Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[213374U]

How is their culture less advanced?

If it lacks a fundamental component (whatever it is that's worthy of being implanted by means of force), doesn't that mean they are less advanced for not having developed and instituted it themselves?

[metadigital]

Meta seems to think that a democracy helps define an advance culture, while I do not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I just object to you defining freedom as an optional extra to civilization.

 

[metadigital]

How is their culture less advanced?

If it lacks a fundamental component (whatever it is that's worthy of being implanted by means of force), doesn't that mean they are less advanced for not having developed and instituted it themselves?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe they fundamental component is being withheld by a cadre of ne'er-do-well's with their own self-interests, rather than by a cultural omission.

[Sand]

That is your definition of freedom, meta. Not everyone has the same ideals of freedom as you do. Again, you are seeking to force western idealogy on a non-western culture. You cannot force these ideals on others and expect there won't be resentment and violence. Liberty cannot be forced. It must be chosen.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

That is your definition of freedom, meta.  Not everyone has the same ideals of freedom as you do.  Again, you are seeking to force western idealogy on a non-western culture.  You cannot force these ideals on others and expect there won't be resentment and violence.  Liberty cannot be forced.  It must be chosen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't hold with your latest tactical semantic redefinition of "freedom". Freedom is a universal ideal. I'm sure you'd understand if you weren't living in a free country.

[Sand]

I agree freedom is a universal ideal, and I am not arguing that one bit, however freedom must be earned in order to be appreciated. It is not something you can force on a culture, for it can only be chosen by a culture. Forcing western ideals on a non-western people will not work. If Iraqis want freedom they need to earn it for themselves. That is the only way it will last.

 

Tell me this Meta, which gives the longer feeling of fulfillment and appreciation:

1. Being given something?

2. Being forced to take something?

3. Earning something with your own sweat and tears?

Edited January 14, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

[213374U]

Maybe they fundamental component is being withheld by a cadre of ne'er-do-well's with their own self-interests, rather than by a cultural omission.

I can accept that. But then, why don't they rebel against that? Doesn't imposing it on them (or liberating them from those that would prevent it) somehow cheapen that achievement for them? Will they truly be able to appreciate it as if they had paid for it with their own sweat and blood?

 

I mean, it's like solving a rubik's cube. If somebody does it for you, it's just not the same.

[Sand]

Numberman hits it on the nose. :D

[metadigital]

Maybe they fundamental component is being withheld by a cadre of ne'er-do-well's with their own self-interests, rather than by a cultural omission.

I can accept that. But then, why don't they rebel against that? Doesn't imposing it on them (or liberating them from those that would prevent it) somehow cheapen that achievement for them? Will they truly be able to appreciate it as if they had paid for it with their own sweat and blood?

 

I mean, it's like solving a rubik's cube. If somebody does it for you, it's just not the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno if there is some sort of threshold of blood / sweat / tears / pain that magically conveys the "right" to freedom; certainly the Iraqi people have had twenty years of torture ... more than the Western democracies underwent for the atrocious battles of WW1 and WW2 combined. If nothing else, Sand's argument betrays that there is no heritable component to this "appreciation" ... by his and your logic we should ALL be out there killing or being killed to earn our freedom, every generation (at least).

[213374U]

I dunno if there is some sort of threshold of blood / sweat / tears / pain that magically conveys the "right" to freedom; certainly the Iraqi people have had twenty years of torture ... more than the Western democracies underwent for the atrocious battles of WW1 and WW2 combined. If nothing else, Sand's argument betrays that there is no heritable component to this "appreciation" ... by his and your logic we should ALL be out there killing or being killed to earn our freedom, every generation (at least).

No, I'm not talking about the right to freedom. And for the record, I'm just seeing how much we can stretch this logic until it breaks; I'm not taking sides either way. I accept they have the same right to freedom as we do. However, do they really want it? Do they want it bad enough to stand up and fight for it against those that would take it from them? That's what I'm not so sure of. Freedom starts on the inside. You and I aren't out killing for it, but we probably would if it was in jeopardy.

[Jorian Drake]

We are trying to force western democratic ideals on a group of people who do not share those ideals.  They have their own culture.  Their own social mores that they adhere to and trying to force ours on theirs, no matter who we ourselves don't like them, will meet strong resistance and resentment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he means cultural and legal differences what exist, no racism.

 

An other example would be Japan, they had to change their ways to be similar to 'western' ones, but enough remained of their ancient culture what some people dislike, or find crazy, but noone can deny they are effecient, honourable and 'tech-gurus' because they have their culture, original laws, and traditions still influencing their lives all day and all time.

 

 

Nations and their cultures in Africa and Middle East are greatly tied to the fact that they are islam, their ways are islam ,their laws are islam, and their methods are islam.

 

While europeans seem to loose their roots to christianity because our nations were build on individuals and royal ties, the muslims can only be gratefull for their existence today because of their faith. We have our basics in nation, ruler, culture, and they have theirs in faith.

 

(Of course i do not deny the fact europe wasn't infuenced by our own faith, but that had great impact the last time in the crusades and reconquista. And the chism in the Church -Calvin, Luther, ect.- only weakened the faith in God and faith as the First Law* meanwhile nobles and other worldy people gained more influence and power in matters formerly decided by clerics.)

 

 

All these actions in those nations outside your 'influental sphere' only prepares a new war, waht could be WW3, but more possibly a new crusade/muslim 'convertion of heathens by sword'.

 

While I would be one of the first to join a crusade to retake Constantinople (as example) I do not think we can only act with violence in this case, but that needs that USA and other Western/insert any non-muslim nation just don't interfere in things what are simply not their buisness.

[213374U]

While I would be one of the first to join a crusade to retake Constantinople (as example) I do not think we can only act with violence in this case, but that needs that USA and other Western/insert any non-muslim nation just don't interfere in things what are simply not their buisness.

So, it's fine to stop genocide in Somalia but toppling a genocidal, totalitarian government is a no-no?

 

Interesting logic, indeed.

[Jorian Drake]

While I would be one of the first to join a crusade to retake Constantinople (as example) I do not think we can only act with violence in this case, but that needs that USA and other Western/insert any non-muslim nation just don't interfere in things what are simply not their buisness.

So, it's fine to stop genocide in Somalia but toppling a genocidal, totalitarian government is a no-no?

 

Interesting logic, indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

insert any non-muslim nation*

 

 

 

Ergo: Why not asking a neighbouring friendly (to you) nation to interfere next time?

 

There would be much less problems if the attacker would have been Saudi Arabia and not USA, whose dont share the same culture, ect.

If they would have DOW-ed Iraq and later USA would have joined on their side saying 'defending an ally' it wouldn't bee THIS awfull as it is now.

Most iraqians hate US troops simply because they arent arabian/muslim/ect.

 

PS: In Somalia there was Ethiopia

[213374U]

insert any non-muslim nation*

 

 

 

Ergo: Why not asking a neighbouring friendly (to you) nation to interfere next time?

 

There would be much less problems if the attacker would have been Saudi Arabia and not USA, whose dont share the same culture, ect.

If they would have DOW-ed Iraq and later USA would have joined on their side saying 'defending an ally' it wouldn't bee THIS awfull as it is now.

Most iraqians hate US troops simply because they arent arabian/muslim/ect.

 

PS: In Somalia there was Ethiopia

Would you find it sensible that police were only able to prevent a killing if they are in good terms with the aggressor?

 

And more importantly, do you think Saudi Arabia would get involved in anything because of a human catastrophe?

 

Really, you aren't making a very good job at concealing your anti-americanism.

 

You get points for the laugh, though. Keep it coming.

[Jorian Drake]

insert any non-muslim nation*

 

 

 

Ergo: Why not asking a neighbouring friendly (to you) nation to interfere next time?

 

There would be much less problems if the attacker would have been Saudi Arabia and not USA, whose dont share the same culture, ect.

If they would have DOW-ed Iraq and later USA would have joined on their side saying 'defending an ally' it wouldn't bee THIS awfull as it is now.

Most iraqians hate US troops simply because they arent arabian/muslim/ect.

 

PS: In Somalia there was Ethiopia

Would you find it sensible that police were only able to prevent a killing if they are in good terms with the aggressor?

 

And more importantly, do you think Saudi Arabia would get involved in anything because of a human catastrophe?

 

Really, you aren't making a very good job at concealing your anti-americanism.

 

You get points for the laugh, though. Keep it coming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice that you don't understand a word of what I said, and I am not anti-american, I am anti-idioticy....even doh today in nearly everywere in the world there seems to be a pattern that these two become the same in meaning.

[Sand]

The thing is we should only interfere if the people want us to interfere or we get a specific request of the powers that are in charge make such a request, while at the same time not impose our beliefs and ideals on these populations, but that does not mean we should support tyrants like we have in the past. However I think it is funny that at one time we had no problems in supporting and promoting tyranny and now we are trying to force democracy. Kind of hypocritical, isn't it?

Edited January 15, 2007 by Sand

[213374U]

Nice that you don't understand a word of what I said

Well, sorry. I haven't mastered the subtle art of doublethink quite yet.

 

 

I am anti-idioticy....even doh today in nearly everywere in the world there seems to be a pattern that these two become the same in meaning.

So you are not anti-american but you associate americanism with idiocy?

 

Err... okay.

[Jorian Drake]

The thing is we should only interfere if the people want us to interfere or we get a specific request of the powers that are in charge make such a request, while at the same time not impose our beliefs and ideals on these populations, but that does not mean we should support tyrants like we have in the past.  However I think it is funny that at one time we had no problems in supporting and promoting tyranny and now we are trying to force democracy.  Kind of hypocritical, isn't it? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, it would have been nice to (as example) get aid in 1956 in REAL after promishes already have been made, made a lot. Instead of focusing only on the Suez crizis.

 

I am anti-idioticy....even doh today in nearly everywere in the world there seems to be a pattern that these two become the same in meaning.

So you are not anti-american but you associate americanism with idiocy?

 

Err... okay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just stated the overall view of USA-s external affairs in the world of today.

You can blame that mostly to one person, the guy in the White House right now.

Edited January 15, 2007 by jorian

[213374U]

I just stated the overall view of USA-s external affairs in the world of today.

According to your eminence only.

 

 

You can blame that mostly to one person, the guy in the White House right now.

One person that was, incidentally, elected twice to lead the country by the (however faulty) democratic system of the US.

[Sand]

Well, I don't expect him to get much done now. With a Democrat controlled congress his options are very limited. Like I said, I hope Senator Harkin and Kennedy rally the Democrats to fight tooth and nail against the president on every decision on Iraq and force him to make a real change in his policy on Iraq.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Sand

[Jorian Drake]

I just stated the overall view of USA-s external affairs in the world of today.

According to your eminence only.

According to what you can see/hear in the world about USA now, and to what you can find on the internet or in your friendly 'K-Mart' while shopping.

Average opinion of USA is right now below that of North Korea, now that's something.

[213374U]

According to what you can see/hear in the world about USA now, and to what you can find on the internet or in your friendly 'K-Mart' while shopping.

Average opinion of USA is right now below that of North Korea, now that's something.

I expect you to post links, or [else your arguments have no power to persuade]. ) Edited January 15, 2007 by metadigital

[Jorian Drake]

According to what you can see/hear in the world about USA now, and to what you can find on the internet or in your friendly 'K-Mart' while shopping.

Average opinion of USA is right now below that of North Korea, now that's something.

I expect you to post links, or STFU. )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.jamaat.org/news/2005/march/4mar05_threat.html

 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/659/7227

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064083001492.html

 

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_..._once_again.htm

 

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-%20apr06-onions.htm

 

 

just some to show nitpicks (sp?) of what reactions USA has

[213374U]

http://www.jamaat.org/news/2005/march/4mar05_threat.html

 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/659/7227

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064083001492.html

 

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_..._once_again.htm

 

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/x-%20apr06-onions.htm

 

 

just some to show nitpicks (sp?) of what reactions USA has

Hassat? Is that you?

 

No, seriously. Show me a single page that at least has a semblance of objectivity that supports the crap you're spouting.

 

Also: I couldn't find a single reference to NK in the articles you posted.

 

Also: You are still a long way from proving that "average" opinion is what you claim it is. You know, average?

 

Also: Google is your friend, but don't overdo it.