|
Post by fixit on Jan 23, 2015 16:05:54 GMT -5
Between the two World Wars Westerners turned a blind eye to two dangerous ideologies - Fascism and Communism. When they were forced to confront Fascism they were in poor shape militarily and confronting Hitler and his allies was the main priority. While Stalin's unsavoury regime was fighting Hitler's unsavoury regime, the West chose to support Stalin. You think the West had a choice? You're on to it! In international relations we are often stuck between a rock and a hard place, and without a crystal ball to help with the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 23, 2015 16:09:21 GMT -5
Do you think Patraeus is going to openly criticise either Bush or Obama, that is, his commanding officers? The implication that both screwed up is clearly there if you read the entire article.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 16:13:37 GMT -5
You think the West had a choice? You're on to it! In international relations we are often stuck between a rock and a hard place, and without a crystal ball to help with the decisions. Usually it is because we haven't learned from the past, but even without a crystal ball, common sense should be able to see the future.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 23, 2015 16:14:29 GMT -5
It could be said that the Obama administration betrayed the Sunnis by pulling out of Iraq too soon, leaving an oppressive Shia-dominated regime in power. It could also be said that the Iraqi people wouldn't have voted along sectarian lines if they were ready for democracy. Definitely the first statement is true. Obama is just the latest in a long line to do the wrong thing in Iraq. A number of things wrong with the second statement. Iraq isn't "ready" for democracy in the sense that history teaches you can not move directly from tyranny to democracy. It took France one hundred years. It took England a thousand. Where I take issue with you is blaming the Arabs for this, as if it is in their nature to not be able to handle democracy. It's just that a number of issues have to be handled before you can even think about democracy. The country has to be secure, and in Iraq's case, the Sunni-Shia issue has to be settled. Countries that tend to vote along sectarian lines need to guarantee that minorities (Sunni's in Iraq's case) will share power. Actually, I believe the Sunni's had positions in the Iraqi government but as soon as the USA withdrew, PM al-Maliki quickly made sure that all the power was held by the majority Shia's, a grave mistake when Petraeus had worked hard to include the Sunni's. I think we're in agreement on a lot of this. I have nothing against Arabs. I think they had a superior civilisation at one time than we had in the West. Their problem is mainly about religious extremism and I think its unfair to blame the West for that.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 23, 2015 16:18:27 GMT -5
Do you think Patraeus is going to openly criticise either Bush or Obama, that is, his commanding officers? The implication that both screwed up is clearly there if you read the entire article. I have a lot of respect for David Patraeus' opinion with respect to Iraq. No doubt Western leaders have made mistakes, but Arab leaders are not squeaky clean. Sunni tribes allying themselves with ISIS wasn't very clever. Some Sunni tribes are now lobbying the Obama administration for support in fighting ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 23, 2015 16:19:30 GMT -5
You think the West had a choice? You're on to it! In international relations we are often stuck between a rock and a hard place, and without a crystal ball to help with the decisions. That is not news to myself, nor do I think it is to Bob. But in terms of Iraq, the USA was not between a rock and a hard place. They had already brought Hussein low after the Kuwait invasion; there were UN sanctions and inspections in place. We all thought that Hussein was up to dirty tricks based on so-called US intelligence and claims of WMD by Bush and Blair. In my lifetime I can't think of a single incident in which we were so lied to by our own leaders. The invasion of Iraq was mainly a solitary US exercise, not endorsed by NATO or the UN. Canada stayed out of it. The US should never have gone in, or at least not gone in without compelling evidence of the WMD or some actual breach of terms by Hussein. I suspect one of the main reasons they did go in is that Russia was weak at that moment, so the USA was creating geographical bases and working with allies right underneath the belly of the Russian bear. And they wanted to secure Iraq's oil, although there is much controversy on that point. And finally, the US was very angry about 9/11 in a way we can't understand because it did not happen on our (Canadian) soil. I think that had a lot to do with the invasion of Iraq at a deep psychological level. www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 23, 2015 16:31:48 GMT -5
The invasion of Iraq was mainly a solitary US exercise, not endorsed by NATO or the UN. Canada stayed out of it. The US should never have gone in, or at least not gone in without compelling evidence of the WMD or some actual breach of terms by Hussein. I suspect one of the main reasons they did go in is that Russia was weak at that moment, so the USA was creating geographical bases and working with allies right underneath the belly of the Russian bear. And they wanted to secure Iraq's oil, although there is much controversy on that point. And finally, the US was very angry about 9/11 in a way we can't understand because it did not happen on our (Canadian) soil. I think that had a lot to do with the invasion of Iraq at a deep psychological level. www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economyThere were about 40 countries involved: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#List_of_countries_in_the_coalitionIf it was about oil for the West, why was China the biggest buyer of Iraqi oil?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 16:49:29 GMT -5
figures. thanks for the link
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 17:05:49 GMT -5
As you know, I don't buy the notion that the West is to blame for most of the problems in the Islamic world. However, I do agree that Wahibism and salafism as promoted around the world by Saudi Arabia is a huge problem for the entire world including Saudi Arabia. I'm interested in your thoughts on an alternative policy toward the Saudis going forward. Should the West put in place an arms embargo, and let Saudi Arabia collapse and become another Syria? The current policy with Saudi Arabia isn't the problem. The problem is the huge amount of hypocrisy that attends it. As I mentioned above, sometimes you do have to make a deal with the devil, and we agree on that score. I think we should just understand that the US is mainly acting out of its economic and military interests in many cases, and not much else. In that they're not much different than the other major powers, Russia and China. The problem with the 'hypocrisy' is that people in Western countries actually believe that the USA and other powers intend to help these countries, rather than just help themselves. In the minds of Americans this ridiculous idea that Americans are bringing democracy to the Arab world creates unrealistic and unfair expectations on the Arabs. They're getting kicked in the face by the West, and then when they react, we say they're not ready for democracy? If we take Iraq as an example, it's been one mistake piled upon another. The situation with ISIS today is a direct consequence of the US betrayal of Iraqi Sunni's. It's simply not fair to say that Arabs are not ready for democracy because of how they act, because the entire political and military process in Iraq has been mismanaged since the invasion, and actually, even decades before that. The Arab world has been highly factional for centuries. But US intervention over the last decades has increased tension and enmity pitting one faction against another. This began with arming what became the Taliban to fight Russia. Then giving Sadam Hussein teeth to fight the Iranians. Then invading Iraq to depose Hussein. Then working with Iraqi Shia's to fight the insurgency after the mission to depose Hussein was supposedly accomplished. Then making a deal with Sunni's to calm the insurgency, then abandoning that deal. All along the way the USA has left betrayed loyalties and animosity as it hop, skipped and jumped from one group to the next. www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really. Nothing they don't benefit from more than who they are helping in any case. library.uniteddiversity.coop/Money_and_Economics/confessions_of_an_economic_hitman.pdf
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 17:47:06 GMT -5
You're on to it! In international relations we are often stuck between a rock and a hard place, and without a crystal ball to help with the decisions. That is not news to myself, nor do I think it is to Bob. But in terms of Iraq, the USA was not between a rock and a hard place. They had already brought Hussein low after the Kuwait invasion; there were UN sanctions and inspections in place. We all thought that Hussein was up to dirty tricks based on so-called US intelligence and claims of WMD by Bush and Blair. In my lifetime I can't think of a single incident in which we were so lied to by our own leaders. The invasion of Iraq was mainly a solitary US exercise, not endorsed by NATO or the UN. Canada stayed out of it. The US should never have gone in, or at least not gone in without compelling evidence of the WMD or some actual breach of terms by Hussein. I suspect one of the main reasons they did go in is that Russia was weak at that moment, so the USA was creating geographical bases and working with allies right underneath the belly of the Russian bear. And they wanted to secure Iraq's oil, although there is much controversy on that point. And finally, the US was very angry about 9/11 in a way we can't understand because it did not happen on our (Canadian) soil. I think that had a lot to do with the invasion of Iraq at a deep psychological level. www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy I agree, it was such a bald faced lie by our US president. George W. Bush knew the truth of the Defense Intelligence Agency's report, but went ahead with the speech anyway.
Even I was concerned when we heard that report (now known to be false) from the mouth of our President.
On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons."
The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion; Secretary of State Colin Powell had told the United Nations Security Council, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."
The Pentagon team had been sent to investigate the trailers after the invasion.
The team of experts unanimously found "no connection to anything biological"; one of the experts told reporters that they privately called the trailers "the biggest sand toilets in the world."
The report was classified, and the next day, the CIA publicly released the assessment of its Washington analysts that the trailers were "mobile biological weapons production."
The White House continued to refer to the trailers as mobile biological laboratories throughout the year, and the Pentagon field report remained classified. It is still classified, but a Washington Post report of April 12, 2006 disclosed some of the details of the report. According to the Post:
"A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The survey group's final report in September 2004 – 15 months after the technical report was written – said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons."[83] Just think of all the lives lost & destruction of a country based on a known lie by one of the leaders of a country that is supposed be a haven of justice!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 19:28:26 GMT -5
I recorded Colin Powell's address at the UN. I believe he was used, big time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 19:37:04 GMT -5
I didn't think the invasion of Iraq was right but... Saddam DID have "weapons of mass destruction" Poison gas. He used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. When asked what happened to this gas he said he tipped it out in the desert "somewhere" and then hindered attempts to track this stuff down. As a result there was widespread acceptance that he still had chemical weapons stockpiled away somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 23, 2015 20:00:42 GMT -5
The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really. Nothing they don't benefit from more than who they are helping in any case. I strongly disagree with your perspective on this but my opinion is rather irrelevant. The current dynamics in world events suggest to me that rather dramatic changes are afoot. The U.S. appears to be withdrawing to the sidelines. Even if a reactionary effort is mounted, my sense is that the country is too fractured to have much cohesion moving forward. Europe seems to have significant economic issues with little political will to address them seriously. Russia appears to be driven by a strange combination of fear and illusions of former grandeur. China is starting to be driven by the consequences of unsustainable growth in population and economy. The tinder box in the Middle East seems destined to smolder indefinitely or until some group's apocalyptic vision finally strikes the match. South America seems chained in perpetuity to the inequities fostered since first contact by the imperial powers of Europe. Africa is the saddest region of all in my opinion. Their cultural heritage has been decimated by the colonial powers and they remain the stalwart but weak stewards of perhaps the greatest repository of resources for which all other global contestants clamor. Finally, India seems to rest somewhat uncomfortably in that middle distance where subsistence masquerades as adequate. This sad and pessimistic assessment of the near-term projection portends little joy. If your assessment, that "the West hasn't done many favors anywhere", then I suppose we can anticipate little change from what the world has experienced for the previous 500-600 years. If, on the other had, my belief - that our species has been the benefactor of great knowledge, artistic expression, personal fulfillment and compassion as a direct consequence of the efforts and sacrifices of Western Culture - then we can anticipate a near-term projection of considerable loss and pain. It is my hope that the good and wise folk of Canada and Australia will provide the world with the largesse that you find absent from the efforts of others of the West as the drift of history carries us forward toward a more perfect future.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 20:16:15 GMT -5
The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really. Nothing they don't benefit from more than who they are helping in any case. I strongly disagree with your perspective on this but my opinion is rather irrelevant. The current dynamics in world events suggest to me that rather dramatic changes are afoot. The U.S. appears to be withdrawing to the sidelines. Even if a reactionary effort is mounted, my sense is that the country is too fractured to have much cohesion moving forward. Europe seems to have significant economic issues with little political will to address them seriously. Russia appears to be driven by a strange combination of fear and illusions of former grandeur. China is starting to be driven by the consequences of unsustainable growth in population and economy. The tinder box in the Middle East seems destined to smolder indefinitely or until some group's apocalyptic vision finally strikes the match. South America seems chained in perpetuity to the inequities fostered since first contact by the imperial powers of Europe. Africa is the saddest region of all in my opinion. Their cultural heritage has been decimated by the colonial powers and they remain the stalwart but weak stewards of perhaps the greatest repository of resources for which all other global contestants clamor. Finally, India seems to rest somewhat uncomfortably in that middle distance where subsistence masquerades as adequate. This sad and pessimistic assessment of the near-term projection portends little joy. If your assessment, that "the West hasn't done many favors anywhere", then I suppose we can anticipate little change from what the world has experienced for the previous 500-600 years. If, on the other had, my belief - that our species has been the benefactor of great knowledge, artistic expression, personal fulfillment and compassion as a direct consequence of the efforts and sacrifices of Western Culture - then we can anticipate a near-term projection of considerable loss and pain. It is my hope that the good and wise folk of Canada and Australia will provide the world with the largesse that you find absent from the efforts of others of the West as the drift of history carries us forward toward a more perfect future. Have you read John Perkins book Confessions of an economic hitman? Individual corporations within the States and other Western countries have done things for other other countries, but government wise, not so much. I hope you noticed that I said the 'west' not the US? I was including Canada and Europe in that as they are part of the 'west'. Not sure why you would think Canada wasn't part of the west I was talking about and make your comment about how we might be able to do much better than the 'others'? We are part of the 'others' with a government that isn't better than others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 20:19:50 GMT -5
Snow quote - "The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really. Nothing they don't benefit from more than who they are helping in any case."
This is insulting on all sorts of levels. It is one of the main causes for the loss of confidence in Western values, WITHIN Western society. People who say this are trashing the Western ideals - the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the rise of democratic institutions, the Industrial Revolution, modern medicine (particularly vaccines) and the like which have raised the standards of people in non-Western countries, and kept most of them alive.
Its possible that one day all this will be lost on the West. Many developing nations (such as Singapore) have long admired the Western qualities I wrote above, but have warned their people about the darker side of Western civilization. Ironically, these are the very things created or promoted by our nihilists.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 23, 2015 20:21:39 GMT -5
Do you think Patraeus is going to openly criticise either Bush or Obama, that is, his commanding officers? The implication that both screwed up is clearly there if you read the entire article. I have a lot of respect for David Patraeus' opinion with respect to Iraq. No doubt Western leaders have made mistakes, but Arab leaders are not squeaky clean. Sunni tribes allying themselves with ISIS wasn't very clever. Some Sunni tribes are now lobbying the Obama administration for support in fighting ISIS. And they have a logical reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 20:28:34 GMT -5
I respect Obama's approach to all this. He has been criticised for "waiting too long" to "do something" about the invasion of ISIS, but his rationale seemed sound - ie do something about the Malaki govt. which helped fanned the problem in the first place. My family are all anti-Obama, calling him a "Muslim lover" but that's not my assessment. He's not another "guns blazing" Bush Jnr. and that's a Good Thing.
Lots of subtlety is required here.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 20:36:55 GMT -5
Snow quote - "The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really. Nothing they don't benefit from more than who they are helping in any case." This is insulting on all sorts of levels. It is one of the main causes for the loss of confidence in Western values, WITHIN Western society. People who say this are trashing the Western ideals - the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the rise of democratic institutions, the Industrial Revolution, modern medicine (particularly vaccines) and the like which have raised the standards of people in non-Western countries, and kept most of them alive.
Its possible that one day all this will be lost on the West. Many developing nations (such as Singapore) have long admired the Western qualities I wrote above, but have warned their people about the darker side of Western civilization. Ironically, these are the very things created or promoted by our nihilists.No because I'm not referring to the common people, or the institutions that have made contributions. I'm talking about governments and their so called help of poor countries very often made these countries poorer. I am not talking about culture or any of those kinds of contributions. I'm talking about economic 'help'.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 23, 2015 21:19:27 GMT -5
Have you read John Perkins book Confessions of an economic hitman? Individual corporations within the States and other Western countries have done things for other other countries, but government wise, not so much. I hope you noticed that I said the 'west' not the US? I was including Canada and Europe in that as they are part of the 'west'. Not sure why you would think Canada wasn't part of the west I was talking about and make your comment about how we might be able to do much better than the 'others'? We are part of the 'others' with a government that isn't better than others. We have a copy of his book and my wife has read it, but no, I have not read John Perkins' book, only reviews. I did notice that your assessment encompasses all of the West which as you say would include Canada and Europe. I think I can explain why I would bequeath to Canada and Australia the challenge of charting a meaningful path forward. First, my political persuasions are conservative, I place high value on the contributions of Western Culture to the welfare of mankind. As I look at the geopolitical map and real-politics, I anticipate a significant near-term erosion of influence by Western cultures in the affairs of global man, for the reasons outlined in the previous post. I believe that the loss of influence will open irresistible opportunities for less beneficent regimes to exert their influence around the globe. I have seen no evidence that the influence of these regimes will make a positive contribution to the welfare of mankind. I am not a student of political science but it is my perception that both Canada and Australia have achieved a level of autonomy and political stability that is not reflected in any of the other Western societies at this time. (I recognize that many in Canada are uncomfortable with the conservative party presently in control but the dialogue appears civil and constructive to an outsider.) I am an unabashed proponent of Western culture, I believe that Western culture has evolved more socially beneficial systems for human growth than any other culture. I believe that there is a higher probability for the continued evolution of human potential under conditions of shrinking resource availability under the auspices of Western culture than any other culture I have observed. Some may call my attitude chauvinistic, I plead guilty. Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) has for years observed and critiqued the political foibles of their partner states. By and large the critiques have been constructive and I believe that all (including Canada) have benefited from their efforts. But now the other Western cultural standard bearers have stumbled and become uncertain about the path forward. It is my hope that Canada and Australia will make the choice to step away from the "back bench" and step into a role of ideological leadership. If not now, when?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 23, 2015 21:52:39 GMT -5
No because I'm not referring to the common people, or the institutions that have made contributions. I'm talking about governments and their so called help of poor countries very often made these countries poorer. I am not talking about culture or any of those kinds of contributions. I'm talking about economic 'help'. Snow, I am afraid that you and I may have studied from different history books. The efforts of the allies to avert starvation in Europe devastated by WW I are legendary. The Marshal Plan, The Berlin Airlift, the political and economic stabilization of Japan after WW II all stand out as creative economic efforts by the West to reestablish countries devastated by years of war. Comparison of these efforts with the post-war economic recoveries of Eastern Europe are worthy of reflection. Should we be equally mindful of King Leopold in colonial Africa and United Fruit in Central America? Absolutely! Was Cecil Rhodes an unsavory character? Most Definitely. Is there justification for the phrase "Ugly American" in some of the exploits by the U.S. in Southeast Asia? Yes. I have not seen a study comparing the economic devastation caused by Western countries and that caused by Japan prior to WW II, if you have, I would be interested in a reference. But if you step back and take the long view do you truly believe that net-net "The west hasn't done many favors anywhere really." accurately reflects reality?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 23, 2015 22:15:49 GMT -5
I don't want to be over bearing but I would ask that you also consider the resources committed just in the past few years to minister to the poor and unfortunate following the tsunami in the Indian ocean and off the coast of Japan. Also the aid offered to Iran and Pakistan following the devastating earthquakes there in 2013.
I would never say that Western interests have never been served by economic development policies (some examples offered in the last post) but I really would like to see much more objectively reviewed data on the economic contributions of Western countries to the welfare and development of other less fortunate countries before drawing the conclusion that you suggested earlier regarding the impact of Western aid.
To the extent that we can marshal our resources in the future, I join you in hoping that we can continue to improve the mission objectives and measurable outcomes of future aid to those less privileged.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 23:30:52 GMT -5
No because I'm not referring to the common people, or the institutions that have made contributions. I'm talking about governments and their so called help of poor countries very often made these countries poorer. I am not talking about culture or any of those kinds of contributions. I'm talking about economic 'help'. The efforts of the allies to avert starvation in Europe devastated by WW I are legendary. The Marshal Plan, The Berlin Airlift, the political and economic stabilization of Japan after WW II all stand out as creative economic efforts by the West to reestablish countries devastated by years of war. Comparison of these efforts with the post-war economic recoveries of Eastern Europe are worthy of reflection. Indeed these are worthy of reflection.
I hate to sound a sour note, but why do you think that we did that after WWII?
Could it have basically been because we had learned our lesson from the way that we had treated Germany after the WWI?
The whole world suffered from the results of the way that we treated Germany then & is acknowledged by historians for at least one of the causes of the rise of Hitler & Nazism.
Perhaps we finally realized that a more stable economic climate benefits the whole world in the long run.
If so, at least we are learning something as we go, which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 23, 2015 23:53:17 GMT -5
Haven't followed too close here, but I'll take this opportunity to pass on a heartfelt sincere thank you from a lady we met at pearl harbour last year. She was from Laos, and when she found out we were from Canada, she asked us to please tell a big thank you to any Canadian we could get the message to , for the great effort and help that the Canadian government has been in clearing landmines in her country. Thank you Canadians ,from a diplomat and family from Laos, where some of your tax dollars have been put to good use. We promised her we would pass on her message, thank you
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2015 0:00:39 GMT -5
I recorded Colin Powell's address at the UN. I believe he was used, big time. So do I.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 0:43:49 GMT -5
I didn't think the invasion of Iraq was right but... Saddam DID have "weapons of mass destruction" Poison gas. He used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. When asked what happened to this gas he said he tipped it out in the desert "somewhere" and then hindered attempts to track this stuff down. As a result there was widespread acceptance that he still had chemical weapons stockpiled away somewhere. He used them in the 1980s. There's no evidence of him having any chemical or biological or nuclear weapons from 1995 to the invasion in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 1:10:36 GMT -5
Have you read John Perkins book Confessions of an economic hitman? Individual corporations within the States and other Western countries have done things for other other countries, but government wise, not so much. I hope you noticed that I said the 'west' not the US? I was including Canada and Europe in that as they are part of the 'west'. Not sure why you would think Canada wasn't part of the west I was talking about and make your comment about how we might be able to do much better than the 'others'? We are part of the 'others' with a government that isn't better than others. We have a copy of his book and my wife has read it, but no, I have not read John Perkins' book, only reviews. I did notice that your assessment encompasses all of the West which as you say would include Canada and Europe. I think I can explain why I would bequeath to Canada and Australia the challenge of charting a meaningful path forward. First, my political persuasions are conservative, I place high value on the contributions of Western Culture to the welfare of mankind. As I look at the geopolitical map and real-politics, I anticipate a significant near-term erosion of influence by Western cultures in the affairs of global man, for the reasons outlined in the previous post. I believe that the loss of influence will open irresistible opportunities for less beneficent regimes to exert their influence around the globe. I have seen no evidence that the influence of these regimes will make a positive contribution to the welfare of mankind. I am not a student of political science but it is my perception that both Canada and Australia have achieved a level of autonomy and political stability that is not reflected in any of the other Western societies at this time. (I recognize that many in Canada are uncomfortable with the conservative party presently in control but the dialogue appears civil and constructive to an outsider.) I am an unabashed proponent of Western culture, I believe that Western culture has evolved more socially beneficial systems for human growth than any other culture. I believe that there is a higher probability for the continued evolution of human potential under conditions of shrinking resource availability under the auspices of Western culture than any other culture I have observed. Some may call my attitude chauvinistic, I plead guilty. Canada (and to a lesser extent Australia) has for years observed and critiqued the political foibles of their partner states. By and large the critiques have been constructive and I believe that all (including Canada) have benefited from their efforts. But now the other Western cultural standard bearers have stumbled and become uncertain about the path forward. It is my hope that Canada and Australia will make the choice to step away from the "back bench" and step into a role of ideological leadership. If not now, when? Yes, of course at the level of ideas the West has produced a powerful legacy for the entire world. Democracy, Thomas Paine, the US Constitution and so on are incredible models on which to build. However, those ideas have seemed to apply only to the West and not so much to the Third World or emerging nations. And I don't think America has been in a position to do as much about that as they might like. Most of the world was under the thumb of European imperial powers until the early 20th century, and in the post-colonial hangover American influence has not been broad. That's not to say they haven't done a number of good things, but there have been many other influences as well. I think that you and Snow are speaking of two different things - Western culture and ideas as practiced in the West, and Western hegemony at work in the Third World and emerging nations. A good analogy would be the Magna Carta, which was a significant document in devolving power from the monarchy. It contained important ideas, but benefited only a tiny percentage of the British population, really just a few male lords. There has been a progression in emancipation through the English population ever since. First to the lords, then to landowners, then to the bourgeousie, finally to women and the general population. But little of that emancipatory movement was available to British subjects across the Empire until the Empire broke down in the early 20th Century. In later years, the British system profoundly affected governance in former Empire countries, to their benefit. But it took a long time to get there, and a slave on a Barbados plantation in 1800 was not likely very grateful for the British parliamentary system then. In similar fashion much, maybe most of the world still lies in oppression and servitude. To what? Western capitalism. I don't look at this as blaming the West or insulting the West. It's just how things are. Things have gotten much better across the entire planet in the last 5 decades in terms of hunger and disease, for example. But we have some way to go yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 1:39:57 GMT -5
Quote - "He used them (WMO's) in the 1980s. There's no evidence of him having any chemical or biological or nuclear weapons from 1995 to the invasion in 2003."
If this isn't an apology for WMO's then I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2015 2:56:12 GMT -5
Quote - "He used them (WMO's) in the 1980s. There's no evidence of him having any chemical or biological or nuclear weapons from 1995 to the invasion in 2003." If this isn't an apology for WMO's then I don't know what is. But we already knew about the gas, bert!
What was supposed to found & were not found, were totally different, chemical or biological or nuclear weapons!
W. Bush lied clear & simple and that is that!
Are you a big fan of W. Bush?
|
|