Reading through so many of these threads, the bias and selective concern of so many posters is readily apparent.
To save and unify the West, what standards and objectives can we draw up here? Also can we come up with a moral yardstick that would determine on a scale of 1-10 just how serious abuses are both in terms of their nature and in terms of how that particular government or system attempts to limit or deal with them.
Say for example, invasions, international law, terrorism, torture, women’s rights, children’s rights, quality of life, religious freedom, etc. My main concern would be to draw up some kind of unified position from where not only the United States, but Europe and the rest of the West view and deal with the Middle East and its multitude of problems.
No I am serious. If we are going to deal with these problems, I think we will have to deal with them together and right now I don’t see any objective standard other than hysterical handwringing and America bashing for what we are supposed to be doing, how we can help and when we should judge.
The only liquid for lunch today was water. I have had a terrible sore throat all day and it is getting worse and I have a boring dinner to get through yet tonight albeit at one of my favorite restaurants.
Universal standards? How about you lot starting with 220/240v so we don’t have to travel with all these bloody adaptors? How about starting to use Celsius? How about using PAL instead of crappy NTSC? How about building cars that don’t take up both lanes of the highway but have bugger all space inside? That may be analagous of the US psyche…
I have a boring dinner to get through yet tonight albeit at one of my favorite restaurants.[/quote]
Tomorrow’s headlines will report the story of Taipei Bon Vivant found unconscious with head in soup. “He didn’t want to chip in to pay the bill” mentioned restaurant manager Sum Fing Wong…
Bloody good start. And can you sort out your bloody mobile phone system as well. The rest of the world uses GSM 900 and 1800.
And get rid of those fecking red indicator lights on the back of cars. Christ the number of times I’ve been hit because you can’t tell if the guy’s braking or turning or his light’s defective. Really, the rest of the world uses a different colour (orange) for indicator lights. It’s not rocket science.
(When I say “the rest of the world” obviously I’m not including Taiwan in there. I mean I’m not that daft.)
And maybe those few western democratic countries (ok, just one country) that don’t follow the standard accepted norms on capital punishment can change too ?
That argument has been done to death Matthew. European nationals in certain EU countries support the death penalty by margins as high as 80 percent and in very few countries does support for the death penalty drop below 55 percent. So… you want the US to become more enlightened but less democratic? That’s the point.
Also, we compared this with several other supposed backward qualities in the US. For example, given lack of support for the death penalty–guilty life-- as opposed to abortion – innocent life-- how does this gel morally? Finally, US abortion laws are actually much more liberal than those in many EU nations including Spain, Italy, Greece and even Germany so… don’t assume that Europe is as “enlightened” in the way that Lefties in the US like to pretend it is is in fact true. In many ways, the US population and European population are very much in sync over some of these issues. The problem is that the EU government is forcibly leading them to its vision of enlightenment in a very undemocratic, bureaucracy-dominated way.
And how about having the ground floor as ‘0’ like most of the world and not as ‘1’? I have wasted so much time standing in lifts waiting to go down one more bloody floor without realising that I was already there. Taiwan is misguided in apeing the American Way.
You want universal standards? That does not mean everyone has to move in the direction of the US. If you want to be sincere then perhaps you should adopt a more flexible approach to the voices of rationality and reason. Otherwise, why bother with this thread?
Where have the voices of rationality and reason been exactly? We have major squealing about a few abuse cases albeit some of them quite serious in Abu Ghraib but dead silence (pun intended) when Saddam was massacring hundreds of thousands.
I believe that the former Swedish prime minister made a very good case today in the Taipei Times editorial section about the willful forgetfulness of Europeans particular Germans who are so keen to wipe the stain of moral guilt from themselves and their country that they are eager to latch onto anything ANYTHING at all to lambast their former victims the Jews and Israel and the nation that freed them and set them on the right path, the United States. I must say Gunther Grass does make the case quite well in Crab Walk. An excellent book. As always, he has a very strong insight into the mass psychology of his home nation. The irony in the book is particularly delightful.
So rather than metric codes and elevator floors, what moral beliefs does the West stand for and how should it deal with nations that do not live up to them? Should it attack the US for any and all perceived failings while turning a blind eye to China, Sudan, Iraq (before), Iran, hell any Arab or Muslim nation just because nothing better is expected of them and well, that’s what they do?
At base, individual freedom and individual responsibility.
This may sound simple, but much flows from it logically. For example, free trade, democratic elections, private property, separation of church and state - the last being something that some areas of the world are yet to grasp. (And also, an area where Bush is in danger of crossing the line if he really tries to go ahead with a constitutional amendment on marriage shoight.)
This is the toughie. it comes down to practical assessments and cost-benefit analysis in many cases. I think there is probably a requirement that the nation poses a threat before they should act. (I think this requirement cannot be argued on moral grounds, rather on cost-benefit grounds). I don’t have any particular problem with pre-emptive action, but it does require a higher standard of proof, I guess.
Did the US meet this in the case of Iraq?
Before the war, based on what they (I think sincerely) believed, yes. With what we know now? Possibly, but its less clear cut to me.
Refugee center highlights huge numbers returning to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Hurray to America and its allies for ending this humanitarian crisis. Millions have returned to Afghanistan and over 1 million to Iraq. Everyone should celebrate the end of exile for these people.
Remind me why they left ? Weren’t the Russians and Yanks having some sort of a proxy war in the 'stan ? Didn’t Iran and Iraq have a bit of a spat as well a few years ago ? Which side was America supporting then, Iran or Iraq ? I forget.
The only real difference between Europe and America is we Europeans did all our crapping on the little countries a lot time ago, and America felt very smug at the time. Now it’s America’s turn and we’re smug.
Pot kettle black. A case of do as I say not as I do !
Yes, I suppose Soviet Russia and America are morally equivalent so your confusion over Afghanistan is understandable coming as you say from a European.
Second, the US did not start the Iran Iraq war and if you do not understand the security threat that Iran posed and why this prompted America to temporarily support Saddam well then it’s back to security policy 101 for you.
The two actions are hardly in the same book as say the German invasion of Poland or France’s colonial activities. They are perhaps more similar to support given by the US and UK to Russia during WWII despite Stalin’s awful human rights abuses.
I doubt this would work. The ‘moraility scale’ is determined by political agendas. For example, Bush-haters would assign a higher moriality offence number to the Iraq prision photos than, say, a Bush supporter who would assign a higher moriality offence to Saddam dipping people in acid. The scale would be based on people’s frame of reference and personal motives.
But why? Should there not exist a universal standard of morality and human rights behavior that can be used to judge all nations? I mean either you support women’s rights or you don’t. Either you support gay rights or you don’t but what does a border or different culture have to do with anything?
Second, if you look at civilian casualties, should there not be a moral yardstick to say, this scenario is worse than this scenario and therefore worthy of greater condemnation?
Surely, this should not be too difficult for the overall parameters.
If cultural values have to stop at the border, then can the US say that well our “values” are “different” than Europeans and as such “their value system” cannot be used to judge our actions in Iraq or the Middle East since our values have “American characteristics?” I think you see where I am going with this.
Well, liberal ideology is very much in line with what you just mentioned. It doesn’t even need to be about borders. Much of the left supports the general notion of “moral relativism” where “who is anyone to judge anyone else?” Of course, this logic comes back to bite them on the ass when it is clear they too have their own ‘agenda’ that they wish to force others into … no different than conservatives. To them “moral relativism” is just a vehicle to ram through their agenda … which by the way isn’t ‘relative’ as far as they are concerned.
My point is that a “point system” of morality could only be used to show the hypocricy of others’ ideas … and not really an objective measure of any means.
