|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 19:15:26 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 30, 2006 19:15:26 GMT -5
To EasyEd: Well, outside America, people feel the biggest threat to world peace is: the US. Not even Iran. (From latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey). But I guess they only asked academics and hate-America profs. Stop patronizing me, for the last time. "The real world" argument is not an argument, but an ideological opinion. I have my own. I have lived in numerous countries and traveled extensively. Ask people what they think of America next time you leave the States. I really despise the way you treat dissent. "I don't have a clue." If you don't like my arguments, ignore them. I'm not some drunk - I've thought a lot about this and read a lot. I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass. I'm sick of you always insulting people. Just put forth the argument and leave it at that. Being a frat-boy about it doesn't make you right and me wrong. It's funny how arguments outside America never resort to this level of "left=bad", "disagreeing with America=bad". I can disagree with British or German or Italian policies with people from those respective countries and NEVER have to endure your infantile insults (you hate Brits, you hate Germans, you hate Italians). Funny, eh? You and Cheney need to stop seeing everything from one vantage point (yours) and accept that there are 6 billion people on this planet that may just, surprise, have different opinions. Welcome to the real world. I am from now on not going to respond to posts of yours that include insults and arrogant smart-ass comments. I have better things to do with my time. I will continue to respond to your posts that state an opinion and make a coherent argument without polemical tricks and games.
Re empire: Niall Ferguson is as far right as it gets. Krauthammer and Max Boot are as neo-con as it gets: they think the US is an empire...
Frank, really do respect your arguments. I think the problem for me is that one should wage war when the reasons are close to 100% certain and unambiguous, and a last resort (WWII, 1st Gulf War, etc). This was neither. I feel like I've cited the arguments I have as best as a message board allows for (and you did for your side). It's not a good medium for even deeper exchange. I do understand the other side (on the left and right), and have chosen to disagree. I have no problems with that. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 19:26:38 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 30, 2006 19:26:38 GMT -5
Nitro - I would not change one word of my earlier response to you. If you consider the words to be an "arrogant smart-ass comment", that's your right. Interesting you did not respond to the substance of my post about communism, the real Soviet threat and your comments about the US going to war in Korea and Vietnam for self-interest. I experienced that era; I didn't just study about it.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 19:38:47 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 30, 2006 19:38:47 GMT -5
One more thing Ed. Just because (some) Americans think everything is about them and their paranoias and xenophobias doesn't mean the whole world needs to care. Americans, and especially American policymakers, aren't always right. Shock, I said it.* Oh, wait someone's knocking at the door. 2 guys in black suits and sun-glasses. Wonder, wha...ow, help, I, why, what did I do? Ouch? CAVITY SEARCH?! No, please, come on. No, that's not a portrait of bin Laden on my wall. It's, um, my, um...uncle! They bear a striking resemblance. Are those Ray-bans?! Ouch, do we really need cuffs... Oh come on, not the autographed Michael Moore t-shirt. Oh man. The burnt American flag remnants you ask? Uh, it's actually, uh, um, well, my room-mate did it! He's a real commie prick. Aaaaahh. Is that your hand up my a**. Oh come on man, I actually have a friend who's American. His name? Uh, Michael, uh, Smith from, um New York - aaaahhh - uh, Califo, aaaaahh, I mean Tulsa, OK. Also, Peter Miller from um, um, San Franci, AAAAAAAAAHHHH, I mean Seattle, aaah, uh, Mobile, Alabama. (Phew). The anthem? But I'm not even American?! AAAAAhhhh! I feel like I'm drowning. Oh, that's the point? A little harsh, no? "Oh, say can't you see, um, uh..." AAAAAhhhh. Looks like Cuba. Why am I in Cuba? I thought you hated those guys. Uh, oh... 3 years later: I've been cleansed, Ed. I am a good person now. Screw Muslims and Chinese. Let's get em - in my new Hummer. Right after our barbecue with my new friends - though they're all white guys in their mid-50s with lots of money and pink polo shirts. I LOVE country music. And NASCAR. "...and the home of the brave." First Iraq, then Iran, and then onto the prize: FRANCE! Yes, get the frogs. Enjoy the new me Ed. *P.S. Germans aren't always right. Shock. The Chinese (all 1 billion+) aren't always right. Shock.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 19:51:14 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 30, 2006 19:51:14 GMT -5
From Vaclav Havel, written in 1985. A man, you will agree is no academic, and experienced the dark sides of communism first-hand:
"The automatism of the post-totalitarian system is merely an extreme version of the global automatism of technological civilization. The human failure that it mirrors is only one variant of the general failure of humanity...It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilisation and industrial-consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in post-totalitarian societies... In a democracy, human beings may enjoy personal freedoms and securities that are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too are ultimately victims of the same automatism, and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficialisation or transcending concerns about their own personal survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis, making a genuine contribution to the creation of its destiny."
I don't believe the Western alternative is anything more than a better evil. I am very cautious about buying into the imperial notion of the city on a hill. We are all humans and frail and imperfect. Any system we breed needs to be assessed critically. You may think fighting communists, Chinese and Muslims is a worthy cause. I'm just not that sure that what we have to offer is all that great in ethical terms. Because it is just as human as what they are offering.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jul 2, 2006 23:16:02 GMT -5
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 2, 2006 23:16:02 GMT -5
Great string of posts, Nitro. Makin' me wish it was Summer '01, all over again bro (except that I'm looking forward to bball season 06-07 a lot more than bball 01-02!!).
|
|
|
Haditha
Jul 3, 2006 20:14:40 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jul 3, 2006 20:14:40 GMT -5
From Vaclav Havel, written in 1985. A man, you will agree is no academic, and experienced the dark sides of communism first-hand: "The automatism of the post-totalitarian system is merely an extreme version of the global automatism of technological civilization. The human failure that it mirrors is only one variant of the general failure of humanity...It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilisation and industrial-consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in post-totalitarian societies... In a democracy, human beings may enjoy personal freedoms and securities that are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too are ultimately victims of the same automatism, and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficialisation or transcending concerns about their own personal survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis, making a genuine contribution to the creation of its destiny." I don't believe the Western alternative is anything more than a better evil. I am very cautious about buying into the imperial notion of the city on a hill. We are all humans and frail and imperfect. Any system we breed needs to be assessed critically. You may think fighting communists, Chinese and Muslims is a worthy cause. I'm just not that sure that what we have to offer is all that great in ethical terms. Because it is just as human as what they are offering. You don't have to be a jingoist to dismiss this arrogant, relativist drivel. I have to wonder whether anyone who found themselves imprisoned for speaking out against the government, who never had an opportunity to choose for themselves what kind of leader they wanted, who watched friends and relatives gassed or beaten or murdered or disappeared, I have to wonder whether they would agree with you when you say that, in comparison, you're "not that sure that what we have to offer is all that great."
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 4, 2006 7:20:33 GMT -5
What are you saying?! Vaclav Havel was in prison numerous times for more than 6 years total!!!!!! He just happens to be one of the leaders against the totalitarian communist states, and the first democratically elected President of the Czech Republic. That's why I chose his quote. Here's a man who exactly fits the profile you lay out above. "Following the suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968 he was banned from the theatre and became more politically active. This culminated with the publication of the Charter 77 manifesto, written partially in response to the imprisonment of members of the Czech psychedelic band Plastic People of the Universe. His political activities cost him multiple stays in prison, the longest being four years, and also subjected him to constant government surveillance and harrassment. After his long prison stay he wrote Largo Desalato, a play about a political writer who fears being sent back to prison. He was also famous for his essays, most particularly for his brilliant articulation of "Post-Totalitarianism" (see Power of the Powerless), a term used to describe the modern social and political order that enabled people to "live within a lie". A passionate supporter of nonviolent resistance, he became a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution of 1989." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Havel
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 4, 2006 7:29:25 GMT -5
C2C, summer '01. Best time at G-town ever.
And yeah, I can def deal with '06/'07 bball over '01/'02 bball any time! Go Hoyas!
|
|
|
Haditha
Jul 4, 2006 10:58:46 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jul 4, 2006 10:58:46 GMT -5
What are you saying?! Vaclav Havel was in prison numerous times for more than 6 years total!!!!!! He just happens to be one of the leaders against the totalitarian communist states, and the first democratically elected President of the Czech Republic. That's why I chose his quote. Here's a man who exactly fits the profile you lay out above. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_HavelI wasn't referring to Vaclev Havel. I was responding to your description of our political system as being "not that great" compared to the alternatives we have discussed. Is this really what you believe?
|
|
|
Haditha
Jul 4, 2006 20:39:42 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 4, 2006 20:39:42 GMT -5
I can completely subscribe to the Havel quote. I believe that totalitarianism exists just as much in a democratic system as in any other system. Havel's quote is self-explanatory.
But what about the human cost of our system? Explain to me how a Gitmo is possible? Or a Weimar Germany? Or the mess that is Italy? Or the suppression of minorities in France? Or the genocide of Native Americans? Or Vietnam? Or Jim Crow? Or colonialism? The killing of numerous statesmen by Western regimes? The supply of weapons to strongmen around the world to suppress their people (check the country of origin of the weapons used by people like Idi Amin or Mobutu or Saddam)?
We talk about freedom and liberty and democracy and rule of law. That's wonderful (pat ourselves on the shoulder). To answer your question: Of course, I am better off in the London of 2006 than most people in history. But since when does sound analysis rotate around what benefits ME or YOU? Just because you and I are fine doesn't make the system great. Or is that your criteria? How free am I? How rich am I? How good is the healthcare system at my disposal?
I evaluate our system by looking at the plight of humanity, because I happen to not differentiate between the benefit of myself or my family or people I know (mostly in the West and well-off). 1 billion are doing fine. 5 billion are barely getting by or worse - much worse. 2 billion earn less than $2/day. 16% of people doing well sucks in my opinion. Our system is helping an absolute minority, located in a couple of countries and our lackeys in poor countries. Inequality is not only increasing statistically on a global scale, but within most countries too. Of course you think this system is great: you and I are doing great and doing better every year, as our all your friends and mine too. It must be good then right?
These are the stats that make my heart ache and despise the system that sustains and embellishes the global status quo. So yes, our system is "not that great" - unless you are white, went to Georgetown and have a great job, family and connections with people with the same fortunate life-style as ours. The West was built on the exploitation of non-whites (all countries in the West are complicit in this). When Hugo Chavez tore up the contracts with oil companies in December '05, all those companies (BP, Exxon, etc) re-signed within a couple of weeks for 3 times the previous price!!! They're smart businessmen: they knew they had been milking the country for decades. They would never have re-signed at those terms if they weren't making a profit. Multiply that with all the countries with natural resources and the 200 years of exploitation, genocide, rape and environmental degradation. That's an insane figure - and that's just the money we're talking about. How is it that the richest country in natural resources in per capita terms is also one of the poorest in GDP/capita terms? The country's the DR Congo by the way. Sure, you can blame it on Mobutu and the dumb Congolese who didn't get how to set up a democracy. More accurate in my mind would be to look at who is actually mining all those natural resources and paying off the strongmen. Their names are Big Oil, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Freeport-McMoRan, De Beers etc.
There's price to pay for the 1 billion or so people on this planet to prosper. The justification is that we are so good, while the others (all happen to be non-white and not in the West besides the Abramovitchs of each poor country) are "un-democratic" and "un-civilized". Therefore they need to follow in our foot-steps.
Several hundred thousand people die EVERY DAY due to the economic and political exploitation to fund our standard of living. Hitler's, Stalin's, or Genghis Khan's death toll is known because it took place on their territory. Our killings take place elsewhere, while we're watching Big Brother or Sex and the City and reading about Paris Hilton's latest affair. Just because we don't talk about the deaths of millions of poor people while we get fatter and wealthier and more decadent doesn't mean we don't have our own death toll that rivals anything any previous empire or dictator or Hitler or Pol Pot has done.
The only justification for our system is to create artificial divisions. Nationalism is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. By creating imagined communities about 200 years ago (before that the world didn't exist in nation-state form), we can create us vs them binaries that make the welfare of us and our nation a just enterprise. If other nations are worse off, it must be because they aren't as smart. Self-determination and sovereignty means we are not responsible for the plight of people without our passport. Otherwise we'd be breaching their sovereignty right? Add capitalism, and that gives you a (Protestant) ethic that preaches meritocracy and social Darwinism. Anyone can do well if they work hard and are smart, right? So the darkies around the world that are poor are...
But at least we're free to write on a message board, right? So it's all good. Pass the beer, bro - let's party tonight.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jul 5, 2006 20:59:23 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jul 5, 2006 20:59:23 GMT -5
I can completely subscribe to the Havel quote. I believe that totalitarianism exists just as much in a democratic system as in any other system. Havel's quote is self-explanatory.
How is a democracy 'totalitarian'? Isn't the definition of 'totalitarian' a state that controls all aspects of politics? How can a democracy do that?
But what about the human cost of our system? Explain to me how a Gitmo is possible? Or a Weimar Germany? Or the mess that is Italy? Or the suppression of minorities in France? Or the genocide of Native Americans? Or Vietnam? Or Jim Crow? Or colonialism? The killing of numerous statesmen by Western regimes? The supply of weapons to strongmen around the world to suppress their people (check the country of origin of the weapons used by people like Idi Amin or Mobutu or Saddam)?
Essentially, you are asking me why evil is possible. In order to answer, you'd have to talk to a priest, not a political analyst. People do wicked things, even essentially good people do awful things. I like Ronald Reagan, but I will never understand how he could support Jonas Savimbi.
We talk about freedom and liberty and democracy and rule of law. That's wonderful (pat ourselves on the shoulder). To answer your question: Of course, I am better off in the London of 2006 than most people in history. But since when does sound analysis rotate around what benefits ME or YOU? Just because you and I are fine doesn't make the system great. Or is that your criteria? How free am I? How rich am I? How good is the healthcare system at my disposal?
You have made the political system of the UK or US or any other democracy essentially responsible for the material prosperity of the rest of the world. The American constitution was not intended to solve the problems of the Earth, to expect it to do so is fanatical idealism. My argument is that a system that derives its power from the people is inherently more just to the governed within that political space than a system driven by an individual untested in an election. No matter how materially poor the nation in question.
I evaluate our system by looking at the plight of humanity,
This is, as I said, wholly unrealistic. Unless you can somehow devise a system that can "improve the plight of humanity" with the speed you evidently desire.
because I happen to not differentiate between the benefit of myself or my family or people I know (mostly in the West and well-off). 1 billion are doing fine. 5 billion are barely getting by or worse - much worse. 2 billion earn less than $2/day. 16% of people doing well stinks in my opinion. Our system is helping an absolute minority, located in a couple of countries and our lackeys in poor countries. Inequality is not only increasing statistically on a global scale, but within most countries too. Of course you think this system is great: you and I are doing great and doing better every year, as our all your friends and mine too. It must be good then right?
I loathe global poverty. And I think it is spot on to be outraged by its endurance.
These are the stats that make my heart ache and despise the system that sustains and embellishes the global status quo. So yes, our system is "not that great" - unless you are white, went to Georgetown and have a great job, family and connections with people with the same fortunate life-style as ours.
See, while I agree that we need to drastically improve the statistics you mentioned previously, I can't stipulate that the only people that benefit from today's global economy are those you describe here. The improvements in life expectancy, overall human health, and food production and decrease in overall hunger and poverty (in absolute terms) in the last three decades have been remarkable. In the last hundred years (and I'm talking about everywhere, including Africa), they have been nothing short of astonishing. The countries that are most integrated into the "global system" are those that have made the most enduring progress against poverty (China, India, Chile, Asian Tigers). Do we have a long way to go? Naturally. Is it as hopeless as you describe? No.
The West was built on the exploitation of non-whites (all countries in the West are complicit in this).
The West was built by technical innovation and creativity which allowed for an explosion in productivity and dramatic increases in life expectancy for those cultures that signed up. The agricultural revolution enabled a surplus of labor to fuel the growth. It had very little to do with the exploitation of non-whites.
When Hugo Chavez tore up the contracts with oil companies in December '05, all those companies (BP, Exxon, etc) re-signed within a couple of weeks for 3 times the previous price!!! They're smart businessmen: they knew they had been milking the country for decades.
I don't think much of oil companies, but they did find and tap the oil in the first place. Its not like they did nothing. I wish they would do to make sure that the money didn't go to people like Chavez or dos Santos or Obasanjo or the Saudi royal family or the mullahs, but I don't think it is really exploitation. I would say the real exploiters are these crappy leaders. I will agree that given the miserable state of most energy-rich nations, we ought to be working harder to rid ourselves of our dependence on oil imports.
They would never have re-signed at those terms if they weren't making a profit. Multiply that with all the countries with natural resources and the 200 years of exploitation, genocide, rape and environmental degradation. That's an insane figure - and that's just the money we're talking about. How is it that the richest country in natural resources in per capita terms is also one of the poorest in GDP/capita terms? The country's the DR Congo by the way. Sure, you can blame it on Mobutu and the dumb Congolese who didn't get how to set up a democracy. More accurate in my mind would be to look at who is actually mining all those natural resources and paying off the strongmen. Their names are Big Oil, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Freeport-McMoRan, De Beers etc.
I'm going to go ahead and blame Mobutu, based on Michela Wrong's account of the Mobutu years: 'In the Footsteps of Dr. Kurtz'. Don't get me wrong, the Europeans completely bolloxed up Africa, but they've been gone 40 years. Africans do a terrific job of screwing themselves these days. It is heartbreaking, but these days our sins are of omission rather than comission. I hasten to add that they remain sins. There's price to pay for the 1 billion or so people on this planet to prosper. The justification is that we are so good, while the others (all happen to be non-white and not in the West besides the Abramovitchs of each poor country) are "un-democratic" and "un-civilized". Therefore they need to follow in our foot-steps.
Well, their governments need to stop stealing money and build roads and schools and health clinics. And they need to institutionalize transparency, and create a predictable economic and political environment for firms, both local and foreign, to do business. They don't do these things and this has nothing to do with white people.
Several hundred thousand people die EVERY DAY due to the economic and political exploitation to fund our standard of living.
Footnote?
Hitler's, Stalin's, or Genghis Khan's death toll is known because it took place on their territory. Our killings take place elsewhere, while we're watching Big Brother or Sex and the City and reading about Paris Hilton's latest affair. Just because we don't talk about the deaths of millions of poor people while we get fatter and wealthier and more decadent doesn't mean we don't have our own death toll that rivals anything any previous empire or dictator or Hitler or Pol Pot has done.
I'll really need a footnote to know what you are talking about.
The only justification for our system is to create artificial divisions. Nationalism is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. By creating imagined communities about 200 years ago (before that the world didn't exist in nation-state form), we can create us vs them binaries that make the welfare of us and our nation a just enterprise. If other nations are worse off, it must be because they aren't as smart. Self-determination and sovereignty means we are not responsible for the plight of people without our passport. Otherwise we'd be breaching their sovereignty right?
I agree that we are too parochial. Part of this, but only part, stems from much of the world's complete inability to begin to help themselves. For example, electing a populist demagogue neo-socialist in Venezuela. That development scheme demonstrably doesn't work, but here we go again. But it wouldn't kill us to pay more attention to the billion or so people that are still in extreme poverty. In fact, I would say a renewed effort is morally obligatory.
Add capitalism, and that gives you a (Protestant) ethic that preaches meritocracy and social Darwinism. Anyone can do well if they work hard and are smart, right? So the darkies around the world that are poor are...
But at least we're free to write on a message board, right? So it's all good. Pass the beer, bro - let's party tonight.
I'm not sure who in particular you are pillorying. But I don't think you have presented much of an argument against the evils of global capitalism and democracy. But be assured that if you pass me a beer, I'll drink it.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 6, 2006 6:39:56 GMT -5
Fair enough. You disagree and make arguments that are coherent. I guess the biggest difference is the expectation I place on Western countries due to the legacy of colonialism. While it has been 40 years, the ex-colonies are still overcoming the legacy. Before I get accused yet again of some nonsense by Ed: I have lived in an ex-colony (Sri Lanka) for many years and am half-Sri Lankan. What you consider footnotes - the death toll the global system causes - are to me the essence of our system. Calling me a fanatical idealist is probably accurate, but that's nothing to be ashamed of.
Anyway, I think our benchmarks are different, and thus we arrive at different conclusions and world-views. To summarize these last few posts: for me, the US and its interests are unimportant compared to the overall welfare of humankind. Therefore my inferences of US foreign policy are obviously very different to you and Ed. All I ask for is decency in discussing these and not the constant name-calling that happens just because I don't subscribe to the primacy of American interests. I may not have done anything to show up global capitalism and democracy, but you haven't done much of a job of defending the prevailing system either in my opinion. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Haditha
Jul 6, 2006 10:49:00 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jul 6, 2006 10:49:00 GMT -5
Frank, you make great points and respond very clearly to the feel-good nonsense that Nitro mostly threw out.
One quote in particular jumped out at me. Nitro wrote:
There's price to pay for the 1 billion or so people on this planet to prosper. The justification is that we are so good, while the others (all happen to be non-white and not in the West besides the Abramovitchs of each poor country) are "un-democratic" and "un-civilized". Therefore they need to follow in our foot-steps.
Several hundred thousand people die EVERY DAY due to the economic and political exploitation to fund our standard of living.
You are looking only at one side of the equation. You implicitly blame "us" (not sure if that is specifically US and Great Britain or the "west" in general). In any case you blame "us" for the ills of the world. Interestingly enough, there are still oodles and gobs of people all across the globe striving for their shot at the American dream. People from places like Cuba are risking their lives almost daily on makeshift rafts just to arrive at our shores with nothing but the clothes on their backs just to have a shot at the American Dream. Do you think the Dream is nothing but a mirage? Do you think such potential for acheivement and success is no longer possible? Just this past week in the Parade magazine (yes, I know it isn't the literary benchmark of excellence) but anyway, just this past week their was an article interviewing a half dozen individuals from other countries who told their stories. They talked of the oppression from thier homelands. One lady was imprisoned for 6 years for practicing Buddhism among others. All of these people did whatever it took just to have their shot at these very same freedoms and opportunities which you blame for all these social and economic ills in the rest of the world. It was a touching story and I would suggest looking it up online if nothing else. The point is that those very same thigs which you criticize "us" for are a very big part of what made America the great Country that She is. You seem to forget that and merely point out all the ills in parts of the world that we are ignoring ... or worse yet ... CAUSING. Whether or not that was your intention, it is that type of one sided reasoning that causes some to call those who make such opinions as being "un-American."
I think it is much deeper than that, and I see both points of view in this regard. Just because someone thinks differently on any particular issue doesn't make them "un-American." But when someone criticizes one of the very fundamental qualities which make America what She is, it is natural to question whether that person really is one of "us" or not.
|
|