Or you snub them, insult them, threaten them, belittle them, denounce them and antagonize them, making them become even more extreme in their despotic behaviors and guaranteeing failure in the quest for peace and justice.
Or you do none of the above: you do what Obama did.
Or you snub them, insult them, threaten them, belittle them, denounce them and antagonize them, making them become even more extreme in their despotic behaviors and guaranteeing failure in the quest for peace and justice.
Or you do none of the above: you do what Obama did.[/quote]
It’s nice that he signaled to the collective Muslim world that we care about them, but that’s empty rhetoric if we don’t take any actions to help the populace. There are plenty of things we can do that doesn’t involve invasions, high explosive rounds and “Shock and Awe”. Continuing to support autocrats who repress their population isn’t one of them. What do we do though about the vocal populace who want to recreate an 8th century Caliphate and live strictly by the Quran? That doesn’t jive well with our stated desire to see better respect of human rights, freedom and the chance for individuals to live in modernity. I mean that’s the biggest issue right? Do we respect the traditionalism that is so important to the region, at the cost of individual rights, even though some of it with respects to women and minority religions is reprehensible?
GuyinTaiwan has it right that we need to start with getting off our addiction to oil that’s pumped out of the ground from the countries of despots and dictators. While only focusing on the Middle East for a second, how will Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait be able to support their grandiose plans if they don’t have petrodollars? Iran won’t have the funds to prop up their state run enterprises, nor give funds to Hezbollah, and the Saudis and Kuwaitis won’t be able to fund radical madrassas all over Pakistan, Yemen and the rest of the Muslim world.
Start with the peripheral parts of the Muslim world, the ones often ignored for the Arab center. You’ll get better results with humanitarian aid and then move in towards the Arab center. It’s highly unlikely that mullah’s in Saudi Arabia will ever agree with Western individualism and human rights, but as long as they aren’t flying airplanes into our buildings, let them roam around the Empty Quarter shooting at each other over 500 year old blood feuds if that’s what they want.
With the proviso that it is also their obligation to meet us half way.
The US invaded Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. The Taliban had led to 6 million Afghanis fleeing the country or starving slowly at home. Those that lived abroad in Pakistan and Iran suffered greatly. Since the invasion, more than 4 million have returned. Sometimes, invasions do bring about good results. We are not talking about equal nations sitting down to discuss things rationally with only the US being a guntoting cowboy. Certain nations are run by very bad people and sometimes they need to be removed.
so you agree that we need to “talk” to people and not engage in militaristic behavior but which of the leaders of which Muslim and Arab nations is democratic? and not an autocrat?
No. Why should we support such barbarity any more than we did communism or Nazism or Fascism. Certain beliefs need to be fought. This is another of those.
Might be a blessing in disguise. A study (I forget the name) was done in the 1970s and it showed that commodity wealth particularly oil actually set nations back in terms of development. It was perhaps called the Oil Curse?
Actually, one writer had called Muslim terrorism an “exported civil war.” Now, that the violence is coming home to many Muslim nations (I am paraphrasing remarks made in earlier threads by another writer so let me admit that here), there suddenly is less willingness to support or sympathize with terrorists and their agendas.
I think that taking diplomacy off the table is a bad idea. It hardens the resolve of the other side and opens the US to sound bite attacks from the EU about being too quick to attack. As for your other question, Lebanon is probably the most democratic. Beyond that there aren’t any.
Using the military option too flippantly supports the critics in the Middle East and undermines the moderates. Rather than using the military option or diplomacy, why not funnel the money we would otherwise give to Arab countries as “foreign aid” into developing better car engines that use less fuel. Rather than having to engage them, or destroy them, we can wait until they are irrelevant to the world economy again and then help them rebuild into modernity.
No. Why should we support such barbarity any more than we did communism or Nazism or Fascism. Certain beliefs need to be fought. This is another of those.
[/quote]
Because you aren’t doing anything to combat it by sending troops into the Middle East. It looks too much like a recreation of the Crusades/Greeks/Alexander. There are other ways of fighting the enemy than direct military confrontation. As you pointed out, Communism was fought without a direct confrontation through proxy wars and economic wars. Economics works better to blow the hell out of theocracies than a million bombs.
Just look at Iran. The religious leaders are afraid because the youngest generation wants blue jeans, MTV (god help them) and all things Western. That terrifies them. You can weaken the support system of the Ayatollah much easier with cultural imports than by bombing Iran back to the stone age.
Might be a blessing in disguise. A study (I forget the name) was done in the 1970s and it showed that commodity wealth particularly oil actually set nations back in terms of development. It was perhaps called the Oil Curse? [/quote]
It’s called the “Dutch Disease”. Basically because you are flush with natural resources, in this case oil, you don’t focus on manufacturing as much. Even if you did, your exchange rate prices the goods your produce out of the global market. That means you end up having to rely on the resource to bring in any foreign capital. It’s also the curse of many African nations.
Actually, one writer had called Muslim terrorism an “exported civil war.” Now, that the violence is coming home to many Muslim nations (I am paraphrasing remarks made in earlier threads by another writer so let me admit that here), there suddenly is less willingness to support or sympathize with terrorists and their agendas.[/quote]
That certainly makes sense in some instances. The Sunni Awakening in 2005 is one example. The Sunnis in Iraq got so tired of seeing Al Qaeda killing innocents and generally acting “un-Muslim” that they turned against them. Al Qaeda turned them by killing a Sheik who opposed them and then hiding his body for four days so it couldn’t be buried.
The thing is that when the civil war comes home, instead of being exported, it destabilizes everything back home. That makes it profitable for illiterate males to go off to Jihad because they have no other economic means to support themselves. Chaos and poverty make good bedfellows for creating soldiers for extremists. The way to combat that is development and stability.
Or you snub them, insult them, threaten them, belittle them, denounce them and antagonize them, making them become even more extreme in their despotic behaviors and guaranteeing failure in the quest for peace and justice.
Or you do none of the above: you do what Obama did.[/quote]
It’s nice that he signaled to the collective Muslim world that we care about them, but that’s empty rhetoric if we don’t take any actions to help the populace.[/quote]Exactly what I was trying to say. Take action to help the people, the women, the children, and then we’ll be going somewhere. A message of respect and understanding?" Maybe… But it’s just a speech. The saying “action speaks louder than words” was never better applied. Nice speech, but the US troops are still out there… And they are not coming home anytime soon. Mark my words…
The more I think about it, the more I think that Obama is setting the pace for another eight years of this madness… He offered peace to everyone… So I guess everyone will have to take him up on that offer or else they will look like the bad guys, and then Obama will, as his predecessor did, have a well mediated green card to keep waging wars. Except this time, he will be fighting against those who refuse to seek peace; those who refused to seek common grounds, those who basically did not listen when Obama said “The cycle of violence must end.” In other words, Obama handed over the hand of peace… Whoever doesn’t reciprocate is going to have the world’s population against them for not making peace with such a nice guy like Obama.
I really think we’re up shit creek. Does anyone here actually think that the Palestinian and Israeli conflicts will stop because of this speech? Do you really think Obama is stupid enough to actually think that his speech has any chances of stopping these conflicts? Do you actually think that acts of terrorism will end? Obama just bought himself a permanent ticket for a marine’s holiday in the middle east. America will not close their eyes on these issues were his exact words. Add to that the “decisive point” referred to by Obama regarding WMD’s, and he’s got a lot of work for the US army, aside from making peace with the Muslims…
[quote] There are plenty of things we can do that doesn’t involve invasions, high explosive rounds and “Shock and Awe”. Continuing to support autocrats who repress their population isn’t one of them. What do we do though about the vocal populace who want to recreate an 8th century Caliphate and live strictly by the Quran? That doesn’t jive well with our stated desire to see better respect of human rights, freedom and the chance for individuals to live in modernity. I mean that’s the biggest issue right? Do we respect the traditionalism that is so important to the region, at the cost of individual rights, even though some of it with respects to women and minority religions is reprehensible?
GuyinTaiwan has it right…[/quote]
I second that. I read his post and I thought… “Fucking A!” I could not have said it better. Let them chop each other’s heads off, indeed. It’s happening just about everywhere else on the planet as it is… There are conflicts everywhere. It must be a coincidence that the US is hugely dependent on oil and that the area of the world where the US is at war happens to also be where some of the biggest oil reserves are located. Pure coincidence…
With all due respect, some of you guys sound completely brainwashed as it is intended. If an idiot like me can tell that the offer of peace will not end the violence, I’m sure Obama knows at least the same… But it’s working for him because you’ll be right back here backing him up when he fires the missiles, and you’ll say “But… but… Obama gave them a chance to make peace.” :s
It’s all just showbiz, and Obama excels at it, obviously… Poor suckers.
marboulette
So basically, let’s just keep doing the same shit over and over and over and over. Boom boom bang bang. Sorry ma’am I killed your babies, but we are here to liberate the women. Oh, and by the way, You’re welcome!
This grows increasingly tiresome.
[quote=“Obama in Cairo”]Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. [color=#000000]That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.[/color][/quote]
For an idea of what that last sentence means, read Muhammad Yunus: Banker to the Poor, and consider the significance of his being awarded the Noble Peace Prize rather than the prize in economics. You might also have a look at a book by my favourite philosopher (and Obama’s colleague from the University of Chicago), Martha Nussbaum’s Sex and Social Justice. (You might even skim to the bottom of page 30 and read the sentiments of a young Bangladeshi woman and consider what she and women like her would say and teach their children about the US if the administration manages to cobble together a micro-financing program that’s even half as effective as the Grameen Bank.)
[quote=“marboulette”]The more I think about it, the more I think…[/quote]The more you type about it, the less I believe you have thought about it.
I think best would be to pull the troops out to back up the speech with some concrete action. Real peace begins with packing up your machine guns. I strongly recommend that anyone wait to see concrete amendments before they praise this speech…
marboulette
You don’t get it, Jaboney. There are things that the US will allow Muslims to do without the threat of military presence and retribution, and there are things the US will not allow without sending troops to fight for American ideals. Where does women being raped, acid burned and married to old men as pre-teens fit into this?
The bottom line is, I care a lot more about millions of female Muslims than I do about 3000 Americans killed on 911. It’s all pretty crappy, don’t get me wrong, but the numbers are overwhelming.
The more I read, the more I think you’d be up shit creek without a paddle even if you tried to think about it.
marboulette
[quote=“marboulette”]You don’t get it, Jaboney. There are things that the US will allow Muslims to do without the threat of military presence and retribution, and there are things the US will not allow without sending troops to fight for American ideals. Where does women being raped, acid burned and married to old men as pre-teens fit into this?
The bottom line is, I care a lot more about millions of female Muslims than I do about 3000 Americans killed on 911. It’s all pretty crappy, don’t get me wrong, but the numbers are overwhelming.
The more I read, the more I think you’d be up shit creek without a paddle even if you tried to think about it.
marboulette[/quote]
What about collateral damage? Children? Bush has killed about a million civilians so far. Is that worth it? What’s worse, them killing their women or us killing their women? If it was up to me, we would stay out of it. We’ve already had vengence for 9/11 more than ten times over. Enough!
I read this assuming that you read the part where I said to you that i think it would be best to pull the troops out.
Sounds like we’d like to see the same thing, except you think Obama is doing the right thing and moving in the right direction while I think he’s taking you for a ride. Time will tell.
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]
What about collateral damage? Children? Bush has killed about a million civilians so far. Is that worth it?[/quote]Of course it wasn’t. But it would be more worth it(less wasted) if it was fought for millions of women instead of 3000 Americans. I wanted to puke when Obama was telling how tragic the death of 3000 innocents was on 911. Of course it’s tragic. It’s about as tragic as it gets… But it doesn’t pale in comparison with the million killed by the US as you pointed out. How dare he ask for sympathy for the death of 3000 Americans after his army has killed so many people? Pull the troops out and I will believe you. Until then, I’m not counting my chickens.
marboulette
I don’t know if you’ve read Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Relin. If you haven’t, you should. It’s about Mortenson’s journey, starting circa 1993, to build schools in the mountainous region of Northern Pakistan. His goal is for all the children to be able to go to school, but most important to him is that girl’s are able to be educated.
On page 234 there is a brief bit on his side trip to to Bangladesh and the Philippines to see civil reconstruction projects there. In Cavite he visited the Rural Reconstruction and learned about the most effective micro-finance projects for the poor (bicycle taxis and cigarette stands) and in Bangladesh he visited BARRA (Bangladesh Rural Reconstruction Association). The name to remember is Amartya Sen, an Indian economist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998. His work found that when you educate girls, you can change a culture.
The only issue I can see is that US government funds are viewed, rightfully so in many cases, as toxic. No one believes that the US government is altruistically giving them money. They believe it’s the CIA or a front company that is giving them funds to gain leverage to influence their decisions. Maybe if the government funds were given over to some of the current micro-finance organizations (like Kiva.org) that it would work but I don’t think so. We may be able to give countries funds to expand literacy for young women, but once the money is out of our hands I’m afraid it will get diluted or waylaid. Look at all the foreign aid we’ve given Africa and other developing countries. Once we hand it over it ends in some minister’s pocket. There has to be a better way than just handing it out to be wasted year after year after year.
[quote=“marboulette”]Exactly what I was trying to say. Take action to help the people, the women, the children, and then we’ll be going somewhere. A message of respect and understanding?" Maybe… But it’s just a speech. The saying “action speaks louder than words” was never better applied. Nice speech, but the US troops are still out there… And they are not coming home anytime soon. Mark my words…
The more I think about it, the more I think that Obama is setting the pace for another eight years of this madness… He offered peace to everyone… So I guess everyone will have to take him up on that offer or else they will look like the bad guys, and then Obama will, as his predecessor did, have a well mediated green card to keep waging wars. Except this time, he will be fighting against those who refuse to seek peace; those who refused to seek common grounds, those who basically did not listen when Obama said “The cycle of violence must end.” In other words, Obama handed over the hand of peace… Whoever doesn’t reciprocate is going to have the world’s population against them for not making peace with such a nice guy like Obama.[/quote]
Yeah it’s a long war and should be called that. It will be multi-decade, generational and will require a lot of effort. One of the main focuses, besides security, should be to try and rid Afghanistan of as many mines as possible. We’ll see what happens, but you should note that the US still has troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Only one of those three previously mentioned locations is under threat of attack now.
We can’t pull out quickly without destabilizing Iraq and instigating a three-way civil war, or worse, a regional war. The Shia vs the Sunni and the Kurds pulling out with Turkey attacking them to prevent a Kurdistan from being formed. With Afghanistan it’s worse because the Afghan government is so fucking corrupt. If the US pulls out there, the Taliban will come back with a vengeance. There needs to be something else to grow that is more profitable than poppy seeds for the opium fields to go away.
The Long War Journal. Here is a website with pretty accurate information on the “Global War on Terror”, which they just call the Long War. Their analysis is very good and their maps are evident that this will be a long, hard fight.
No, of course not.
But it’s a solid first step down a new path, a path we should have tried ages ago.
No, of course not.
But it’s a solid first step down a new path, a path we should have tried ages ago.[/quote]
It’s not a step going anywhere. It’s just a speech. And if he knows that the conflicts will not stop while he pledges to not close his eyes to it all, what does that tell you? Praising peace and progress but drawing the line at WMD, terrorists and Israel. Where’s the change? Same goddamn thing except he’s fighting for peace and progress from now own… Smart guy…
marboulette
Ok, you win marboulette. YOU should be President of the World. No more words, just action. YOU can invade every nation on Earth where women, children and small animals are mistreated, or injustices are felt, sending in troops to set it all straight and establish peace and justice. Chiayo, god bless and godspeed. 
Mother Theresa: I’m not claiming every single Muslim is an idiot. What I am claiming is their cultures and religion are fucking useless. Actually, worse than useless. At its heart, Islam is fucked. It was founded by a paedophile who put the Arabian peninsula to the sword and then urged his follows to continue the tradition. That’s its philosophical heart: submission to barbarism.
You mention a handful of people and extrapolate that the cultures are all right. I’m sure there are a handful of people in Iran who like to drink wine too, but you’d hardly go on to say they’re a wine-loving culture. The Muslim world is notable for its distinct lack of ideas and contributions to human progress over the past half millenium or so. The list of Nobel Laureates was simply illustrative of that. I know it doesn’t jive well with your culturally relativistic world view, but it really isn’t a co-incidence (nor is it some conspiracy, otherwise how about all the Japanese Nobel Laureates?) that the white man has made the greatest contributions to science and the arts in the past half millenium. It’s because we went through very particular socio-philosophical changes that most of the world didn’t (though certain parts are finally getting with the programme). How did Europe go from being way behind the Islamic world, China, etc., to conquering them? How do you explain why some pissy little nation in the North Sea managed to not only conquer half the world, but churn out scientists, inventors, etc. by the boatload? How do you explain why, of all the ex-colonies of European nations, certain of that country’s former colonies have been the most successful? Or why, on the whole, former Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish or French colonies (not to mention those of the minor colonial powers) continue to be basket cases? Not all cultures are equal.
Or you snub them, insult them, threaten them, belittle them, denounce them and antagonize them, making them become even more extreme in their despotic behaviors and guaranteeing failure in the quest for peace and justice.
Or you do none of the above: you do what Obama did.[/quote]
As has been mentioned by me and others, it has nothing to do with threatening them. My take on foreign policy is fairly isolationistic when it comes to the Muslim world. I would simply like for the civilised world to withdraw from dialogue with them. Why shouldn’t we denounce them? Should we just pretend that their gross records of human rights are kind of okay because it’s more important to keep the peace?
They will become more extreme for one simple reason: they have a monopoly (actually a cartel, but whatever) on a particular resource. As such, they can hold the rest of the world to ransom. They’re the ones antagonising the rest of the world because the rest of the world is so dependent upon oil. Notice I said the rest of the world. I’m talking about a whole lot of countries that have never had, and will never have, any military involvement in the Muslim world. That’s a complete smoke screen.
The failure of the Middle East in particular, and the Muslim world in general, to get with the programme and come into the 21st century is two-fold, as I have been saying all along. The first problem is Islam. It’s a virulent scourge on this planet, although I believe if we solve the second problem, it will largely have to modernise and de-fang itself. The second problem is oil. As someone else has pointed out, oil has been a curse, but not only for the Middle East, for many other parts of the world by association.
If, as people always claim, the Muslim world is largely moderate and just wants to get on with life, then let’s get off oil so we can depose the autocrats (or at least make them irrelevant to our existences) and let’s let McDonald’s and Coca Cola depose the mullahs. As has been suggested already, how about we pump all of that money that goes into foreign aid into developing a viable alternative to oil run vehicles?
To suggest one kultur is inherently superior is to ignore the ebb and flow of history. All civilizations have historical flaws and attributes. Western Civ. has had it’s share of low points, or is it convenient to forget incidents that are not readily apparent to those with an axe to grind?
You really live in a moral vacuum, don’t you?
All right. Who has killed how many in the Middle East over the past 10 years? Please tell us. And be sure and cite your sources. I imagine that they will be “interesting” ones.
Dr. McCoy: Please give us a citation on that. I hope that you are not using the flawed and now thoroughly discredited Lancet study? the Iraqi government puts the number of dead at 90,000 to 110,000 depending on which figures are used. Not all of them were civilians. Some were terrorists, insurgents and criminals. But let us assume that the max of 110,000 civilians were killed is correct. Who is responsible? The US? Saddam? the Sunnis? the Shias? the Kurds? Al Qaeda? Gangsters? Organized crime? thuggish police? why is this all laid at Bush’s door (he is not president any more by the way)? Also, does Bush get a “credit” if we determine that more people were likely to die under Saddam had he not been overthrown? So, if Saddam had a 30% probability of invading Kuwait again with a death toll of say 250,000, would preventing this give Bush a saved life credit of 80,000 (30%) and thus reduce the number of dead on his shoulders? Just curious to see how you stretch this out…
To suggest that is not the case is a bit obtuse. You are sick: where do you want to be treated and by whom? Indian traditional medicine? Chinese? African? Incan? Mayan? Aztec? Muslim? Western? You want to receive a good education: where do you want to be educated? I think that we know that the answer is the West as this is where millions of the developing world’s students come. Why? You are a woman: Where do you want to live? You are gay: where do you want to live? You are an adherent of a non-majority, nonestablishment faith: where do you want to live? You are accused of a crime: where do you want to be tried and prosectued and if necessary where would you want to go to jail?
Anyway, I understand the need not to look down on other cultures, but let’s not pretend they are all equal. The UN and other organizations have studies where they determine social and cultural development indices. I think that these are a fair assessment of the quality of life and the ability to develop as an individual in any country or region on earth. Let’s not pretend that these factors are not real and do not exist because we have been taught some crap about all values and systems being equal. It simply is not true. Much more important in my view is to say despite this that all PEOPLE are equal and all PEOPLE have the right to develop and that they should be accorded with certain inalienable rights. If that is in place, these kinds of discussions are unnecessary.
Let me put it another way: French or German food? Obviously France has a far more glorious tradition when it comes to food than Germany. Do we need to pretend that such is not the case? Italian statuery and Aztec stone carvings? Which tradition is richer? More developed? Obviously Italy but does that mean no one recognizes the value, beauty and importance of the Aztec traditions? No. Carry that on further and you will get into the areas that I am talking about albeit without the cultural baggage of having to pretend that objective standards for world development, art, rights, etc. do not exist.