Humiliating" the Arabs? And if so... so what? - Page 3

Kuciwalker · December 21, 2003, 02:37

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I was just bullsh*tting with you.

I'm one of those types that need graphical clues, 'cause I'm still mastering the ability to discern between "bullshitting" and seriousness, especially in topics like this one.

Gatekeeper

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 05:50

Quote:

Because the issue that you're dismissing with "So what?" has been responsible for the rise of ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic movements in the Middle East, you ****ing moron

No, it hasn't.

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:54

Hmm. Oops. I thought "bullsh*tting" was automatically censored.

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 05:56

The censor is weird like that. **** is censored, but shitty isn't. I don't even know if bullshit or bullshitting are censored...

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:59

Nope, they're not. I'm going to bed now, so as to provoke a mod into interceding 'cause of unintentional cussing on our part.

Gatekeeper

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 06:03

Well, if they haven't censored it, then it isn't really a cuss word, is it?

orange · December 21, 2003, 06:44

Drake, dear, do a comprehensive study on the role of Colonialism and Imperialism in Asia and Africa, and then get back to me - mmkay?

The concept of Cultural and Religious Nationalism in these countries should not be cast aside as a baseless phenomenon that we can 'liberate' them of.

Employing that kind of thinking will only serve to make this type of ideology more fierce.

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 06:50

Quote:

Drake, dear, do a comprehensive study on the role of Colonialism and Imperialism in Asia and Africa, and then get back to me - mmkay?

Why? I thought we were talking about the Arab world, where ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic movements are the product of oppressive home-grown regimes, not "humiliation" by the West.

You at least need to be correct before you turn the condecension on...

orange · December 21, 2003, 06:53

Quote:

Why? I thought we were talking about the Arab world

We are. Where do you think it is besides Asia and Africa?

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 06:55

Asia and Africa encompass a hell of a lot more than just the Arab world. Studying the role of colonialism and imperialism in Mozambique or the Phillipines does the equivalent of ****-all for your knowledge of events with the Arab world.

orange · December 21, 2003, 07:03

Not really, but regardless I was speaking more specifically of the Arab world. The rest of Africa and Asia will simply supplement what you learn when you read about Algeria and Iran, and in fact, compliment it.

There's a wealth of information out there regarding French humiliation of Algerians and their culture, and how 150 years of that led to the rise of a patriarchal fundamentalist reactionary party which was democratically elected to power.

But hey, so what?

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 07:12

Quote:

Iran, and in fact, compliment it.

Iran isn't even Arab...

orange · December 21, 2003, 07:49

no, but I'd imagine that you would recognize the connection between the Arab world and a state that borders it which is dominated by Islam.

KrazyHorse · December 21, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
And on the same day the pride of the Arab world, the great and brave Hussein, was captured by evil imperialist forces, too!

etc.

I resent the implication that "we" leftists didn't want Saddam to take the big fall.

When I heard he'd been captured I practically did a little dance.

So watch the generalizations.

KrazyHorse · December 21, 2003, 14:05

BTW, this coming from somebody who remains vehemently against the decision by the US to go to war in Iraq, but I'm definitely happy when it generates benefits like seeing a **** like Saddam in custody.

Ned · December 21, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
BTW, this coming from somebody who remains vehemently against the decision by the US to go to war in Iraq, but I'm definitely happy when it generates benefits like seeing a **** like Saddam in custody.

At times I think there is no principled opposition to wars of this kind. It seems that the opposition is highly dependent upon the political party proposing the intervention.

Kissinger (and many other Republicans) opposed Clinton's war against Milosovic, and gave a lot of cogent reasons why we should not intervene. But the end result has been good, making a lie of the initial opposition by Kissinger and may other Republicans. I assume they would say, just as much as you have here KH, that they were right in their opposition to the war but were glad with the result.

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Most of the threads you make are ME or Arab related.

That's not true. I make lots of threads which aren't ME related but those tend to sink like a rock while my middleeast threads seem to attract a bit more attention.

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
To summarize: American imperialism is threatening; economic vassalization is humiliating. Given America's foreign policy, both sentiments are not unjustified.

Guess what's going to happen in Iraq: the money of the reconstruction will go back to the US through profits. Iraqis will likely get the low-ranking jobs while foreign engineers direct the whole thing. Oil companies will import their own worker and have them live in rich and enclosed quarters to protect them against Iraqi resentment (which can only rise from such actions).

You have a point about Arabs/Iraqis feeling like the US/UK is acting in an Imperial fashion and that they feel threatened by this though this is more preception then reality. Still, an interesting point. How do we change this while still accomplishing vital national goals such as eliminating terrorist supporting governments & while supporting pro-western/pro-capitalist ME governments?

You are also right that in order to equip Iraqi production facilities with the latest equipment and technology trained foreign experts will have to be brought in. Iraq is a very poorly educated country & they've been isolated from international business by 13 years of sanctions and 35 years of government nationalization during which the whole industry stagnated. 42% of the Iraqi population is illiterate, 12% have graduated from high school, and 4% have a college degree so businesses just aren't going to find that many trained experts in any given career field & foreign workers will have to be brought in until locals can be trained. Educating enough workers in the relavent fields will likely take a generation but this approach has worked in Asia and Latin America and now both of those places are largely self-sufficent in technical expertise. Compare that to how things were in 1945.

BTW there aren't going to be any net profits from the US/UK involvement in Iraq. These sorts of things always cost more then you make out of them and everyone knows that. Ergo the reason they are doing it is not profits.

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
Because the issue that you're dismissing with "So what?" has been responsible for the rise of ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic movements in the Middle East, you fucking moron

My point is these people were already ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic before and they will continue to be so no matter what we do. It is a characterizing trait of their culture.

Whaleboy · December 21, 2003, 19:14

Silly silly thread

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I resent the implication that "we" leftists didn't want Saddam to take the big fall.

When I heard he'd been captured I practically did a little dance.

So watch the generalizations.

Of course all leftists don't feel the same way about a given event. My point is that I hgave seen several leftists in the media complain exactly as I detailed in the first post. I can think of no way better way to lump these people together other then by identifying their common political characteristics.

Wernazuma III · December 21, 2003, 19:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
My point is these people were already ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic before and they will continue to be so no matter what we do. It is a characterizing trait of their culture.

Sure, the best thing is to reduce it down on an integrative, unchangeable and everlasting part of pan-arab culture. Arabs will always be ultra-reactionary religious and xenophobic unless they are either all dead or americanized... That's a really silly argument. "No matter what we do" seems to be a berserk attitude of you wanting to see all Arabs dead.
Care to point out:
Why can't their attitude change? Are all Mid-Eastern people like that? Wouldn't you agree that the fundamentalist movements are GROWING in a frightening way in the past decade? Should we either carefully examine and try to understand the reasons (like taking into account Arab "sensibility" and identity problems) or is it better to view it as the effect of something unchangeable in the Arab culture (or even nature?)?

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 21:33

Where's MtG to set you all straight on the origins of fundamentalist movements in the Arab world? I want to hear some more analysis of Qutb...

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 22:52

Please tell me how you would change the culture of 500 million people who don't want their culture changed.

MrFun · December 22, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

etc.

I resent the implication that "we" leftists didn't want Saddam to take the big fall.

When I heard he'd been captured I practically did a little dance.

So watch the generalizations.

diddo, KH

lord of the mark · December 22, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I wonder why Oerdin has such an Arab hangup?

Can I say find that response a tad personal? I have been using the utmost restraint to avoid pointing out that certain posters (im not thinking of you in particular Ge, so much as some of our European friends) have an "Israeli hangup" or even more broadly "a Jewish hangup" but i know that hinting at antisemitism in that manner is a hot button for many, and so ive self-censored. If Oerdin has an interest in the arab world, at a time when over a 100,000 US troops are in an arab country, and when the US is in a global war against an organization whose top leadership is composed of arabs (principally Egyptians and Saudis, in case anyone was thinking im confusing arabs and muslims) I hardly see that as evidence of a hangup.

lord of the mark · December 22, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

etc.

I resent the implication that "we" leftists didn't want Saddam to take the big fall.

When I heard he'd been captured I practically did a little dance.

So watch the generalizations.

I would also point out that some leftists supported the coalition actions to liberate Iraq, notably Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman.

lord of the mark · December 22, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Wouldn't you agree that the fundamentalist movements are GROWING in a frightening way in the past decade? Should we either carefully examine and try to understand the reasons (like taking into account Arab "sensibility" and identity problems) or is it better to view it as the effect of something unchangeable in the Arab culture (or even nature?)?

actually, pace both yourself (above) and Oerdin, Islamic fundamentalism was growing more in the 1980's, but was declining in the '90s, notably in Egypt and Algeria, and even in Sudan. Its takeover of Afghanistan was largely a response to local factors (disorders among warlords from 1992 to 1995) To a great extent Al Qaeedas attack on the US was a response to this decline, an alternate strategy for fundamentalism, given that attacks on regimes in the region were failing.

MichaeltheGreat · December 22, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer

Iraqis dancing in the streets for joy over the actions of a republican administration is not politicly correct, so the left finds something to ***** about.

Actually, I think it was the actions of 4ID. The "republican administration" were all back at their desks chocking their chickens, like usual.