Internationalist, every action taken in a society has an effect on another person. No, you lie! Obviously that is true to a certain extent, what I am saying is that if that action has a direct negative effect it cannot be allowed to happen. Under the classical harm principle if what you are doing is physically harmful to someone else you cannot do it, I personally extend that to if you are negatively affecting someone’s constitutional/judicial rights. Like I said, what if I don’t like long hair? You going to make everyone cut it for me? Obviously not because as an arch liberal I believe you can do whatever u want with ur own body, it is not my place to tell you what not to. As that is stupid then whom is it that decides what it acceptable behavior within a society? No one, that’s the beauty of liberalism, the only thing that decides what is acceptable is no one because no one is morally superior to anyone else. There is no moral code in a liberal society the only code is that of the harm principle, and the way to get to a decision is through democratic debate, but imo I don’t like mass democracy the best is go through legal channels to judges who are bound by a liberal constitution that isn’t sectarian like a religion would be, if the argument is persuasive then it will be law, in Afghanistan there was no argument it was blind retarded faith playing its sad games all over again. Hence if in Afghanistan the society deems it immoral for a woman to show her face in public – well then, it’s immoral in that society. That’s quite an assumption you make, Afghan society did not decide anything only a small clique of thugs who were not regarded as the legal rulers of the state who took power in an essential coup d’etat in 1996 I believe. If Afghan society had “decided” as you said why is that women are now allowed to walk around without the burkha, and why was it prior to the 1979 invasion women were in prominent positions in the Afghan gov’t? You support GW Bushes campaign in Iraq; I must assume you support the Chinese one in Tibet? No there is a false dichotomy because the Chinese invaded Tibet based on historical claims to that land; also it was an example of Maoist imperialism. GWB did not invade Iraq to actually colonize it like the Chinese have in Tibet; GWB did not overthrow a legitimate leader (the Dalai Lama arguably was), the Chinese haven’t given the people their democratic right of self-determination, GWB has. So I don’t see the relevance of your argument in this context. (1) I’m concerned that you feel millions of women are being raped? Do you think that so many Muslim men are raping Muslim women? I don’t think so. I was being hyperbolic, but historically I am sure that millions have been raped as a result of this disgusting bit of that religion. We know that in Pakistan at the very least if a man cheats on his wife it is the wife’s fault for not satisfying his needs, and she is the one who has a bucket of acid thrown on her face. That may be more tribal then Islamic, but nevertheless it is intertwined. (2) You know that we could save millions and millions and millions more if we spent on food, medicine, and education what we spent on war. Have you no sympathy?!? I agree, I support the increase in foreign aid in humanitarian purposes and GWB has increased the spending on aid. I as a neo-liberal believe that much of the third world’s poverty stems from hicks who seem to like their grandiose agricultural subsides which forces me to buy food at artificially high prices, and condemns millions into poverty, capitalism is the answer. You support Bush spending our money to foolishly try to kill, cajole, and manipulate a country to adopt Western principals. He is not trying to kill people that is not the objective of the war as you propose it is. So I won’t dignify this with an answer. Would it not be much wiser if the USE gave that “Pretty Idea” a go and instead fed, educated, and medically treated the world. IT would nice if you were to read what I wrote prior I will show you again: I’m not disagreeing with this. Yes it sucks to be them. But I do not think it is my place to change them – other than by example, good works, and generosity. Whose place is it then? These idiots will not change on their own, who will change it for them? Its in the interests of their governments to keep them, poor, religious, and subservient. How can we do good works, etc. if we are barred from interaction with these people, or they distrust us? Also, yes it sucks to be them, can you imagine being taught the crap in some 2000 year old superstitious book! But still, it’s not my place to force them to live like me. I am not forcing them to live like me, I am not forcing them to eat my food, speak my language, practice what I believe, and wear what I wear. If anything I am giving them the greatest source of freedom, liberty to do what you want on the individual level. This is the propaganda against liberalization, that it means Americanization it only becomes that if the people want it. “I don’t care what you say the Qur’an is true”. Well he can believe all the idiocy he wants, I won’t tell him differently what I will say to him is that although you may believe that tripe it is not to be imposed on me or anyone else, if so then your rights will be tamed. And that’s an University educated person right here in the Liberal West. Indoctrination can be very harsh to be fair, but I suspect that most people are intellectually malleable enough to change. You should ask your friend if he will raping his tired wife soon?
Whose place is it then? The breathtaking arrogance. To the administration’s critics, however, the Wolfowitz scheme is possibly one of the most dangerous aspects of the war, an ideological hubris that foretells other conflicts and the likely creation of a new generation of anti-American terrorists who will be determined to drive an imperial U.S. out of the Middle East. Bestowing democracy on Iraq through war carries a whiff of previous colonial rationales for empire, a kind of modern-day White Man’s Burden, the claim that imperialism was justified because it brought civilization to dark corners of the world. Yet given the deception and jingoism pervading the American war debate, many in the world may no longer see the U.S. political system as the preeminent model of democracy, that shining city on the hill serving as a beacon of freedom and reason. Instead, the world has the picture of a U.S. president making life-and-death decisions with schoolboy declarations, such as "Fuck Saddam." The agitprop, the crude lies and the other public-relations techniques that have rallied the nation to war make the beginning of Bush’s "crusade" to rid the world of "evil" look more like the Stupid White Man’s Burden. http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/consortiuml.htm
I'm not sure what your vision of society is? But it seems that those societies that flourished in the past come in all sors of different shapes and colors. Japan for one puts society over the individual and they seem to be doing quite fine? Anyway, you yourself have put your morals, under the cloak of Universality, as superior to others. I think maybe it is the world moral that is the sticking point? All societies decide what is and is not acceptable. I do not think I have the right to tell another society what is or is not acceptable in their society. Fair enough and I supported the toppling of the Taliban. They did host the people who attacked our country. And as a victim become victor I suppose we can choose the manner in which they will be subjected – according to our own moralist principals, as has always been the case in all of history. Really, it’s no ones place. They WILL change albeit at their own pace. Islam didn’t used to be so intolerant. I’m sure as the West found ways around the ME to trade with the East and the ME saw their influence and money dwindle away, that this is when Islam started on to become less tolerant. And as Europeans conquered the globe, including the ME – well the rest is history. I think America is doing now what the Europeans did then. Internationalist, I get the feeling you have a long-term goal of undermining the Islamic belief system? I truly hope THAT isn’t what this is about? There really isn’t the amount of neither money nor oil in the ME, genocide aside, to do that. True and I agree. But doesn’t cutting subsides infringe on their individual choice, which is to put the squeeze on government officials to make sure they get to screw you over in the wallet. I would have thought that you would be the first to defend their Individualistic actions? And what is the purpose of the war? Do you think it has ANYTING to do with OIL? Why didn’t we attack NK instead? How does that reflect on the Bush’s cozy relationship with KSA? OH? And killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is going to gain our trust? That’s ludicrous! As I said, most people in the world trust China over the USA now! How bad is that? If anything Liberalism is being undermined by Bush! Also, the USA itself is no where near this Liberal utopian, so why worry so about Iraq? And why Iraq of all places (could it be oil oil oil oil oil and what does Bushes family own oil oil oil oil oil .. ... .) Did you know that when the oil hit $55/barrel Texan oil companies made in 1 day what took them all the year before to make. How many days has it been? They're swimming in it!
The invasion and colonization have nothing to do with TODAYS goal of ousting Superstitious Buddhism from Tibetan society and replacing it with Atheistic rationalism thought. The English colonized Australia, New Zealand, the America’s yet we needn’t bring in this injustice to talk about TODAYS happenings. In the same manner Tibet has already been conquered and colonized by China (and yes the Chinese are shitting all over the Tibetans and no I don’t think it’s fair.) BUT restricting the question to JUST THIS ONE ASPECT and accepting that Tibet is NOW controlled by CHINA and has been for a generation: Do you think that it is OK for the PRESENT DAY Chinese, who control Tibet, to replace the indigenous supernatural irrational chauvinistic belief system of Tibetan Buddhism (that just so happens to have a really nice spiritual leader called the Dali Lama) with a system of Rational Universal Atheism? Please limit your response just to this question.
Oh I thought this was interesting: Among countries viewed in positive terms by Australians, the United States with 58 percent ranks below countries such as New Zealand (94 percent), the United Kingdom (86 percent), Japan (84 percent), Singapore (83 percent), China (69 percent) and France (66 percent). If even a staunch ally like Australia blanches at the US, ranking below China, what do ME countries think? I mean, if the war is SUPPOSEDLY going to somehow promote Liberal Values abroad then why does the BBC Poll show this: What The World Thinks of America Asked who was the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than Al Qaeda, by both Jordan (71 per cent of vote) and Indonesia (66 per cent). Aren't these the countries we WANT to Liberalize? OR America was also rated more dangerous than two countries in the so-called axis of evil: it was rated more dangerous than Iran, by Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria by all the countries, except for Australia, Israel and the United States. And as you can see from above, AU still have a low opinion on the US.
Sure call what you will, but its not unjustified arrogance America has spread democracy to many places in the world Japan, Germany, Eastern Europeans looked to the United States as a example, it was US pressure that liberalized East Asian states, and although the US has in the past supported illiberal regimes something I denounce in a holistic perspective the United States has indeed brought freedom to millions against the evils of totalitarianism, in order for liberalism to survive it must never end the struggle, if we do we will end like the Ummah, irrelevant.
I'm not sure what your vision of society is? I don't have a vision for society, I am not an idealist like that. My vision for society is one of tolerance, and acceptance of other people's way of life, a society which allows one to do what one wants as long as it dosen't harm others in a negative fashion. I have no value system at play here that is what sets me apart from others. But it seems that those societies that flourished in the past come in all sors of different shapes and colors. Japan for one puts society over the individual and they seem to be doing quite fine? Sorry but Japan is a liberal society, there may be a tendancy in Japanese culture for communitarianism but they are still a constitutional state which is based on western liberal ideas of individual freedom, and Japanese society doesn't put the nation over the individual anymore like they did in the pseudo-liberal dynastic era of the 1800's and early 1900's. Japan like Germany show how American aid, and benevolence has changed these societies from warmongering, hate filled, superiority complex consumed societies into ones that are very much against war, and into industrial giants. Anyway, you yourself have put your morals, under the cloak of Universality, as superior to others. What morals have I spoken of here? What values have I placed on people here? Yes my way is superior from a rational perspective of course it is, and I have never met anyone who has been able to disprove the ethical backing of liberalism...are you even a liberal michael? If so why do you hate it so much? I think maybe it is the world moral that is the sticking point? All societies decide what is and is not acceptable. I do not think I have the right to tell another society what is or is not acceptable in their society. Yes you do have a right, because we are one world society what effects them affects us does it not as u insinuated earlier in this thread? They obviously felt they had a right to tell us on 9/11, or in the suicide bombings, etc. Its a battle for the hearts and minds of the world, and although it will be a struggle I am more then confident that liberalism will prevail because it is non-discriminatory, its not based on superstition, and its permeable. Fair enough and I supported the toppling of the Taliban. They did host the people who attacked our country. And as a victim become victor I suppose we can choose the manner in which they will be subjected – according to our own moralist principals, as has always been the case in all of history. Sorry Mike but u can't run away from your assumptions that easily, you stated that the "Afghan people decided" to have the burkha instated as a law, do you now agree that is showing that your position of "moral relativism" is in essence nonsense? Really, it’s no ones place. Its like saying its not the mothers place to fed her son, the law of nature of survival will do it for her. No it is our place to help these people find enlightenment, I am happy that the internet is spreading the word of enligthenment to the world, but its not enough there has to be a concerted effort against tyranny we can do it, most Iraqi's may not like the fact that Americans are there but they like the fact that they get to choose their government now, America is only a means not an end as you and others consistently address it as. I think America is doing now what the Europeans did then. Wrong, quite incorrect the Europeans invaded these nations, to exploit their resources, putting in puppet regimes which would do their bidding to keep the population quiet, America has not done that America hasn't painted Iraq and Afghanistan with stars and stripes. Internationalist, I get the feeling you have a long-term goal of undermining the Islamic belief system? I truly hope THAT isn’t what this is about? Oh it will be undermined by itself, to be fair I want to undermine all religion not just Islam. I just find that religion to be pacticularly abhorrent considering today's standards. To be fair they want to overthrow us, I remember seeing a map of the world coloured green to symbolize Islam's "destiny", and many ppl in the Middle East believe that nonsense. Since they will disappointed since they can't even work together with their "muslim" neighbours, those people aren't going anywhere. Sure they can topple our buildings but we can nuke their cities. Let's hope they don't get to brave... True and I agree. But doesn’t cutting subsides infringe on their individual choice, which is to put the squeeze on government officials to make sure they get to screw you over in the wallet. I would have thought that you would be the first to defend their Individualistic actions? Subsidies is ANTI-THETICAL to libearlism because to pay for those subsidies people have to be taxed, the market isn't allowed to work. I don't have choice as to where my taxes go, so no it has nothing to do with liberalism. And what is the purpose of the war? Do you think it has ANYTING to do with OIL? Why didn’t we attack NK instead? How does that reflect on the Bush’s cozy relationship with KSA? NK has a million man army, the ability to destroy Seoul a major economic centre, has 16 nuclear weapons, and delievery systems, you tell me Mike? Was oil a factor, won't deny it obviously, but it wasn't the only motive behind the war, there are MANY. OH? And killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is going to gain our trust? That’s ludicrous! As I said, most people in the world trust China over the USA now! How bad is that? If anything Liberalism is being undermined by Bush! The point here isn't trusting the US, I agree most people don't like the US and that is price the US is wiling to pay obviously but most people appreciate their democratic rights being protected, I guess you can call us the nessecary evil. Also, the USA itself is no where near this Liberal utopian, so why worry so about Iraq? Like I said consistently libearlism is a battle that will never really end, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't spread it. One of the way liberalism will prevail is if it spreads. And why Iraq of all places Its in the middle of the region, its the heart, perfect base.
I am American and I would also like to see those values spread but through example and encouraging other countries. I am against spreading those values through war and I believe that will be unproductive ultimately. That is what Napoleon did.
Yes what napoleon did was spread liberal ideas to all of Europe, without him Europe would have been under authoritarian rule for much longer. Napoleon saved liberalism, and promoted it throughout Europe. Thanks for comparing Bush to Napoleon...does him justice.
Yes, that can be argued but democracy and ideas about human rights have also been spread without war and war is a costly way to spread human rights.
How does not fighting it promote human rights? There are wars which are justified, sure some will suffer in war no question, thousands of American dead, thousands of Iraqi dead, American international reputation at all time lows, etc. But through adversity comes peace, and calm. Remember I don't disagree with any of you that the US is seen in a bad light in Iraq and the region, but Democracy and liberalism isn't, as shown by the voter turn out. So fighting this war did spread human rights to 50 million people.
we'll see what happens once the government gets put in place. just because an election was held doesn't mean that the government wont be a puppet regime. remember, we controlled every aspect of the elections
Internationalist, Am I a Liberalist? I would agree with about everything I have come to think Liberalism to stand for, but so would most republican Americans – or Americans for that matter. Hell, most people for that matter . . . or so I would think? I’m not a fan of any religion, but I wouldn’t take the right to worship away from another. Also, I still want to know what you think about Tibet? Like I said, because the invasion and colonization of Tibet has already occurred; and unlike the Europeans conquering the Americas, Australia, New Zealand etcetera, China actually has a cultural connection with Tibet. So, I don’t want to address the injustice of the Chinese conquering Tibet, because it has already occurred and that’s the end of it. Tibetans will probably lose their language, religion, and way of life in much the same manner as Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians or Maori have. As there are all sorts of things to talk about with regards to Tibet, I want to restrict the question to JUST ONE ASPECT. Accepting the fact that Tibet is NOW conquered by CHINA and has been for a generation: Do you think that it is OK for the PRESENT DAY Chinese, who control Tibet, to replace the indigenous supernatural irrational chauvinistic belief system of Tibetan Buddhism (that just so happens to have a really nice spiritual leader, whom in the past one could say is a benevolent-dictator or a God, called the Dali Lama) with a system of Rational Universal Atheism whereby women ARE finally the equal to men? Thus destroying the indigenous chauvinistic Tibetan-Buddhist culture and replacing it with a Liberal Atheistic one? Do you support this? Please limit your response just to this question.
first of all, when america invaded iraq it did not seek to promote democracy but for reasons of personal profit, thats why they are seen in a bad light. The iraqi people voted for stability, which this war disturbed. it has little to do with democracy and more for the want of a normal stable life (which was there) untill the war started. And adversity causes more adversity there has never been a war that resulted in peace, or left a country better than it was before.
To add on to what was said already, how can one fight for human rights? At least 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants have been killed so far (many estimates going as high as 100,000), the infant mortality rate has doubled since we have "freed" Iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm, and we have pissed off the rest of the world, including various "human rights" comissions. You cannot bring peace through the barrell of a gun and you cannot bring about human rights by killing and terrorizing people. Although, I must say, Orwell would have been proud of your question.
At least I know I will forever be safe from the international community. By their own rules, they can't touch America under any condition.
I don't support bush precisely because he was elected President. *bleep* this democratic nation that i live in! democracy is a bunch of bull****, a plague that has spread across this world, being forced down people's throats at gunpoint! It is my understanding that the Iraqis were much happiers under thier monarchy, wasn't it? A nation that allows a crazy right-wing zealot (bush) to become president is quite f***ed up, if you ask me. I say make the US part of the Commonwealth, i know many in this city(Louisvill) who would gladly accept a semi-monarchy as a government over a system that is allows morons to become leaders. Most of these people are my close assosiates. If it's not obvious that I'm a monarchist, you're still better qualified than Bush... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you're missing several points. A. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a weird cross between a democratic republic and an empire. Therefore, we have no right to spread "democracy." B. Our brand of democracy is hardly democratic. Holding elections does not make one a free country. Take Afghanistan: The US actually sponsered and contributed to the campaign of their newly "elected" president. Having Americans take over the oil (which is the real reason we are there - don't kid yourself) is not democratic. Killing thousands and thousands of civilians with bombs they can't even fight back against is not democratic.... C.Bush was not elected as the president. He was appointed by the supreme court in 2000 and used political clout and a rigged system to win again in 2004.
