Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 3:54:33 GMT -5
No I am a fan of Telling The Whole Truth (note, that's NOT the same as Telling The Truth )
I suspect Bush's motives, but Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of his chemical weapons, but most countries DID ACCEPT he: a - hadn't proved his got rid of these b - didn't comply with the UN.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 4:55:38 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. I'm with you Ynot. While mistakes have been made, in the big scheme of things the world has benefitted enormously from both Pax Britannica (1815-1914) and Pax Americana (from mid 20th century). Does anyone think Syria/Iraq would have been worse off if the West had intervened in Syria when Assad started to indiscriminately murder his own people? Do you think there would have been more than the thirteen million refugees who are currently displaced in the two countries? Would there have been over 200,000 dead in Syria, and since ISIS began their murderous campaign 20,000 dead in Iraq? In terms of development aid the numbers speak for themselves: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aidInterestingly the Arab world got lucky with oil wealth, yet they are conspicuous by their absence on this list apart from UAE. Who is working to arrest the spread of Ebola in African countries that have no strategic value to the West?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 4:59:59 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. Don't forget that Saddam gave the UN inspectors the run-around and failed to comply with his UN obligations.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 5:07:13 GMT -5
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. Most of what you say here is good but you spoil it with the following: Looks like you've been watching too much of Michael Moore.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 5:24:01 GMT -5
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. Singapore was one of those "poor oppressed Western colonies". After independence from Britain they were thrown out of the Malaysian federation very much against their will (they were not Muslim enough). Instead of wallowing in self pity and blaming the West for all of their problems they opened their markets to world trade and investment and behaved as good global citizens. Singapore's GDP per capita quickly grew to third highest in the world, much higher than the United States. Hong Kong was another "enslaved and exploited" British colony whose people were intelligent enough to realise they could be part of the global economy without oil and with little else but a good harbour and enterprising people with a positive attitude. Hong Kong's GDP per person is equal with that of the United States.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 8:03:35 GMT -5
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. Most of what you say here is good but you spoil it with the following: Looks like you've been watching too much of Michael Moore. We control all the resources. How much benefit does the ordinary citizen of Nigeria obtain from the oil extracted from their country? That's what I mean... the West has controlled Nigeria for a very long time, and the ordinary person there is getting little or nothing. I haven't seen Michael Moore do anything on this.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 8:08:04 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. I'm with you Ynot. While mistakes have been made, in the big scheme of things the world has benefitted enormously from both Pax Britannica (1815-1914) and Pax Americana (from mid 20th century). Does anyone think Syria/Iraq would have been worse off if the West had intervened in Syria when Assad started to indiscriminately murder his own people? Do you think there would have been more than the thirteen million refugees who are currently displaced in the two countries? Would there have been over 200,000 dead in Syria, and since ISIS began their murderous campaign 20,000 dead in Iraq? In terms of development aid the numbers speak for themselves: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aidInterestingly the Arab world got lucky with oil wealth, yet they are conspicuous by their absence on this list apart from UAE. Who is working to arrest the spread of Ebola in African countries that have no strategic value to the West? The problem is that the incidents are not "mistakes" but how the West works systematically in the 'have not' countries.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 8:21:49 GMT -5
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. Singapore was one of those "poor oppressed Western colonies". After independence from Britain they were thrown out of the Malaysian federation very much against their will (they were not Muslim enough). Instead of wallowing in self pity and blaming the West for all of their problems they opened their markets to world trade and investment and behaved as good global citizens. Singapore's GDP per capita quickly grew to third highest in the world, much higher than the United States. Hong Kong was another "enslaved and exploited" British colony whose people were intelligent enough to realise they could be part of the global economy without oil and with little else but a good harbour and enterprising people with a positive attitude. Hong Kong's GDP per person is equal with that of the United States. I don't know much about Singapore, but Hong Kong was just a British outpost and a centre for British trade and military influence in China. True, they parlied that into becoming a commercial nexus between the West and Asia, but it happened because they were islands that the West could use, moresoo than just having a positive attitude. The Vietnamese people have a positive attitude also, but it took military struggle for them to get anywhere. Same with many other Asian countries - they shook off the West to move forward economically.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 8:51:46 GMT -5
No I am a fan of Telling The Whole Truth (note, that's NOT the same as Telling The Truth ) I suspect Bush's motives, but Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of his chemical weapons, but most countries DID ACCEPT he: a - hadn't proved his got rid of these b - didn't comply with the UN. They accepted it based on the word of the President of the USA that he had intelligence of WMD as a clear and present danger. The dupes included me, and apparently some people still believe the lies we were told. The invasion of 2003 did not occur because of Husseins attack on Iran and the Kurds in the 1980s. If you remember there was a brutal war on then between Iran and Iraq, and we were backing Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 24, 2015 10:20:03 GMT -5
It might be interesting to contrast this comment -
- with the experience of the oil industry in Nigeria.
First of all, I do believe that independent countries are responsible for their own well-being. Some independent countries do well, others not as well.
But when the USA invades a country like Iraq, decimates their infrastructure, and locks out a major ethnic group, the Sunni's from all good jobs, then they have a moral responsibility for the outcome. (That signal event of disenfranchising the Sunni's led to the insurgency and ultimately to ISIS if you trace the events through.)
Nigeria's experience with oil is an interesting study because the oil wasn't discovered until the mid-1950s and Nigeria became independent in 1960, so through most of that history Nigeria was an independent country. Not knowing much about this particular subject, I read a little about it this morning, and have drawn a few conclusions from my reading.
The problem with Western capitalism is that we don't go to a country like Nigeria, and say, we think you have oil, allow us to transfer the knowledge and skill to your country, you will own the oil and the infrastructure, and then we'll trade with you as equals.
Instead what we do is build the infrastructure, put in our people to run it, and expect large profits in perpetuity based on our investment. This isn't a bad scenario between equals. Between the strong, already independent, self-sufficient Western economies the model of foreign investment works reasonably well. But in terms of a country like Nigeria, the structure that follows on from foreign investment is Western-run infrastructure that extracts the resource at the pleasure and to the benefit of the West, as well as the emergence of a very small enclave of local beneficiaries who enrich themselves from the production of oil, while suppressing the rest of the population, with violence as necessary, who get nothing.
My point is that the West went into Nigeria with an approach that tacitly keeps the country dependent and subservient. We did not go in with an approach that would ever allow them to emerge running their own independent, self-sufficient economy. Those countries that have emerged from the shadow the West has thrown in this way have done so by force, or by aligning themselves with Russia or China.
In the case of Iraq it's preposterous to suggest that they are in any way responsible for the current state of anarchy. You need only to read a history of the events of the last few decades there to convince yourself otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 24, 2015 14:11:28 GMT -5
Let's put it this way, 'We have a long ways to go, and hopefully we'll get there'. Personally I think we will get there. I see the 'individuals' changing and that's what seems to make the difference in the big picture in the end. Canada needs to get rid of Harper as far as I am concerned. He has sent us backwards in the eyes of the world, taking us from a peacemaker status to the aggressor in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 24, 2015 21:37:14 GMT -5
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. Whathat, your response raises many points of disagreement in my mind. I would enjoy engaging with you and other readers of this thread around some of these points of difference but feel constrained by the OP of the thread. In the next couple of posts, I will provide my perspective and how it differs from your comments and we can proceed with the discussion or desist depending on the interest expressed. You comment on the “level of ideas” produced in the West and then make a most curious observation. You say: “However, those ideas have seemed to apply only to the West and not so much to the Third World or emerging nations.” I cannot recall ever encountering this particular critique of Western culture before. Once conceived, developed and communicated, the level of ideas that you mentioned (Democracy, Thomas Paine, the US Constitution) would be available to any person, society, state or culture that would care to engage that idea. They need not accept the idea, they could disregard the idea, they could develop the idea further or modify the idea beyond recognition. But I fail to grasp why you would suggest that those ideas seemed to apply only to the West. What barrier do you envision as interrupting the germination capacity of an idea between societies? Empirical evidence would seem to suggest a scenario rather different from what you suggest. Does the evidence not suggest that the ideas emanating from Western culture, are actively inhibited from germinating in the “Third world and emerging nations”? What evidence is there at those ideas are not applicable due to a passive process rather than active interference. Right of assembly. Rather fundamental idea in Western society. Right of assembly is actively inhibited at the point of a gun for thousands of individuals in Camp #14 in North Korea. True, right of assembly is not applicable in that society but the reason for its lack of applicability is a gun. This is a highly selective and dramatic example but can any of us really imagine the consequences of that one idea taking root in that one society. From whence cometh the oppression and servitude? Western capitalism? Evidence does not support the assertion.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 24, 2015 21:43:00 GMT -5
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. In your response, whathat, you make another assertion that seems to me to be incongruous. You say: “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. ” I can accept your assertion that you do not look at “this” as blaming the West, but this is one reader who is unable to read your comment in any other light. You ask a single question about a condition that should be considered an intolerable offense to every member of the species “. . . . . much of the world still lies in oppression and servitude”. Then you ask, “To what?” implying “. . . . . to what does much of the world still lie in oppression and servitude?” You provide a single answer in the form of a single declarative statement: “Western capitalism”. And then for reasons that remain a mystery, you figuratively throw up you hands and proclaim “I am not blaming the West or insulting the West.” Very curious sequence of statements. “It is just how things are”, suggesting predestination. Are you really suggesting that the oppression and servitude in the world is just predestined fate and there is nothing we should aspire to do about it? Since Western capitalism is the only reason you offer for much of the world languishing in oppression and servitude, whathat, do you really recommend that the “new world order” unencumber itself from this leviathan. What system would you recommend we replace Western capitalism with? Should we wait and see what new systems emerge? Perhaps you are not suggesting the replacement of Western capitalism but rather its refinement and improvement. What improvements do you think we could implement that would bring freedom from oppression and servitude to much of the world?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 24, 2015 21:49:45 GMT -5
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. I appreciate the last two sentences in your response, whathat, and I agree with both statements. For what I am sure are very valid reasons you make no effort to identify or speculate about any of the factors contributing to hunger and disease relief. Permit me to tell one brief story about one contributing factor about which I am aware. 50+ years ago two Western institutions (the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, both the embodiment of Western capitalism) launched the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. The policy of IRRI was free access to all genetic material produced at IRRI available to the entire global community – FREE. In the mid 1960s Asia experienced a devastating drought that threatened massive famine conditions. IRRI had by then developed a rice variety with 10 times the yield of standard rice varieties. The new variety was given to farmers and the Philippines was able to achieve self-sufficiency throughout the drought years. Similarly Pakistan achieved life-sustaining yields through those years. That first rice variety developed at IRRI was not ideal and many more have followed. IRRI rice varieties are now found around the globe: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Brazil, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea, Burma, and the U.S. But this “success story” has not come without cost. I am not talking about the R&D costs, which have been non-trivial, but the cost of the “unanticipated consequences”. High yields mean high nutrient requirements. Who provides the fertilizer and at what cost? High environmental costs caused by high water use and run-off. Social costs resulting from the new resource capacity to sustain larger populations through years of favorable growth conditions. The West is held accountable for all of these “unanticipated consequences” and appropriately so. But explore with me for a moment the consequences of non-action by the West. Who among us wants to be held accountable for the death, misery and instability that might have been occasioned by a famine had the West’s idea been thought not to apply in this Third world/emerging country? These are serious and not-trivial questions that warrant more reflection and serious consideration than might be spawned by partisan ideological assertions.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 24, 2015 21:52:55 GMT -5
There is more, but I am tired. Good night all.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2015 21:53:29 GMT -5
Who is working to arrest the spread of Ebola in African countries that have no strategic value to the West? Are you kidding?
Stopping Ebola " has no strategic value to the West??"
Stopping the spread of Ebola has strategic value for the whole world!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 22:55:03 GMT -5
There is more, but I am tired. Good night all. I applaud your efforts to respond to these allegations Yknot. I considered it this morning and concluded its a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2015 23:11:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 1:06:10 GMT -5
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391650Islamic State has published a list of punishments ranging from 80 lashes for drinking alcohol and losing a hand for theft, to death for committing blasphemy. The Sharia code of conduct will be enforced in areas under its control which now covers large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Those who commit adultery will be stoned to death if the adulterer was married and lashed 100 times and exiled if he or she was unmarried. Those engaged in sodomy (homosexuality) will be sentenced to death, along with those who 'spy for the unbelievers'. Those who steal 'as part of banditry' will have their right hand and left leg cut off, and the punishment for terrorising people is exile. The terrorist group also released a video showing the two men being thrown off the top of a tower block in Raqqa, Syria, for being gay. The men were then bound and blindfolded before being pushed off the 100 foot tower block to their deaths. Down on the ground, two men accused of banditry have been tied to makeshift metal crosses. Strung up tightly with yellow and green ribbon around their wrists, the men were hanged from the crosses, wincing in agony'. And it's believed the Isis militants killed three of at least 15 pigeon breeders in Iraq after deciding it is against Islamic religion to keep birds this week. The extremists also executed 13 teenage boys for watching the Asian Cup football match between Iraq and Jordan last week.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 25, 2015 2:03:23 GMT -5
Come on, fixit!
I am not talking about stupid "conspiracy theories!"We are talking about reality.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 25, 2015 3:02:25 GMT -5
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391650Islamic State has published a list of punishments ranging from 80 lashes for drinking alcohol and losing a hand for theft, to death for committing blasphemy. The Sharia code of conduct will be enforced in areas under its control which now covers large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Those who commit adultery will be stoned to death if the adulterer was married and lashed 100 times and exiled if he or she was unmarried. Those engaged in sodomy (homosexuality) will be sentenced to death, along with those who 'spy for the unbelievers'. Those who steal 'as part of banditry' will have their right hand and left leg cut off, and the punishment for terrorising people is exile. The terrorist group also released a video showing the two men being thrown off the top of a tower block in Raqqa, Syria, for being gay. The men were then bound and blindfolded before being pushed off the 100 foot tower block to their deaths. Down on the ground, two men accused of banditry have been tied to makeshift metal crosses. Strung up tightly with yellow and green ribbon around their wrists, the men were hanged from the crosses, wincing in agony'. And it's believed the Isis militants killed three of at least 15 pigeon breeders in Iraq after deciding it is against Islamic religion to keep birds this week. The extremists also executed 13 teenage boys for watching the Asian Cup football match between Iraq and Jordan last week. This is how Muslims treat their neighbours, but they despise our Western freedoms. They say they revere Jesus as a prophet, but Jesus was not like that. Fixit I think that I misunderstood what you meant.
There are so many conspiracy theories floating around the world that is absurd. I doesn't surprise me that some are Taliban or al-Qaeda absurd ideas about the Western world & I realize that they certainly can do real damage.
I misunderstood what you meant with your statement, "Who is working to arrest the spread of Ebola in African countries that have no strategic value to the West?"
I apologize for my statement to you.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 3:32:03 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, I'm not sure what you're apologising for but never mind.
We all misunderstand one another on TMB I think!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2015 6:44:57 GMT -5
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391650Islamic State has published a list of punishments ranging from 80 lashes for drinking alcohol and losing a hand for theft, to death for committing blasphemy. The Sharia code of conduct will be enforced in areas under its control which now covers large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Those who commit adultery will be stoned to death if the adulterer was married and lashed 100 times and exiled if he or she was unmarried. Those engaged in sodomy (homosexuality) will be sentenced to death, along with those who 'spy for the unbelievers'. Those who steal 'as part of banditry' will have their right hand and left leg cut off, and the punishment for terrorising people is exile. The terrorist group also released a video showing the two men being thrown off the top of a tower block in Raqqa, Syria, for being gay. The men were then bound and blindfolded before being pushed off the 100 foot tower block to their deaths. Down on the ground, two men accused of banditry have been tied to makeshift metal crosses. Strung up tightly with yellow and green ribbon around their wrists, the men were hanged from the crosses, wincing in agony'. And it's believed the Isis militants killed three of at least 15 pigeon breeders in Iraq after deciding it is against Islamic religion to keep birds this week. The extremists also executed 13 teenage boys for watching the Asian Cup football match between Iraq and Jordan last week. Sounds like they are actually following all the OT laws.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2015 10:05:23 GMT -5
www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391650Islamic State has published a list of punishments ranging from 80 lashes for drinking alcohol and losing a hand for theft, to death for committing blasphemy. The Sharia code of conduct will be enforced in areas under its control which now covers large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Those who commit adultery will be stoned to death if the adulterer was married and lashed 100 times and exiled if he or she was unmarried. Those engaged in sodomy (homosexuality) will be sentenced to death, along with those who 'spy for the unbelievers'. Those who steal 'as part of banditry' will have their right hand and left leg cut off, and the punishment for terrorising people is exile. The terrorist group also released a video showing the two men being thrown off the top of a tower block in Raqqa, Syria, for being gay. The men were then bound and blindfolded before being pushed off the 100 foot tower block to their deaths. Down on the ground, two men accused of banditry have been tied to makeshift metal crosses. Strung up tightly with yellow and green ribbon around their wrists, the men were hanged from the crosses, wincing in agony'. And it's believed the Isis militants killed three of at least 15 pigeon breeders in Iraq after deciding it is against Islamic religion to keep birds this week. The extremists also executed 13 teenage boys for watching the Asian Cup football match between Iraq and Jordan last week. Sounds like they are actually following all the OT laws. Right out of the handbook of the likes of Stalin , Mao and countless others. If you don't agree with me or or if you disobey the laws I made, - off with your head. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2015 10:31:50 GMT -5
Sounds like they are actually following all the OT laws. Right out of the handbook of the likes of Stalin , Mao and countless others. If you don't agree with me or or if you disobey the laws I made, - off with your head. Alvin What does the bible say about adultery, homosexuality, children who disobey their parents, lying about virginity, etc. Are you saying these laws/rules were put in place by satan? Various groups follow the laws of their holy text. Let's not forget that christians killed 3 dozen christians in New England in the name of their god.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 10:44:06 GMT -5
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. Whathat, your response raises many points of disagreement in my mind. I would enjoy engaging with you and other readers of this thread around some of these points of difference but feel constrained by the OP of the thread. In the next couple of posts, I will provide my perspective and how it differs from your comments and we can proceed with the discussion or desist depending on the interest expressed. You comment on the “level of ideas” produced in the West and then make a most curious observation. You say: “However, those ideas have seemed to apply only to the West and not so much to the Third World or emerging nations.” I cannot recall ever encountering this particular critique of Western culture before. Once conceived, developed and communicated, the level of ideas that you mentioned (Democracy, Thomas Paine, the US Constitution) would be available to any person, society, state or culture that would care to engage that idea. They need not accept the idea, they could disregard the idea, they could develop the idea further or modify the idea beyond recognition. But I fail to grasp why you would suggest that those ideas seemed to apply only to the West. What barrier do you envision as interrupting the germination capacity of an idea between societies? Empirical evidence would seem to suggest a scenario rather different from what you suggest. Does the evidence not suggest that the ideas emanating from Western culture, are actively inhibited from germinating in the “Third world and emerging nations”? What evidence is there at those ideas are not applicable due to a passive process rather than active interference. Right of assembly. Rather fundamental idea in Western society. Right of assembly is actively inhibited at the point of a gun for thousands of individuals in Camp #14 in North Korea. True, right of assembly is not applicable in that society but the reason for its lack of applicability is a gun. This is a highly selective and dramatic example but can any of us really imagine the consequences of that one idea taking root in that one society. From whence cometh the oppression and servitude? Western capitalism? Evidence does not support the assertion. First of all, I meant to say that "those ideas apply only in the West". They are, of course, universally applicable ideas. There are obstacles to their implementation in other countries, that sometimes are not well understood. For example, representative democratic models do not work in countries like Iraq where there are strong factions that vote almost 100% along ethnic lines. Proportional models have been used and work well in multi-ethnic countries like Malaysia. But this is quibbling; the main point is that Western ideas on human rights, government structure, democracy and rule of law have been proven over centuries of time. What I meant by my comment is that those ideas are inhibited by active interference, as you indicate, but not by the countries in question, by the West. The West does promote these values, generally speaking, but the spread of those values is actively inhibited by economic interests. For example, we repeatedly make arms and economic deals with despotic governments for the sake of maintaining our economic interests. Nigeria provides a textbook example. In Iraq, after the invasion the USA suppressed the Sunni's in a fashion that went against every democratic ideal of equal opportunity and "one person, one vote". The USA installed the Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki, and acted surprised when he suppressed Sunni's once the USA had left the field. (Patraeus had achieved a level of rapprochement with the Sunni's which was the key element in the success of the Surge.) We don't consistently do the wrong thing, depending on who is in power, and depending on how badly our economic interests may suffer. The problem isn't in the people so much, I feel, as it is in the nature of capitalist behaviour. When corporate interests encounter a valuable resource within a weak country, history shows that the people there will suffer. They will become less democratic, not more, and they will be actively suppressed by their leadership and suffer abuse. That is the pattern.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 11:05:42 GMT -5
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. In your response, whathat, you make another assertion that seems to me to be incongruous. You say: “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. ” I can accept your assertion that you do not look at “this” as blaming the West, but this is one reader who is unable to read your comment in any other light. You ask a single question about a condition that should be considered an intolerable offense to every member of the species “. . . . . much of the world still lies in oppression and servitude”. Then you ask, “To what?” implying “. . . . . to what does much of the world still lie in oppression and servitude?” You provide a single answer in the form of a single declarative statement: “Western capitalism”. And then for reasons that remain a mystery, you figuratively throw up you hands and proclaim “I am not blaming the West or insulting the West.” Very curious sequence of statements. “It is just how things are”, suggesting predestination. Are you really suggesting that the oppression and servitude in the world is just predestined fate and there is nothing we should aspire to do about it? Since Western capitalism is the only reason you offer for much of the world languishing in oppression and servitude, whathat, do you really recommend that the “new world order” unencumber itself from this leviathan. What system would you recommend we replace Western capitalism with? Should we wait and see what new systems emerge? Perhaps you are not suggesting the replacement of Western capitalism but rather its refinement and improvement. What improvements do you think we could implement that would bring freedom from oppression and servitude to much of the world? I'm not fond of totalizing value assessments. "The West is good | bad." "Muslims are good | bad". Et cetera. "Western capitalism" is not "the West" in its entirety. The term refers to the system that regulates economic behaviour in the West, and I think it has indeniably done damage around the world. The economic system favours the West at the expense of emerging and Third World countries. It does not give those countries fair return for their resources and labour inputs, and it also damages the governance structure of those countries in the interest of economic stability. None of that means that the individuals within that system are bad people. My comments about the economic system are not meant as an indictment of the West, however, I feel that the reality of the functioning of the world's economic order does clash with some people's naive and altruistic illusions concerning capitalism. In a nutshell, I see that premise as "we've worked out a pretty good system here, and if the rest of the world would just follow it, everything would be fine". That is just false, and naive. As far as what would be a "better system". What would make a better system would be for Americans to stop clinging to the ideology that everything done in and by the USA is perfect, and nothing wrong with it. The system does not need to be changed, but there does need to be transparency and interest in foreign policy to limit or stop the damage, and create better relations. Look at the mistakes made in Iraq. Knowledgeable political scientists predicted that the invasion would result in the USA being embedded in Iraq for decades, and that the invasion would upset the delicate balance of power in the Mid-East. So, the USA invades, declares "mission accomplished" six months later, creates the Sunni insurgency, has to back peddle, and look where we are today. Why did the USA go in? I'm still not really sure. A very good film on how the US economic system works in emerging nations and the Third World is "The Corporation". It is available on Netflix, although it's also on DVD. www.thecorporation.com/It's basic premise, that corporations are inherently psychopathic, is not one that I share. But the information to back up this premise may well alter your operating assumptions. Another good book about how capitalism has operated in the Bush era is Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 11:30:10 GMT -5
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. I appreciate the last two sentences in your response, whathat, and I agree with both statements. For what I am sure are very valid reasons you make no effort to identify or speculate about any of the factors contributing to hunger and disease relief. Permit me to tell one brief story about one contributing factor about which I am aware. 50+ years ago two Western institutions (the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, both the embodiment of Western capitalism) launched the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. The policy of IRRI was free access to all genetic material produced at IRRI available to the entire global community – FREE. In the mid 1960s Asia experienced a devastating drought that threatened massive famine conditions. IRRI had by then developed a rice variety with 10 times the yield of standard rice varieties. The new variety was given to farmers and the Philippines was able to achieve self-sufficiency throughout the drought years. Similarly Pakistan achieved life-sustaining yields through those years. That first rice variety developed at IRRI was not ideal and many more have followed. IRRI rice varieties are now found around the globe: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Brazil, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea, Burma, and the U.S. But this “success story” has not come without cost. I am not talking about the R&D costs, which have been non-trivial, but the cost of the “unanticipated consequences”. High yields mean high nutrient requirements. Who provides the fertilizer and at what cost? High environmental costs caused by high water use and run-off. Social costs resulting from the new resource capacity to sustain larger populations through years of favorable growth conditions. The West is held accountable for all of these “unanticipated consequences” and appropriately so. But explore with me for a moment the consequences of non-action by the West. Who among us wants to be held accountable for the death, misery and instability that might have been occasioned by a famine had the West’s idea been thought not to apply in this Third world/emerging country? These are serious and not-trivial questions that warrant more reflection and serious consideration than might be spawned by partisan ideological assertions. I have never said that "the West" is bad. I think what happens is that people don't like the bad news stories, because, as I said, they want to maintain a "we are good", "everything is okay, and the universe is unfolding as it should" notion of reality. Give them some bad news, or puncture the sacred cow, and you get a very defensive reaction. Encounters with "the West" viewed from the perspective of a given Third World citizen can not be characterised in a single overarching way. Someone whose life has been changed by World Vision putting in a simple water well will have a different perspective from someone whose child was maimed by NATO bombs. As far as the interaction between the West and emerging nations or the Third World, there are good actors and bad actors, how do you characterise? There are also deep problems that were certainly not caused by the West: overpopulation, deep-seated ethnic and racial hatred, extremist religions, totalitarianism, Communism, to name a few. But there are also problems which have been caused by the West - military repression, proliferation of nuclear armaments, and a hierarchical economic system designed to support and maintain US lifestyle. “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”
He adds that the U.S. ranks highest in most consumer categories by a considerable margin, even among industrial nations. To wit, American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average Japanese. Meanwhile, Americans account for only five percent of the world’s population but create half of the globe’s solid waste.
The problem with this isn't just that we have more, while the rest of the world has less. The problem is the economic and political system that has developed to maintain our consumptive life style. And the fact is, the entire world can not live the way the USA does. If one billion Chinese live as 300 million Americans do, the Earth will be out of resources in a year. The Chinese in Beijing and Shang-hai already can not breathe with the cars they do have, and the Chinese are struggling to obtain enough feed for their pig population as pork consumption skyrockets. So, efforts to re-build the entire world on the US model (I guess, "every man a king") are bound to fail.
|
|