War of ideas is what failed Iraq.

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, but my dear Sir, if we all followed my ideas, we would all see that we ARE kings. Slavery is something you do to yourself with an idea. You can't let go of your struggle because you demand somebody else make you what you already are. You look for freedom outside of yourself when freedom is always internal. The devil tried to make Jesus his slave but Jesus passed on the offer. Jesus, you see, was from the East.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Nevermind.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

 

[NoShangriLa]

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

You need to actually form a coherent opinion and actually think to actively participate in this discussion. As to your comment is has no relevance on what we are actually talking about.

 

[taltamir]

the only thing that failed in iraq is the notion that the US is so powerful, it doesn't even have to send troops and supplies to defeat an enemy...
That is why the surge is so effective, because the issue is a simple case of there being too few soldiers covering too large an area.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

Very good points and a warning we would do well to heed. It is also something that I think both sides agree on (If you wish to take Myself and Craig as each belonging to opposite sides.). The use of force to spread ideals is usually if not always bound to failure, unless one is willing to hold force for generations and destroy systematically the culture of the people they are changing.

You are right about Iraq, I also hope Syria becomes the next country that "changes from the inside". Iran is also having elections soon which will be interesting to watch.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

Would that be assuming that someone brutal, like Saddam, was our President for Life? Does that also assume that the invading countries would give us hundreds and hundreds of billions to rebuild, and also implement a form of democratic government to provide freedom of choice to the citizenry?

If so, I would welcome our new Chinese, ME, or Indian overlords.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

Would that be assuming that someone brutal, like Saddam, was our President for Life? Does that also assume that the invading countries would give us hundreds and hundreds of billions to rebuild, and also implement a form of democratic government to provide freedom of choice to the citizenry?

If so, I would welcome our new Chinese, ME, or Indian overlords.

If freedom is what the US went into Iraq for, then why don't they extend that by not being there in the first place. Why does the West politicians have the right to make the choice for them instead of the Iraqi politicians.

Iraq is not a war of ideas, it is an invasion of greedy westerner. If the US is so noble the Neocons would have invaded China, N Korea, and Iran to bring them the much needed superior Western ideology.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

Would that be assuming that someone brutal, like Saddam, was our President for Life? Does that also assume that the invading countries would give us hundreds and hundreds of billions to rebuild, and also implement a form of democratic government to provide freedom of choice to the citizenry?

If so, I would welcome our new Chinese, ME, or Indian overlords.

If freedom is what the US went into Iraq for, then why don't they extend that by not being there in the first place. Why does the West politicians have the right to make the choice for them instead of the Iraqi politicians.

Iraq is not a war of ideas, it is an invasion of greedy westerner. If the US is so noble the Neocons would have invaded China, N Korea, and Iran to bring them the much needed superior Western ideology.

Why is it that there are people who love to focus on a single issue as the reasoning for why the US invaded Iraq? It's far more complex than that. Freedom was only one issue. There were a host of others. Additionally, I fail to see how spending a trillion + dollars demonstrates our "greed."

Those are besides the point though, really, and have nothing to do with the subject brought up by the OP. Please stop with the attempt to derail this into yet another 'The greedy neocon bastards invaded Iraq for pofit.' thread. That subject has already been hashed over and rehashed in P&N to the point of paranoid nausea.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

Would that be assuming that someone brutal, like Saddam, was our President for Life? Does that also assume that the invading countries would give us hundreds and hundreds of billions to rebuild, and also implement a form of democratic government to provide freedom of choice to the citizenry?

If so, I would welcome our new Chinese, ME, or Indian overlords.

If freedom is what the US went into Iraq for, then why don't they extend that by not being there in the first place. Why does the West politicians have the right to make the choice for them instead of the Iraqi politicians.

Iraq is not a war of ideas, it is an invasion of greedy westerner. If the US is so noble the Neocons would have invaded China, N Korea, and Iran to bring them the much needed superior Western ideology.

Why is it that there are people who love to focus on a single issue as the reasoning for why the US invaded Iraq? It's far more complex than that. Freedom was only one issue. There were a host of others. Additionally, I fail to see how spending a trillion + dollars demonstrates our "greed."

Those are besides the point though, really, and have nothing to do with the subject brought up by the OP. Please stop with the attempt to derail this into yet another 'The greedy neocon bastards invaded Iraq for pofit.' thread. That subject has already been hashed over and rehashed in P&N to the point of paranoid nausea.

It is not the individual money, it is public money. Therefore spending it give the greedy people a chance to siphon.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

It is like love. All you can do is love. You can't make anybody else love, but by loving you can inspire others to want to love too. To allow others to find their own way is part of love. It is the love of love, the trust in its power. To trust is to overcome fear. Congratulations.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

It is like love. All you can do is love. You can't make anybody else love, but by loving you can inspire others to want to love too. To allow others to find their own way is part of love. It is the love of love, the trust in its power. To trust is to overcome fear. Congratulations.

Reading a moonbeam post is like....I don't know what.

It's just....it....

Sigh.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

It is like love. All you can do is love. You can't make anybody else love, but by loving you can inspire others to want to love too. To allow others to find their own way is part of love. It is the love of love, the trust in its power. To trust is to overcome fear. Congratulations.

Reading a moonbeam post is like....I don't know what.

It's just....it....

Sigh.

What he said there was spot on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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

snipped for quoting brevity

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?

I question whether it would be right to foist our Western ideals and values upon the Iraqis, assuming they'd be a good fit. Iraq is currently in a unique position amongst Arab countries. It's the only country that now practices a real form of democracy, as opposed to the pretenses that certain countries in the ME try to pass off as democracy. Politically, Iraq is more free than any country in the ME. That political freedom flows down to more individual freedoms as well. Now that they have that freedom they can develop their own ideals and values. By developing them on their own they will be more readily accepted in their culture.

Let's not forget that part of the reason Al Qaeda exists is precisely because of Western cultural imperailism. It's a backlash (a way over-the-top backlash) to the western ideals and values that are still deemed unacceptable in the ME. imo, attempting to indoctrinate Iraq at the very beginning might have had an adverse effect as well. Beter to let them find their own way, a way that works for them.

It is like love. All you can do is love. You can't make anybody else love, but by loving you can inspire others to want to love too. To allow others to find their own way is part of love. It is the love of love, the trust in its power. To trust is to overcome fear. Congratulations.

Reading a moonbeam post is like....I don't know what.

It's just....it....

Sigh.

Makes yah want to fire up a doobie and stare at a lava lamp for an hour or two, doesn't it?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: RichardE


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.).[/i]

Because of all the secular Iraqi refugees

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

"Mind your own business"

How would you like the Chinese, Middle Easterner, or Indian come over and force you their form of law & Righteousness.

You need to actually form a coherent opinion and actually think to actively participate in this discussion. As to your comment is has no relevance on what we are actually talking about.

There are a lot better candidates for your attack than his post, and his post actually is on-topic.

I think the confusion comes up because of you wanting to talk about how you think it should work, and others want to talk about how they think it would actually work.

It's a little like how Libertarians might think that their system would work really well, and be annoyed when people want to say it won't. They might call the critics 'off-topic'.

You are annoyed that your noble idea to expose the people in the Middle East to really great ideas that can spark positive change is met with attacks about imperialism.

But it's good to understand why some people who live in a system embracing those really great ideas are so concerned about your noble idea easily becoming something else.

I think that's the message, to say that there's a danger in the line between 'here's a great idea for you to consider' and 'we're taking action to change your system' being crossed.

And then the line between 'we're taking action to change your system in a benevolent manner' and 'we're changing your system to serve our interests'.

Power tends to corrupt such efforts.

But how can yoiu want to stick only to the noble idea of exposing them to the ideas, and ignore the fact that even on the basic issue of democracy - much less lesser corruptions - there's so much history of the world's greatest leader for democracy having blocked elections or overthrown democracy violently in Iran, in Nicaragua, in Venezuela, in Viet Nam, in Chile and elsewhere?

It's easy to be blind to this. Romans used to view their wars of conquest as defensive to deal with 'threats on their border'. They were appily oblivious to how the 'threat on the border' viewed the Romans who soon came marching in and conquered them. But of course, the Roman system was clearly superior, so it was an improvement anyway.

Just ask any conqueror, and they'll say the same.

The United States has sometimes stood out for being perhaps the world's most benevolent leading power. But millions of innocent people killed for bad reasons say it's not perfect.

There are always ongoing pressures - view the Neocons' transitional platform from 'a power in the world', to the Neocons' 'only top power in the world', to the next logical step of 'ruler of the world' - for the US to keep expanding its power, as well as other nations, including those who are simply trying to defend against western domination. For example, the history of Asia after WWII has largely been the US trying for a foothold of power, spending vast sums to prop up Japan as a competitor to China, and to build other 'footholds' such as Korea; it's normal for China to want to avoid be surrounded by US client states,

 

[heyheybooboo]

Iraq was about as Western and secular as they come in the ME until we began f'ing with them ...

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of do I agree with the RichardE hypothesis, in a word no.

IMHO, our efforts in Iraq failed in the implementation, we were supposed to bring organization and instead brought anarchy, allowing all manner of local power brokers to arise as the people had to rally around something for the mutual protection the occupying power could not provide.

And now we have what amounts to feudalism in Iraq, a very stable and resistant to change form of government. It only took Europe a thousand years to evolve away from that form of Government even though the ideals of a central government and democracy predated the rise of European Feudalism.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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.

This is one of the best posts I have seen in a long time. Thanks!

 

[Kanalua]

Move On


.org

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
Move On


.org

A very good organization!!