The US, UN & Iraq II

Regardless of provocation or justification, personal attacks by members toward other members are violations of the TOS. This is not a matter for interpretation nor is personal preference a consideration. Its in the rules.

The msn site was closed due to lack of interest ...

This is about the only explanation I have put into writing.

Hey Anne,

You are too kind. I didn't know there was such a class on abuzz.
I would sure like to learn to write better. I really enjoy fading
off into my thoughts and making stuff up.

Actually the name came when I registered for the NYT. After
several attempts at coming up with a screen name only to get ...
sorry, that name has been taken I said to my self 'THINK' stupid
.... so I used 'think'. It was taken also, so I added an
underline on the end ... finally, it went through.

One day while bouncing from link to link I found a translation
site that had Cherokee as one of the languages. My great
Grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee, when I looked up think,
ge fit like a glove.

If you read my other posts you may have found out that I have
Parkinsons disease. I don't like to bring people down so I don't
bring it up so much. I have a medical background so I am acutely
aware of the end stages of my disease, essentially a fully
functional brain and no body.

Sooooo, when the time comes, my mind will become my last refuge
in this dimension, I will truly be ... lost in thought. I refuse
to let my disease defeat me.

That is the story behind 'I will think'




It came from this web site.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.173678/discussion

timber

Your characterisation of "The Arab World" seems to be a little bit too much from your personal, US-related view.

From britannica:

U.S. Finds No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
1 hour, 38 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar (Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Sunday it had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction and it believed there was a diminishing threat that Iraq (news - web sites) might use them as U.S.-led troops take over more territory.
"The places it's most likely to be found we haven't even gotten to them yet," Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a briefing at Central Command in Qatar.
Brooks said the farther the U.S.-led forces moved into Iraq, the less opportunity there was for Iraq to use any weapons of mass destruction it might have. Washington launched a war against Iraq on March 20, vowing to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction that Baghdad denies it has.

Walter, I don't think my assessment is "US Oriented". Regardless what Britannica opines, I see no evidence of Arab effort to join civilized society, but rather I see the Arabs actively in opposition to the notion. Apart from words on paper, where is Arab socio-economic growth and development? Malaysia has managed growth and development despite being Islamist. Which Arab nations have done so?

Walter -- Many Americans who have lived in an Arab country or culture would agree with you wholeheartedly. There is a serious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias -- that's how, politically, US administrations have been able to get away with the pro-Israel stance for years and years, quite apart from the geo-political reasons. We are just as dismissive of the Chinese. Not to mention Europeans...

We take tours, we observe, but more often than not we never learn the language nor do we stay long enough to absorb the culture. I heard a talk-show host saying that he was just back from London. It was his wife who wanted to go, wanted to see museums and stuff. Bored the daylights out of him. He mostly stayed in the hotel room watching TV and was damn glad to finally be back in the US and have 500 hundred channels to watch rather than just the few he could get in London.

"...I see no evidence of Arab effort to join civilized society..."

How are we more civilized?

We don't stone adulterors, lop off the hands of thieves, or institutionally restrict the opportunities of our females. Poetry, philosophy, and art are wonderful ... but they don't have much immediate impact on quality of life, Tartarin. Civilization is a relative term, I suppose. Still, the Arabs seem to be Civilization's poor neighbors. Without their active engagement of the principles of a developing world, they will remain outside the developed world. Their own prejudices and failures engender and perpetuate bilateral animosity. They are their own worst enemy.

So we decide for them what their future is to be?

having lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 yrs as a child i have a different view

They're making their own choices, Tartarin. Those choices have consequences. They do little to improve their own lot, rather they blame outside factors for the results of internal failure. They do not accept responsibility for their own future.

Dyslexia, I would be interested to hear that view. I am thinking about my response to timber's post re difference between Arab v Islam, and I want to consider your thoughts on this subject.

Timber -- I lived outside of the US for a long time. One of the things which most troubled me when I came back was the institutional assumption that "we know what's best for you!" That's something Americans are so used to now as to have lost all perspective on it. It has carried over into our personal lives -- diet gurus tell you that, organic gardeners tell you that, churches tell you that, HMO's tell you that, and on and on. We are caught in a trap of self-advertisement. We believe we know best how to run the world. We believe ourselves to be fully democratic. We believe our culture to be healthy and superior.

I don't. I believe pride goeth before a fall and we're mighty close to the edge! We are damn fools!

By accident? Like the chinese embassy.

timber

The American 'civilisation' isn't my way, I admit. I'm educated more 'multi-cultural', not only in the "SUV-McDonalds's-COKE-way", with much more respect to people living different to me, to us.

That's, what Christianity taught me.

Walter, I don't see where I proseltyze "American Style Civilization". What I do advocate is the universal right to self-determination and access to the fruits of learning, prosperity, and peace. I see considerable opposition to the notion.

Timber -- Actions have consequences -- of course you are right. But are we the god who doles out the consequences?

"... What I do advocate is the universal right to self-determination and access to the fruits of learning, prosperity, and peace..."

That's not a bad set of values. Have we applied them in our own country? No. Even if we had, does that give us the right to do anything more than act as a model? Not in my view. What in our top value system -- be it the Constitution, or be it our spiritual beliefs -- gives us the right to impose our values on others? Should we take a country over against its will?

On NPR just now, a discussion of the seven deadly sins. Something I didn't know: the most deadly is pride.

C'mon boys and girls -- are we proud Americans or what?!!

(Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.)

Tartarin Wrote:

C'mon boys and girls -- are we proud Americans or what?!!

Another of the seven deadly sins:

ANGER is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Timber's claim - that Arab culture (or perhaps Muslim inspired culture) is less 'civilized' than Western culture (perhaps, particularly American culture) - probably ought not to escape scrutiny.

First, there is the problem of apples/oranges. How does one contrast/compare/evaluate/measure the value of a life led by, say, a dollar-poor but deeply connected family grouping of Thai farmers to the life of a couple of Kinko's employed men sitting in a disco in New York throwing back glasses of scotch? How do we avoid using what our culture values as the measuring stick, thus begging all the questions before we begin? Debbie Travis wrote a column several weeks ago of her time spent in such an extended family grouping in Thailand, and said the experience has led her to rethink all her notions of how we here define 'the good life'. Our notions of 'progress', particularly as regards wealth, are highly suspect as criteria.

We know from past imperial projects that 'inferior' cultures usually get helped out by 'superior' cultures for other than altruistic reasons (Spain in Central/South America, French/English fur traders in North America, England in India, Rome in Britain, etc). Imperial projects always carry this notion as justifier. But the driving force is economic and territorial with exceptions so rare as to be invisible.

One might suggest that missionary activity is an exception here, but to suggest superiority of one religious system over another is to surely speak from bias.

The only credible component, in my opinion, for Timber's argument (or others like it) relate to humanitarian/civil rights and liberties issues. One has to make the further argument that these values are shared by folks everywhere, regardless of local variation, but I think that argument can be made.

Timber points to 'barbaric' justice codes (of course, he's referring to Taliban extreme variety of justice with the chopped off hands bit). I agree this is detestable. Europeans, however, are pretty much of the opinion that the Texan happy-to-execute justice system is barbaric and detestable. And many Amerian's believe that the 'three strikes' laws of California are barbaric and detestable. Or that the ratio of young black men in prisons in the US reflects deep injustice.

Timber refers also to monarchial or dictatorial or oligarchical control as a negative social arrangement. I think they are too, and that given the choice, humans tend to prefer a say in how things are done. But regardless of words spoken, US (or European) foreign adventures have most commonly been driven not by a desire to bring democracy or representative government or social justice, but to ensure 'stability' (even by supporting truly ugly men like Sadaam) to the end of economic and political advantage for the home team.

It isn't that timber's goals and values are wrong. The problem is that those are not the goals driving this adventure in Iraq, they are merely the moral justification for doing what the US considers in its best interests, and in the interests of it's client states/allies.

Because those goals and values do NOT drive this particular adventure, there is no good reason to assume they will be achieved, nor even much cared about by folks like Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld.

Unless, of course, we shove their platitudes down their throats and make it so evidently politically costly for them to continue their deceits and policies that they actually do what they pretend.