' rights to take the copper, to keep the profits for their country. Those billions being taken at the expense of the Chilean people - billlions that democracy was designed to help the people put a stop to being taken because of a government corrupted by the US - resulted in the entire nation's innocent civilian population living in tyrany and terror.

You need to understand that side of the agendas hiding under the skirt of 'freedom and rights' to not be duped into being the enemy of freedom and rights.

+1

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would argue there is a very distinct difference between an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals -- and therefore Western freedoms, which are a by product of those ideals -- and an organization attempting to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies.

/agree

Why do you agree? He said he would argue, but there wasn't any argument at all, just an assertion of opinion. Where is the argument?

 

[Moonbeam]

What is Islam ?
Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith.

Who are the Muslims?
One billion people from a vast range of races, nationalities and cultures across the globe - from the southern Philippines to Nigeria - are united by their common Islamic faith. About 18% live in the Arab world; the world's largest Muslim community is in Indonesia; substantial parts of Asia and most of Africa are Muslim, while significant minorities are to be found in the Soviet Union, China, North and South America, and Europe.

What do Muslims believe?
Muslims believe in One, Unique, Incomparable God; in the Angels created by Him; in the prophets through whom His revelations were brought to mankind; in the Day of Judgement and individual accountability for actions; in God's complete authority over human destiny and in life after death. Muslims believe in a chain of prophets starting with Adam and including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Elias, Jonah, John the Baptist, and Jesus, peace be upon them. But God's final message to man, a reconfirmation of the eternal message and a summing-up of all that has gone before was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through Gabriel.

How does someone become a Muslim?
Simply by saying 'there is no god apart from God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.' By this declaration the believer announces his or her faith in all God's messengers, and the scriptures they brought.

What does 'Islam' mean?
The Arabic word 'Islam' simply means 'submission', and derives from a word meaning 'peace'. In a religious context it means complete submission to the will of God. 'Mohammedanism' is thus a misnomer because it suggests that Muslims worship Muhammad rather than God. 'Allah' is the Arabic name for God, which is used by Arab Muslims and Christians alike.

=================

Now if you believe that God is either a real being or the symbolic representation of humanity's highest ideals then anybody in submission to the will of God submits to the universe's or humanity's highest ideals. And where that submission is perfect you will have a perfect man.

In the West of course, we know that all were created equal but is it not something we just pretend?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

I would argue there is a very distinct difference in an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals and therefore Western freedoms which are a by product of those ideals and a organization attempted to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies. Western Society is one of the best examples in history of a society that allows the individual the ability to control his own life from birth to death and through hard work can do much, while also protecting and helping those who cannot or will not help themselves. The spread of a culture that promotes freedom of every individual and promoted the ability of every individual to take control of there own life when being free of oppression of the government is superior to the culture of Totalitarion theocracy that is being promoted by Middle Eastern organizations.

Not every culture is valuable, any culture that is based on nothing more than the return of power to the hands of a few and its removal entirety from the hands of the people is a step backward in the role of human progression, which is why Western Culture, Western Ideals and Western thinking is superior than other ideals, and should be preferred. Only the west lets man be free.

With that said, do you think Iraq would be a different situation if this re-education had occurred?



Edit for your edit: Your comments regarding where we are for defending rights of country X/Y/Z is naive and you know better, the military cannot be everywhere.

I have spoken with communists long ago, where it was clear to me that there was a myopia tainting their ability to see any other side. I see the same thing with you.

It's normal for the empire to be blind to its own arrogance - to ignorantly 'not see ay vaslue' in other cultures, to it's doing them a favor by replacing them.

If you saw anyone saying that about doing that to you, you would view it as a crisis and aggression against you, given the complacaency tha comes with being the by far dominant power in the world - the western side - without any chance whatsoever of someother society replacing your culture, you cannot appreciate that at all, and can only view others as some sort of disease or crappy culture to be cleaned up and improved to be like you, utterly blind to other's point of view. Funny, Germany, Japan and others felt the same way.

Indeed, *if* there was the military power in the Middle East to 'spread their culture', do you think they might be able to make some case against the west for its histories of racism and slavery, for its current massive amounts of drug abuse, its high crime rates and imprisonment rates, its record of aggression and colonization of others, its culture of pornography - all laid out as far better reasons than you can give for a 'war of ideals'?

It's rather ironic how you declare the radical side of the Middle East, the tyrranical side of Midddle Eastern governments, to be its culture without noting the role of the west in the creation of those things being as much a part of their societies as they are? Do you have a clue about the history of Britain's role in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of splitting the Muslim world, to create an enemy for the Nationlists by backing the religious radicals? Of the US role in creatng the strength for the radicals in Afghanistan for our own purposes in battlig the Russians, leaving the Taliban in power largely as our creation? Of Israels' role in the empowerment of Hamas, which they backed to try to split the Palestenians and undermine the PLO by creating a rival? Of the US in keeping the tyrranies in power in placs from Saudi Arabia (Nixon made a deal in the 70's to guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for guarantees of oil access) to Egypt where the people are prevented from overthrowing them by our financial and military assistance to the regimes, because they do as we want (where were 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers from, again? Did we invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? No, we keep those regimes in power).

One of the most iconic things about the USSR's repression is the phrase 're-education camps' - in theory, a benvolent way to inform ignorant citizens of the civil system, and in practice a tyrannical tool for political repression - and yet you are here calling for the 're-education' of Iraqis, using the same justification, without any awareness of the corruption of that sort of activity. When we can't even tell the difference between 'detaining terrorists' and 'paying warlords $5,000 for anyone they want to hand over no questions asked', abusing terrorist detention by turning it into a weapon of political oppression (do as you are told or you will be detained indefinitely and secretly and quite posssibly tortured), you think that the finer points of a 're-education program' are going to be done appropriately without abuse?

RichardE, there is an old saying about how people who hate tend to resemble what they hate. You would do well to heed the saying, IMO.

I've found that to be true in many cases; look at how the police tend to develop the 'blue shield' culture against 'snitching' on one another just like crimnal groups, while prison groups tend to develop laws and enforce them harshly; cosider how the CIA and KGB came to resemble each other more and more, each more bold in its actions spurred on by the other in a 'race to the bottom', from terrorism to assassination done by both, each sure that *it* was on the right side against an evil enemy.

As I said before, there are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights, and you ned to appreciate the problems with the wrong ways to avoid being a tyrant yourself.

IMO, you have a long way to go on developing respect for others - you have caught a bad case of the 'ugly American' (whther or not you're literally American), where your excrement has a sweet odor as you run around wanting to help the world by making it like your own nation, the same way as every empire in history, each of whome thought that they had the only civilization worthy, and others were crap. 'Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, and you thinking you are not vulnerable to that, proves you are.

Foreign policy discussions here tend to fall into a pattern: thhe pro-empire side (unaware that's teir agenda, they're just 'fiighting evil' they think) start out with a very attractive list of all the wonderful moral superioty they have, how they're only helping people by their policy, only battling wrongs - ignorant or blind (they tend to tune out contrary facts) to the wrongs of their own side, how they're fed propaganda to get their complacency and support (just as the Roman government called all of its conquests defensive to get publc support). And the discussion, as the attractive justifications are stripped away one by one by showing the 'real agenda', the hypocrisy, how good things like freedom and rights are used as *pretexts) for aggressive empire - these people are pushed to have to coneded more and more that it is is about their side winning for the sake of their side winning.

That doesn't mean it's not ok to think your side has the better culture in many ways (not every way, is that what you think?), and to want ot see freedom and rights spread.

But it meas that you need to be aware not to let those things be corrupted by the ulterior agendas of empire - the 'war of civilizations' your side has started and wants to win.

All the while you are convinced you are 'defending your civilization from being conquered', you don'tnotice that your side has a 100 to 1 advantage, and is the one destroying others.

The very argument you use to justify war is the argument the other side can legitimately use - it's the Muslim world who by far has the reason to feel threatened.

The debate has becoe poisoned by the arrogance of power. Good things the Muslims have done are forgotten, bad things we've done are excused, it's all about 'beating evil'.

Funny, that's what the most evil regimes in the history of the world have said, too. Every 'evil empire' has had soe 'evil enemy' it was claiming to oppose.

You need a large dose of learning to respect other cultures and the right ways to try to spread freedom and rights.

The war has already been half won - people around the world largely like the better examples we set on freedom and rights. You don't recognize who a real enemy is of those things, but I've already given you an idea with my previous mention or our *support* for Saddam in his worst periods of tyranny and attacking a neighbor - completely contradicting the things you are claiming you want to spread. A pointer to the major but largely hidden agendas that went along with the war when we did turn on Saddam.

Until you notice the forces who are your enemy in spreading rights and freedom - who corrupt those things by using them for cover - you are not helping those causes.

There are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights.

It's the same issue as we've had in the past as we had to choose between our European alliances tand their policies of colonization, or right-wng dictators or neutral elected leaders.

One thing I'll suggest s that you develop a little humility about your running around judging cultures until you can see the flaws of your own better.

There's a certain seductive 'high' to being the 'world's bestest, most advanced, wonderful civilization' running around helping improve the barbarians. It feels nice.

But that's just the 'absolute corruption of absolute power' to worry about,that you don't want others having about you.

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get people to appreciate the rights of the weaker side when they're the weaker side, than it is when they're the stronger.

You really need to appreciate the agendas involved in these things. Consider Chile - mostly forgotten by the US, because it's incovnenient, but an important example of this 'agenda'. It was nothing more than protecting a few dollars for our welth corporate owners that drove our great nation's citizens to pay for the destruction of a healthy, democratic system in Chile - one filled with the freedom and rights you are for - with a terroristic dictatorship which put into place hugely oppressive economic policies under the guise of 'western capitalism', while the people who had the responbility for the policies - the American voters - had no idea it was happpening beyond hearing about some coup 'down there' without mention how it was orchestrated by our presidet Nixon after the pone calls from the CEO of his former employer Pepcsico and others.

There was a story you could be told about the 'terrible socialist' Allende and the 'wonderful economic improvements to bring prosperity' of the new government, all masking the horrible tyranny we put in place, for the agenda of protecting a few of our corporations' right to economically exploit their nation.

Simple facts: the main export of Chile was copper. Our corporations, through our use of power to get favorable terms, had invested a small fraction of the several billion dollars a year they were profiting to take the copper out of Chile. As Chileans' democracy grew, they were aware of the fact that their nation's rightful wealth was being taken for no good reason by foreign companies, and in the election Allende won, all three candidates from left to right supported ending the foreign corporations' rights to take the copper, to keep the profits for their country. Those billions being taken at the expense of the Chilean people - billlions that democracy was designed to help the people put a stop to being taken because of a government corrupted by the US - resulted in the entire nation's innocent civilian population living in tyrany and terror.

You need to understand that side of the agendas hiding under the skirt of 'freedom and rights' to not be duped into being the enemy of freedom and rights.

A very nice post, Sir, you have lots of patience.

I thing the way to lead morally is by example. Those who believe in the Truth have faith that the Truth will win. So all that is required for the Truth to win is for it to be expressed to that humanity can follow the example. The Truth and the human soul are the same. For the soul to be the self must disappear in submission. Who is it that teaches submission?

 

[StageLeft]

Would have risked coming off as exceptionally imperialistic, because it would have been, if not by land by culture.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

I would argue there is a very distinct difference in an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals and therefore Western freedoms which are a by product of those ideals and a organization attempted to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies. Western Society is one of the best examples in history of a society that allows the individual the ability to control his own life from birth to death and through hard work can do much, while also protecting and helping those who cannot or will not help themselves. The spread of a culture that promotes freedom of every individual and promoted the ability of every individual to take control of there own life when being free of oppression of the government is superior to the culture of Totalitarion theocracy that is being promoted by Middle Eastern organizations.

Not every culture is valuable, any culture that is based on nothing more than the return of power to the hands of a few and its removal entirety from the hands of the people is a step backward in the role of human progression, which is why Western Culture, Western Ideals and Western thinking is superior than other ideals, and should be preferred. Only the west lets man be free.

With that said, do you think Iraq would be a different situation if this re-education had occurred?



Edit for your edit: Your comments regarding where we are for defending rights of country X/Y/Z is naive and you know better, the military cannot be everywhere.

I have spoken with communists long ago, where it was clear to me that there was a myopia tainting their ability to see any other side. I see the same thing with you.

It's normal for the empire to be blind to its own arrogance - to ignorantly 'not see ay vaslue' in other cultures, to it's doing them a favor by replacing them.

If you saw anyone saying that about doing that to you, you would view it as a crisis and aggression against you, given the complacaency tha comes with being the by far dominant power in the world - the western side - without any chance whatsoever of someother society replacing your culture, you cannot appreciate that at all, and can only view others as some sort of disease or crappy culture to be cleaned up and improved to be like you, utterly blind to other's point of view. Funny, Germany, Japan and others felt the same way.

Indeed, *if* there was the military power in the Middle East to 'spread their culture', do you think they might be able to make some case against the west for its histories of racism and slavery, for its current massive amounts of drug abuse, its high crime rates and imprisonment rates, its record of aggression and colonization of others, its culture of pornography - all laid out as far better reasons than you can give for a 'war of ideals'?

It's rather ironic how you declare the radical side of the Middle East, the tyrranical side of Midddle Eastern governments, to be its culture without noting the role of the west in the creation of those things being as much a part of their societies as they are? Do you have a clue about the history of Britain's role in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of splitting the Muslim world, to create an enemy for the Nationlists by backing the religious radicals? Of the US role in creatng the strength for the radicals in Afghanistan for our own purposes in battlig the Russians, leaving the Taliban in power largely as our creation? Of Israels' role in the empowerment of Hamas, which they backed to try to split the Palestenians and undermine the PLO by creating a rival? Of the US in keeping the tyrranies in power in placs from Saudi Arabia (Nixon made a deal in the 70's to guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for guarantees of oil access) to Egypt where the people are prevented from overthrowing them by our financial and military assistance to the regimes, because they do as we want (where were 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers from, again? Did we invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? No, we keep those regimes in power).

One of the most iconic things about the USSR's repression is the phrase 're-education camps' - in theory, a benvolent way to inform ignorant citizens of the civil system, and in practice a tyrannical tool for political repression - and yet you are here calling for the 're-education' of Iraqis, using the same justification, without any awareness of the corruption of that sort of activity. When we can't even tell the difference between 'detaining terrorists' and 'paying warlords $5,000 for anyone they want to hand over no questions asked', abusing terrorist detention by turning it into a weapon of political oppression (do as you are told or you will be detained indefinitely and secretly and quite posssibly tortured), you think that the finer points of a 're-education program' are going to be done appropriately without abuse?

RichardE, there is an old saying about how people who hate tend to resemble what they hate. You would do well to heed the saying, IMO.

I've found that to be true in many cases; look at how the police tend to develop the 'blue shield' culture against 'snitching' on one another just like crimnal groups, while prison groups tend to develop laws and enforce them harshly; cosider how the CIA and KGB came to resemble each other more and more, each more bold in its actions spurred on by the other in a 'race to the bottom', from terrorism to assassination done by both, each sure that *it* was on the right side against an evil enemy.

As I said before, there are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights, and you ned to appreciate the problems with the wrong ways to avoid being a tyrant yourself.

IMO, you have a long way to go on developing respect for others - you have caught a bad case of the 'ugly American' (whther or not you're literally American), where your excrement has a sweet odor as you run around wanting to help the world by making it like your own nation, the same way as every empire in history, each of whome thought that they had the only civilization worthy, and others were crap. 'Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, and you thinking you are not vulnerable to that, proves you are.

Foreign policy discussions here tend to fall into a pattern: thhe pro-empire side (unaware that's teir agenda, they're just 'fiighting evil' they think) start out with a very attractive list of all the wonderful moral superioty they have, how they're only helping people by their policy, only battling wrongs - ignorant or blind (they tend to tune out contrary facts) to the wrongs of their own side, how they're fed propaganda to get their complacency and support (just as the Roman government called all of its conquests defensive to get publc support). And the discussion, as the attractive justifications are stripped away one by one by showing the 'real agenda', the hypocrisy, how good things like freedom and rights are used as *pretexts) for aggressive empire - these people are pushed to have to coneded more and more that it is is about their side winning for the sake of their side winning.

That doesn't mean it's not ok to think your side has the better culture in many ways (not every way, is that what you think?), and to want ot see freedom and rights spread.

But it meas that you need to be aware not to let those things be corrupted by the ulterior agendas of empire - the 'war of civilizations' your side has started and wants to win.

All the while you are convinced you are 'defending your civilization from being conquered', you don'tnotice that your side has a 100 to 1 advantage, and is the one destroying others.

The very argument you use to justify war is the argument the other side can legitimately use - it's the Muslim world who by far has the reason to feel threatened.

The debate has becoe poisoned by the arrogance of power. Good things the Muslims have done are forgotten, bad things we've done are excused, it's all about 'beating evil'.

Funny, that's what the most evil regimes in the history of the world have said, too. Every 'evil empire' has had soe 'evil enemy' it was claiming to oppose.

You need a large dose of learning to respect other cultures and the right ways to try to spread freedom and rights.

The war has already been half won - people around the world largely like the better examples we set on freedom and rights. You don't recognize who a real enemy is of those things, but I've already given you an idea with my previous mention or our *support* for Saddam in his worst periods of tyranny and attacking a neighbor - completely contradicting the things you are claiming you want to spread. A pointer to the major but largely hidden agendas that went along with the war when we did turn on Saddam.

Until you notice the forces who are your enemy in spreading rights and freedom - who corrupt those things by using them for cover - you are not helping those causes.

There are right ways and wrong ways to spread freedom and rights.

It's the same issue as we've had in the past as we had to choose between our European alliances tand their policies of colonization, or right-wng dictators or neutral elected leaders.

One thing I'll suggest s that you develop a little humility about your running around judging cultures until you can see the flaws of your own better.

There's a certain seductive 'high' to being the 'world's bestest, most advanced, wonderful civilization' running around helping improve the barbarians. It feels nice.

But that's just the 'absolute corruption of absolute power' to worry about,that you don't want others having about you.

Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get people to appreciate the rights of the weaker side when they're the weaker side, than it is when they're the stronger.

You really need to appreciate the agendas involved in these things. Consider Chile - mostly forgotten by the US, because it's incovnenient, but an important example of this 'agenda'. It was nothing more than protecting a few dollars for our welth corporate owners that drove our great nation's citizens to pay for the destruction of a healthy, democratic system in Chile - one filled with the freedom and rights you are for - with a terroristic dictatorship which put into place hugely oppressive economic policies under the guise of 'western capitalism', while the people who had the responbility for the policies - the American voters - had no idea it was happpening beyond hearing about some coup 'down there' without mention how it was orchestrated by our presidet Nixon after the pone calls from the CEO of his former employer Pepcsico and others.

There was a story you could be told about the 'terrible socialist' Allende and the 'wonderful economic improvements to bring prosperity' of the new government, all masking the horrible tyranny we put in place, for the agenda of protecting a few of our corporations' right to economically exploit their nation.

Simple facts: the main export of Chile was copper. Our corporations, through our use of power to get favorable terms, had invested a small fraction of the several billion dollars a year they were profiting to take the copper out of Chile. As Chileans' democracy grew, they were aware of the fact that their nation's rightful wealth was being taken for no good reason by foreign companies, and in the election Allende won, all three candidates from left to right supported ending the foreign corporations' rights to take the copper, to keep the profits for their country. Those billions being taken at the expense of the Chilean people - billlions that democracy was designed to help the people put a stop to being taken because of a government corrupted by the US - resulted in the entire nation's innocent civilian population living in tyrany and terror.

You need to understand that side of the agendas hiding under the skirt of 'freedom and rights' to not be duped into being the enemy of freedom and rights.

I won't deny that the enemy of Western Civilization also lies within our own halls and a purge of those people who be preferable. I think you misconsider my intent with re-education. I do not suggest we completely destroy a culture to bring it to Western Standards, far from it. I support the integration of cultures, Muslim countries can be countries of Western Ideals (Egypt is slowly becoming an example.)

My goal and the one I work towards is not one of a complete assimilation of ideals and a complete eradication of another peoples cultures, but of a spreading of Western ideological arguments that enable every man to be free and every man to have a chance at life. It is tragic the way some ambitious people within Western Governments have used the military might of this civilization to undermine other Western type governments and that is a black spot that luckily the west has been moving away from (Since WW2 the last major "inter-western" war.). My argument is with the ideas that govern these countries. In the west you can be western and a Muslim, you can be western and a Hindu, you can be Western and a non-believer, you can be Christian and a Westerner, all 4 of those people can attend school together, live near each other, there kids can play with each other and they can pursue the American Dream, or the Western Ideal in the West. . Can the same be said for countries that have different governing cultures than the West?

The point of this re-education was not to destroy a culture, but to show an ideologies that they have not seen, not had a chance to live or experience, and have no real idea what it consists of. If these people in Iraq has been exposed to Western Ideals, and knew what to expect from the West would they have been so quick to embrace the "familiar" theocratic ideals offered to them from Iran/Syria? If they had know what the real West was, would they have been so quick to subscribe to the theory that the west is a "great Satan"?.

The point is, the west offers more for the common man, the western ideals is not a culture, but a set of rules that we follow that allow the melting pot of the west to exist, a world where each person has a chance.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would argue there is a very distinct difference between an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals -- and therefore Western freedoms, which are a by product of those ideals -- and an organization attempting to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies.

/agree

My level of agreement depends on what he means by "promote." If he means abiding by our beliefs, and by doing so, succeeding, then I agree. However, if by "promote," he means using force and/or intervention overseas to remove and rebuild governments and nations, then I disagree, and strongly.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would argue there is a very distinct difference between an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals -- and therefore Western freedoms, which are a by product of those ideals -- and an organization attempting to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies.

/agree

My level of agreement depends on what he means by "promote." If he means abiding by our beliefs, and by doing so, succeeding, then I agree. However, if by "promote," he means using force and/or intervention overseas to remove and rebuild governments and nations, then I disagree, and strongly.

Yes, it was KILL the leader and maybe in turn many thousands of citizens via collateral damage... THEN CCC them Christianize, Colonize, and Civilize just like we pushed on the Native Americans when we took this land

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would argue there is a very distinct difference between an organization attempting to promote Western Philosophy and ideals -- and therefore Western freedoms, which are a by product of those ideals -- and an organization attempting to promote Religious totalitarian doctrine in the form of Islam based societies.

/agree

My level of agreement depends on what he means by "promote." If he means abiding by our beliefs, and by doing so, succeeding, then I agree. However, if by "promote," he means using force and/or intervention overseas to remove and rebuild governments and nations, then I disagree, and strongly.

Yes, it was KILL the leader and maybe in turn many thousands of citizens via collateral damage... THEN CCC them Christianize, Colonize, and Civilize just like we pushed on the Native Americans when we took this land

This topic is over your head.

Bamacre, the post was in regards to bringing our ideals to them through opportunity and openly. Whether this be through the natural liberalization of there own government (such as the reform party of Syria which is gaining in popularity will probably result in a westernization of that nation) as well as through opportunity, (foreign aid can be integrated with Western Ideal literature.).

The problem with forcing someone to accept your values is they will reject them if you do not exert complete control over them. It is better for the countries of the west to stand strong against those that threaten it, but also to have an open hand to any that want to join it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: RichardE
The problem with forcing someone to accept your values is they will reject them if you do not exert complete control over them.

Yes, and that is why freedom cannot be spread through force.

It is better for the countries of the west to stand strong against those that threaten it, but also to have an open hand to any that want to join it.

There is nothing to join, and we cannot offer them anything but ideas.


John Quincy Adams....

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

But it is impossible to lead by example when we ourselves fail to follow it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: RichardE
The problem with forcing someone to accept your values is they will reject them if you do not exert complete control over them.

Yes, and that is why freedom cannot be spread through force.

It is better for the countries of the west to stand strong against those that threaten it, but also to have an open hand to any that want to join it.

There is nothing to join, and we cannot offer them anything but ideas.


John Quincy Adams....

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

But it is impossible to lead by example when we ourselves fail to follow it.

To think that America and the west do not lead by example is foolish. Do people still not wish to come to America? Do Africans still not die trying to reach Spain? Do people in China still not risk there life to get to Hong Kong and to South Korea?

The ideals, the hopes offered and the dreams acquired by the ideas of the west are alive and well and still server as a altar upon which the oppressed of the world can place there hope. Yes, the US invaded Iraq, and history will decide how that went, the US and the West while promoting the free life have a history of oppression on its own people, but it is a history we grew out with, where we Led By Example.

The ideas of the founders of the US made sure the US was able to grow into a power to project its offer of freedom across the world, we obviously have more house cleaning to do to rid the countries of the west, all countries, of people who want to wage war unnecessarily. War though, should still be an option, just not the first.

People in oppressed nations everywhere look to the west for freedom, the fact that we can sit on a message board and criticize our country without worry about death or being jailed is testament to the freedoms we have and that people wish they had. We lead by example by being free.



To your comment: All we can offer them is ideas..

The idea of freedom, the idea of equality and the idea of the American dream is an idea that countless have died for. Ideas are valuable.

 

[sandorski]

Europe tried that, not only in the Mid-East, but the entire Earth. They only really succeeded in 3 places: Australia/New Zealand, Canada, and what is now the US. Even those didn't turn out quite like they envisioned, although they turned out well for them in the longrun. They succeed through Mass Emigration that overwhelmed local populations.

That said, the idea isn't totally without merit, I jsut think that it's a crapshoot and has a very limited affect. There comes a time when after you have introduced new ideas, such as Democracy(in some form), you have to just accept the results of it(in Iraq's case, heavy Islamic influence) and work with it. In time, if you play your cards right, they may become friends.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is nowhere to go, nothing to do, nobody who needs saving. The world is absolutely perfect just as it is. Everything is exactly in accordance with the will of God. When thought arises division arises with it. Thought is comparison, abstraction; thought is of the past and dead. This is the knowledge some in the East have attained. You have nothing at all to teach them. The West is on a quest to nowhere. You kill the world because of ego. You struggle because you're sick. Nowhere to go, nothing to become, nothing that needs changing, only the infinite perfection of God who is Being.

There is only one war to be fought and it is with the self, and you can't fight yourself anymore than your eye can see itself. One fragment of the self fights against another, forever trapped in the duality of delusion. Only children enter the Kingdom, the naive, the stupid, the simple and the meek, everything you fear to be. Wherever you go, wherever you look, the Kingdom is behind you in the place you turn away from.

To change the world is easy. All that is needed is for YOU to die. Everything is absolutely perfect.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RichardE
To think that America and the west do not lead by example is foolish.

We most certainly do lead by example, perpetrating injustice against millions all over the world and inspiring terrorists to commit their on injustices against us.

We would be a much better example to the world if we upheld the standards of international law, but I know you have no interest in doing anything of the sort.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: RichardE
To think that America and the west do not lead by example is foolish.

We do, at times, but we break from our ideals too much. Every time we do, we give ammo to those who oppose our ideals. Whether it is an invasion of Iraq, or "free speech" zones, it matters not. All eyes are upon us. What we do is a gift or a burden to the world.

To your comment: All we can offer them is ideas..

The idea of freedom, the idea of equality and the idea of the American dream is an idea that countless have died for. Ideas are valuable.

And we should make sure we set a good example, always. It isn't easy, it never will be.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: RichardE
To think that America and the west do not lead by example is foolish.

We do, at times, but we break from our ideals too much. Every time we do, we give ammo to those who oppose our ideals. Whether it is an invasion of Iraq, or "free speech" zones, it matters not. All eyes are upon us. What we do is a gift or a burden to the world.

To your comment: All we can offer them is ideas..

The idea of freedom, the idea of equality and the idea of the American dream is an idea that countless have died for. Ideas are valuable.

And we should make sure we set a good example, always. It isn't easy, it never will be.

I agree with you, though our failings is not an excuse to not try.


Thesnowman: You see this issue too simply. Like a person who describes many things to someone only to be responded too with a "but the walls are the wrong color"

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is nowhere to go, nothing to do, nobody who needs saving. The world is absolutely perfect just as it is. Everything is exactly in accordance with the will of God. When thought arises division arises with it. Thought is comparison, abstraction; thought is of the past and dead. This is the knowledge some in the East have attained. You have nothing at all to teach them. The West is on a quest to nowhere. You kill the world because of ego. You struggle because you're sick. Nowhere to go, nothing to become, nothing that needs changing, only the infinite perfection of God who is Being.

There is only one war to be fought and it is with the self, and you can't fight yourself anymore than your eye can see itself. One fragment of the self fights against another, forever trapped in the duality of delusion. Only children enter the Kingdom, the naive, the stupid, the simple and the meek, everything you fear to be. Wherever you go, wherever you look, the Kingdom is behind you in the place you turn away from.

To change the world is easy. All that is needed is for YOU to die. Everything is absolutely perfect.

If everyone followed your ideas we would still be slaves to kings.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: RichardE


If everyone followed your ideas we would still be slaves to kings.

But if he is in the sky a king is ok?

Sorry, I had to.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE
[I won't deny that the enemy of Western Civilization also lies within our own halls and a purge of those people who be preferable. I think you misconsider my intent with re-education. I do not suggest we completely destroy a culture to bring it to Western Standards, far from it. I support the integration of cultures, Muslim countries can be countries of Western Ideals (Egypt is slowly becoming an example.)

One of the indicators of cultural bias I use as a test is when the person attributes flaws to 'their side' to be universal and systemic, but flaws to 'my side' to be exceptions, bad apples, isolated from the system. I see some of that in your call for their *cultre* to change, but for us to merely deal with some isolated individuals, as if that'll solve the problem. Their flaws are global, ours are exceptions. That tells me you have some cultural bias.

When you say you are in favor of 'the integration of cultures', how are you in favor of our culture changing to integrate things from theirs? When you have much answer to that questionn, your position will appear less aggressive and based on 'the rrogance of power'. Of course, you only want to help those poor people. You can't imagine pretty much anything from their culture you would want ours to emulate, can you? Does that suggest to you that maybe you are being a bit xenophobic, a bit one-sided?

I'm all in favor of trying to expose people in the east to our better ideas and values - and exposing people in the west to the better ideas and values that easterners have.

Quick, tell me the last mainstream media coverage of some in-depth area of 'good ideas and values from the middle east'. None. We talk, we don't listen.

You want to know how to spread the word to easterners? Set an example for them with how we run our country - no torture, for example.

My goal and the one I work towards is not one of a complete assimilation of ideals and a complete eradication of another peoples cultures, but of a spreading of Western ideological arguments that enable every man to be free and every man to have a chance at life. It is tragic the way some ambitious people within Western Governments (Just noting the 'our side only has bad apples, it's not systemic' issue here - Craig234) have used the military might of this civilization to undermine other Western type governments and that is a black spot that luckily the west has been moving away from (Since WW2 the last major "inter-western" war.).

There has been some improvement; but you are not claiming there haven't been a large number of examples of terrible things continuing after WWII, from Iran to Chile to Vietnam to many other places, I'd hope? You're not suggesting that only unjust war on western style governments is tragic.

My argument is with the ideas that govern these countries. In the west you can be western and a Muslim, you can be western and a Hindu, you can be Western and a non-believer, you can be Christian and a Westerner, all 4 of those people can attend school together, live near each other, there kids can play with each other and they can pursue the American Dream, or the Western Ideal in the West. . Can the same be said for countries that have different governing cultures than the West?

Often it can; it's standard propaganda to say they're intolerant and we're not. Certainly, we have much to be proud of and to feel is better. But practically speaking, all but one of those groups you mentions cannot become president in this country. And there are plenty of cases of other nations with multiculturalism - something the right complains about in this country to this day, that we'd have a lot less of if they had their way. 'Give me your tired, your poor', has given way to 'keep them out of my country'.

But we agree that those are good values. We just need to teach them more to both sides.

The point of this re-education was not to destroy a culture, but to show an ideologies that they have not seen, not had a chance to live or experience, and have no real idea what it consists of. If these people in Iraq has been exposed to Western Ideals, and knew what to expect from the West would they have been so quick to embrace the "familiar" theocratic ideals offered to them from Iran/Syria? If they had know what the real West was, would they have been so quick to subscribe to the theory that the west is a "great Satan"?.

What's missing is your desire for *our* side to be educated about them - something you don't even indicate you realize is not the case now.

That's an aggressive position, not a cooperative one. And again, it's important to understand the extent to which we are blocking these very ideals.

Ho Chi Minh was not unaware of our ideals when he wrote the Declaration of Independance for Viet Nam, and modelled it on our own. Rather, it was we who were unaware of these values when we responded to his asking for our help, as the champion of those values, to help him obtain their freedom with their colonization by France - and our government, most clearly the Dulles brothers in the Eisenhower administration, responded with the position that our interests with France outweighed the importance of liberty for Vietnam.

We're proud of our fighting Englad for our independance; but Vietnam can say they fought far harder and longer, sacrificing millions of lives (Ho Chi Minh first asked for our help in a letter to President Wilson, which we did not even respond to) for their independance - something they deserve and which we have a shameful role as their primary opponent for them to get it. But that's 'just an exception', while the other side is systemically bad, right?

The point is, the west offers more for the common man, the western ideals is not a culture, but a set of rules that we follow that allow the melting pot of the west to exist, a world where each person has a chance.

There's a reason I have repetedly said to you that there are right and wrong ways to spread our better ideas and values.

Your heart is in the right place, and you need to get better informed about the ways in which each side is for and against those ideas to be a better champion of them.

As long as you are for 'our side' and against 'their side' you are not getting the right picture, IMO.

Want a hero for your battle? I"ll suggest John Kennedy, insofar as he was willing to have the courage and make the sacrifice to make the US stand against our European allies on colonization, a historic shift - not to mention his shift in our policy to usually support the neutral leader who could lead a free and democratic society that was not our puppet, over our supporting the right-wing dictator who we owned, another bold shift with many opponents here.

Kennedy understood how to make our support for freedom a weapon to win allies not through force but through setting a good example.

For just one example, the land reforms Venezuela's President Chavez has done to turn idle land owned by the few etremely wealthy families in Venezuela over to the poor to farm, he introduce by mentioning he was just implementing reforms that had been suggested by Kennedy - while those on the right show no little to no limits in their support for the few wealthy to concentrate wealth and power in their own hands. There's more to the cultural issues than just 'we're for freedom and they're not so we're better'. Much more.

I'd suggest you consider visiting the areas you want to educate, and talk to the people there both to learn and to share your views with them.

That will likely help you improve your message IMO and help you have answers for my questions above.

For what it's worth, I'm for diversity - distributed power, diverse cultures, while the 'Neocons' and our national default agenda are simply to try to obtain 'more power', and to treat others powers as a threat to us - a view which ironically makes us a threat to them, and forces them to become our enemy. Lessons we've learned, and forgotten.

When Kennedy spoke of his idea of how the world should work, he specifically said that it should *not* be a "Pax Americana", but support real diversity.