Iraq Poll Updated

1+2. I’m not finding anything hard to understand sedm, I get your point of unequal input completely.

It’s just that it’s not at all pertinient to what blaubord first asked from you. It has NOTHING to do with the legal or moral separation between murder and manslaughter, etc. You completely avoid the questuion everytime cause you just can’t admit you lost to blauboad and then start ranting on about some completely unrelated point.

You still haven’t answered the point about French civilian casualties!

To answer your new point:

It was not the Americans who had the biggest say in the UN or any international law. Post-WW2 their influence was nowhere near what it is now. NOWHERE NEAR. Russia’s influence was still huge for example, as were all the states that rebuilt the world. I seem unable to communicate to you that US power has grown and eclipsed all other influence in the mean time.

And for that matter, at the time of the geneva convention, which laid a lot of the basis for international law, US were still quite powerless compared to the Europeans/Russia/etc.

And exactly what else do the Muslims need? A law which exempts them from the no murdering laws? Or a law that allows them to kill infidels? What laws undermine them?

I’m gonna help you out here, as you seem incapable of giving tangible evidence of your points yourself. The only thing that does is that they don’t have a permanent security council member which isn’t very surprising as they had little or no national identity till after WW2. That’s their hard luck for being international nobodys at the time it was formed.

It’s all about nation states anyway, not religion, and different Muslim states interpret that differently. South America doesn’t have a vote, neither do any African countries. It just happened to be some of the most powerful countries of the time that got the permanent seats in order to see it through it’s infancy. Maybe it is time the vetoes were done away with. But It is only a small matter compared to the rest of international law, where as your beef seems to be far more significant.

3+4. My sequence of events is flawed is it. That’s why it’s happening all over the world, everyone is desperate for western good, western music, western ideals, apart from the people in power. Wake up!! You utterly failed to provide one argument against my example of how C.I.works and how Japan wasn’t acting for those reasons.

Again, I’ll say, and I’m beginning to see why blauboad gave up now, 1853 was a long time before WW2. Why did the Japenese do nothing in the intervening period? The attack on the Us was imperialistic in nature because the Japenese knew they’d have to secure the pacific islands in order to consolidate their imperial gains, to which the US was a direct threat. What was not at threat was their culture.

U still haven’t supplied any evidence that it was a cultural war instead of an imperial war. Why did Japan attack mainland Asia first? Do you actually listen to what you’re saying? WW2 was purely imperialistic in motivation for both Japan and Germany, they wished to compete with other world superpowers like Britain, France, Russia and the US.

The pressure Japan was under was due to it’s rapid expansion and making it clear that it had intenions for the pacific islands. America had little desire to go to war, pre-Pearl Harbour, it may have eventually joined in in Europe but only eventually.

Yet again your blinkered world view is showing through, back then the US was not top dog as it is now.

The bombs - Ill-eduacted, sigh, no, just no what I’m talking about, where as you seem to think that people will settle down in radioactive towns.

Mutated genes will result in deformities or still borns. If they’re still born they can’t reproduce and so their gene pool ends there (mutated gene is removed), if they’re deformed there’s only a 50% chance of that deformity being passed on, and also reproductive chance of the deformed person are diminished as well. That’swhy I went for the 100 years mark, that’s about 5-6 generations. Maybe I am a bit optomistic and should talk about 10-12.

6+7+8, no argument there, just calling something “silly” is about as desperate as it gets when you’re scraping the argument barrel.

9. I mentioned that Al’Q doesn’t like Saddam first, you’re doing some hasty footwork there, to no avail I’m afraid. Disliking UN led sanctions is not a justification for the WTC, Bali bombings, etc., nor is it the reason Al’Q were doing it or they would have explicitly said so.

Your conception of the idea of “west” far exceeds reality. Industrialisation is NOT, and I repeat, NOT a western ideal, it is requirement for any large country to survive. That it was invented in England is beside the point. The Russians never applied a western ideal of industrialisation, because there is no such thing. You seem to lack an understanding of the separation of concepts such as industrialisation from capitalism, socialism, etc. Industrialisation is required for any country to sustain a large population, which results from better health care methods, irrespective of ideologies. Without it, starvation. Imagine what China would be like WITHOUT it’s induistrial power. It has enough problems with it’s population as it is!

Secondly it is yet again a bare faced lie to say the Russian’s (pre-breakup) based their economy on a western ideal, as that would require it to be a capitalist economic model. Which it quite obviously was not. Please don’t dare disagree with me on that, for your own sake! You’ll only make a fool of yourself!

10+11. Well we’ll have to agree to disagree, you also forget Russia and China who were world players, and Britain until everyone realised it was completely buggered up by the war. Britain had the key role in the unfortunate creation of Israel, Russia was subverting many countries and China effectivly buggered the Americans in Vietnam by turning up on the North Vietnamese border as the American almost took the whole of Vietnam, meaning they had to stop, which was the beginning of the end for them as the viet cong then started to push them back and finally out. Thee are plenty of other things that happened around the world that the AMericans had little or no influence over.

I think you’ve been watching too much Discovery Channel/History channel/etc., which seem obsessed by American influence in the last 50 years and completely forget to mention all the other world powers of the time. It has only been in the last 20 years that America really started to pull out in front of everyone else. Try reading some world history interwar and post WW2 that isn’t obsessed by the Americans.

12. Containment is costly to the world, detrimental to the Iraqi people and there are such things as black markets. Non-cooperation in the manner that Saddam has been doing means that they can kick out inspectors at any time and carry on merrily. If America doesn’t act now it is in this position, then it’s a fool. Maybe it shouldn’t have got itself into this situation first, but I don’t think that’s right either, Saddam’s flowering links with terrorist networks meant the threat from Iraqi terroist collaberation was only going to increase as time went on until something terrible really happened.

If I have to isolate every point here we might soon run out of space. A lot of things are simply repitition of what I have earlier posted. You can go back and read the posts again, or I can repeat them here.

1+2.You accept inequality of input. This is contrary to the basic tennet of international law - equality, no matter who was influencing what.

I haven`t said that Muslims, or Islamic states need anything exempting them from murder, just that their concepts of justice differ from Christian ones.

The French point was covered much earlier - justice is fashionable. The process of legal precident should show you this. The law is altered by individual cases that are considered “unique” by judge or jury. This system is obviously flawed and I reject it, standing by my earlier point that death is death, no matter how it is brought about.

3+4. My example was different to yours. The Japanese people never expressed desire to become Westernised, through (quite a democratic) consultation their rulers came to the view that they must defend their culture from outside influence. As I`ve said, we are taught that Westernisation is an all powerful, all pervading modernising force; this is not always the case. There are few examples of isolationism in history, Japan is one.

We do seem to be having significant trouble keeping to timelines (I dont know the forum script for drawing one). Japan industrialised during the post 1853 Meiji perod to prepare itself for the challenges that it perceived, and this resulted in it claiming the first Asian naval victory over a modern European power in 1904 by wiping out the Russians at Tsushima. Japan`s natural reserves are limited. To maintain industrialisation (to protect its culture) it required territories in Asia, and their resources (oil etc.). Imperialism and cultural survival are linked, one was the consequence of maintaining the other. I dont really want to talk about Germany, though limited comparisons can be made. My basal point is that outside (predominantly US) intrusion prompted Japanese Imperialism.

Bombs- What are the populations of these cities now? People DO live in radioactive towns. I dont also want to embarass you in a genetics argument, but the continuing high cancer incidence in these regions suggests that many mutations are not embryonic lethal.

6+7+8. I was being a little facetious - lighten up;). The US makes a habit (as do other countries) of applying the Geneva convention as and when it suits them (see Guantamano Bay, sanctions in Iraq, Supports Israel doing so too etc.). Key rhetoric in this Iraq war iss that US interests are superior to international ones - this applies to the law too.

9. I`m not sure what you are accusing me of here - I never said that OBL and Saddam were in cahoots, or that OBL had ever supported Saddam (he branded him an infidel too). I could point out who pressed for UN sanctions, and that the bombing in the no-fly zones was NOT UN sanctionned - but why bother, you have obviously listened to all the tapes.

Industrialisation - Japan had better healthcare and infrastructure than US in isolation - it was once said that “[in 1782] a shipment of laquer seedlings travelled quicker between Kagoshima and Tokyo many times faster than mail between Philadeliphia and Savannah”. It is not necessary to support a large technologically competent country.
Modernisation is a central theme of the great Western Enlightenment project, and industrialistion is just one “modern” concept that it promoted. I think the source of the technology is crucial in its application and perception. That industrialisation was of Western origin meant it was forever to be known as a Western phenomenon.
Russians have always equated being modern with being like “the West”, and most Russians consider themselves ethnically European, rather than Eurasian. Russia`s history has been to repeatedly remake themselves along Western models with which they identify kinship (most recently Marxism - as utopian as market liberalism), yet fail. I can argue much further but only have 10000 characters to play with in the post;). Can only really suggest you read some decent economic philosophy to clarify it for you. Even China, which rejected Maoism for the Soviet model, has now a Western-model economy (and for it is feted by the West as a haven of stability and good government).

10+11. All interpretaton of history, if you like. Even if not the sole protagonist, America has long been very influentially involved.

12. As Ive said, the Iraqi people only have a rightto good government if they can make it happen themselves. A purely economic response to Iraq (policed with the same military efficiency) would continue to hinder Saddam and contribute to his weakness (a black market exists only because it is allowed to. The US/West could freeze their side of it if they wanted). Saddams links with Al-Q are largely fabricated - this has virtually been admitted in the UK. There are other groups, but their Al-Q dealings are unlikely due to ideology. When a threat arises we should deal with it to the best of our skill, but I dont see that threat as having arisen in Iraq at this time.

1+2. Inequality of input?

You are saying that Islamists require an exemption from murder laws. This is precisely where your argument leads, and on the very flimsy rationale that “their concepts of justice differ from the Christian ones.” And I’ll point out that much in modern concepts of justice pre-date christianity, that there is no single “Western” concept of justice nor a single “Muslim” one. Throwing Christianity into it is a confusion. Your arguments tend to assume Christianity = capitalism = democracy = imperialism = “Westernization” = etc. It’s nonsense.

“Justice is fashionable.” Life is fashionable. The universe is fashionable. So what? How is this a rebuttal? You never really addressed the French question, nor my similar questions.

It’s self-contradiction that you hold both this position and still manage to criticize the US for inconsistent adherence to the Geneva convention. Why not just criticize the convention or criticize the US for violating the Geneva convention? I could respect that. But if you relativize it, then you have NO grounds to criticize the US. By your logic, the US would just be following its own unique and local concept of justice and its actions could neither be supported or defended, nor would it be possible to take any partisan position on ANY world issue or ANY conflict, because, you know, they’re all just doing their thing, who’s to say, etc.

3+4 Ok, let me sort this out. America coerced Japan into becoming an industrialized, Imperial power that would threaten the whole Pacific region. It pressured Japan to annex as much territory as it could and eventually to attack the US itself. The US did all this so that it would have an oppurtunity to engage in a long and costly war from which they had little to gain except the oppurtunity to irradiate Japanese civilians, which it did for no military reason, just for fun. Makes sense to me.

9. I have to hope I am misunderstanding you. In 1782, the United States was NOT an industrialized country. The comparisons are interesting, but they say nothing about industrialization. Care to define “the Western Enlightenment project”? I know, it’s capitalized, so it’s ominous and intimidating, but what is it exactly? Is this imposing term the authority by which you believe it accurate to conflate industrialization with capitalism with democracy with (strangely) communism and alot of other things as if it were all unified and indivisible?

Modernization is not an intellectual phenomenon, it is a technological one. If your society has a certain level of technology and supporting infrastructure, then it is modernized. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t.

10+11. Influential does not mean solely or even significantly responsible.

12. I’m pleased you finally showed your cards and have advocated a containment policy. Containment requires the continuance of sancitons. The UN estimates that sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqis. The wildest estimates of war deaths are are around 100,000. In reality it will be much less–if last night’s bunker strike was successful, it might be over now, with almost no casualties. But assuming the worst, I guess the extra 400,000 deaths that another 12 years of containment requires (to say nothing of the people Hussein will kill) would be a price worth paying for the Socratic “greater good” of Iraqi self-government. How Western of you.

They require exception from international and Western law. Some interpretations of sharia allow for their actions.
I have already acknowledged that Western thinking pre-dates Christianity, it just provided a convneient reference point for Matt. Read earlier posts.
“Justice is fashionable” - I thought this was such an easy point that it didn`t require elaboration. We ignored the murder of black men not so long ago, we locked up communists and homosexuals too. Today the French would have filed litigation against the US army. Justice is an artificial and unnatural concept.

Geneva convention - arguing within your moral sphere I can criticise them, just as I can criticise international law. That I also argue the overall futility of these laws is not contradictory to the lesser argument.

Good, glad we finally got that sorted If you want a further history lesson then I`d be glad to start another thread.

.

Ok, should have realised youd be hung up on the date and maybe glossed the construction of the sentence. The industrial revolution wasnt sparked on a Tuesday by the driving of a piston, we are talking about contact in 1853 of a very modernised Europe and America (well into the transition of industrialisation vs. a feudal Japan (modernised in a very different way - still had knights on horseback). I didn`t bring up industrialisation in the context of Japan- just said modernisation, and the clause was addressing this point - not an Industrialised Japan/US in 1782.

The Enlightenment project is quite an all enveloping concept - essentially the Western led drive, based upon Christian (Soccratic) concepts, to a global utopia of technological and social modernisation (along the once travelled Western path). Along these lines I would argue that intellectual modernisation is both required and a consequence of technological advancement. It cannot be doen justice in this thread, so read som Berlin (or better Gray) for details.

But in the case of the US, it was significantly responsible for political unrest in the European Buffer states, Middle East and South America. Again, huge history lesson possible, different thread maybe?

12. I’m pleased you finally showed your cards and have advocated a containment policy. Containment requires the continuance of sancitons. The UN estimates that sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqis. The wildest estimates of war deaths are are around 100,000. In reality it will be much less–if last night’s bunker strike was successful, it might be over now, with almost no casualties. But assuming the worst, I guess the extra 400,000 deaths that another 12 years of containment requires (to say nothing of the people Hussein will kill) would be a price worth paying for the Socratic “greater good” of Iraqi self-government. How Western of you.
    [/quote]

I didnt advocate containment by the current sanctions regime. I said the US/West could maintain their economic blockade (this includes Russia), thus allowing for states not partaking in the Western market system to trade if they wish. I also said nothing of "greater good", just equilibrium (Taoist). You boys really read too much into what isnt said;)

What actions are we talking about here? Should we have exempted the Nazis because they believed they were a superior race and so what they were doing weas just weeding out the inferior one?

That doesn’t stand at all. What you are advocating is allowing any person to act how they wish because they believe that way. That isn’t a viable or moral stance for any person to maintain. What about the beliefs of murders? Or are you now arguing murdering is perfectly acceptable too.

Don’t be difficult. No they wouldn’t, they understood then it was the price they paid to be free of Nazi opression and I am sure accepted it without regret or bitterness.

Just want to ask if you realise you lost the argument here. You do know that don’t you?

So? That happens all the time in history, it’s just one of these things.

What does not follow is that “you believe it accurate to conflate industrialization with capitalism with democracy with (strangely) communism and alot of other things as if it were all unified and indivisible?”. These concepts are all discrete.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of capitalism for a start, it is not applicable in China national economy nor is it applicable in the old USSR economy. If you think it is you must be reffering to a new undiscovered form of Capitalism that roughly translates into some form of Marxism.

Your claim that Britain, France, the US, Russia, China, etc. all evolved nationally along the same route is not just wrong, the evidence for the difference is still apparant today and clear in any history you wish to study. Even French/UK evolution was markedly different, though German (and to some extent Japanese) industrialisation mirrored Britain, it was because it was the shining light of Industrialisation of the time. It still does not follow that at the same time other ideals were taken on as well.

I am curious to see if you’re one of these people who believe that feudalism would be a viable, or even fair system, of government today. Certainly you seem to hint that Japoan should have carried on being Feudal. If you do, would you also think Africa would be a far nicer place if it were tribal?

People tend to forget what feudalism or tribalism actually entails, which tends to be gruelling hand to mouth existence apart from a priveleged few. The question is, would you want to be a peasant in a Feudal system? Cause I know I wouldn’t.

Yet again no mention of Russian influence on these same events. This was a war fought in a manner unlike any other. The US was required to fight in this way because the Russians did, and vice versa.

It was “significantly” responsible for it because it was one side of the conflict with the Russians being the other. Incidently, I saw a programme interviewing some ex-CIA agents a few days ago and he said “Our job was to show up for every game, just as it was their job”, referring to the Russians.

One of the benefits of fighting the war this way was that there was never a direct confrontation between US and Russian forces, which would have escalated to a world extinction. All other countries can wipe their hand of the conflict merely because they were under the protection of either the US or Russia and did not have to make the same commitment as the US or Russia.

One of the charges I’ve heard levied against “Old” Europe is that because it’s been protected by American power for so long it’s forgotten it’s necessary to fight to protect oneself. I believe this is an accurate representation of the current split.

It is a UN trade embargo presently, are you advocating that only Western countries should embargo it? And exactly what do you think the West is worried about? Exactly the type of trade you seem to be advocating (see below for that seem). It is precisely through these channels that Iraqi WMDs could spread to terrorist networks thoughout the world.

It’s got something to do with you never answering our questions directly and using vague concepts like:

“the US/West could maintain their economic blockade” - It’s not just the US/West at the moment, what do you mean?

“great Western Enlightenment project”

“Some interpretations of sharia allow for their actions.” - What actions should be allowed which are not? Am I right in reading that you mean “actions” such as the WTC attack? And Where do you draw the line with interpretation.

That kind of thing doesn’t help.

I`ve already addressed most of this - but to save you scrolling up ,
Germany had a strong Christian tradition, but was a weak society desperate for national identity. The “murder” argument could be argued both ways. I have already said that I dont recognise murder.

Because you were ther? No because you have spoken to them since? Hardly worthy of a reply (especially as I can see you will misunderstand this bit anyway). Take the current “freindly fire” litigations - civilians would have a pretty good case.

What? It is you that cannot grasp the simple timeline, and I have simplified it a lot just for you.

Is that an admission that I was right?

As I said before, read some proper economic philosphy and then come back. All I have room to say here is that they are variations on a common theme of Western thinking. I recommend Gray as an easy introduction.

I wouldn`t be a peasant. Both certainly had their benefits. Whether they will work again is to be seen.

What are you trying to argue - 50:50? Still leaves the US significantly responsible.

I actually think an Islamic trade coalition could well police the threat, and would in any case lead to a reduction in Islamic fundamentalism through reduced Western modernisation pressures.

It is hard to draw the line at interpretation - maybe where they stop reading the book?

Maybe I shouldnt play debating tricks and lay all the cards face up on the table....but that wouldnt be as good for our post counts, would it?

No you haven’t. I don’t waste my time typing this to repeat the same question over and over again, though you do seem to waste all our time by stubbornly typing the same replies over and over again, refusing to cede on a single point in the face of overwhelming argument.

Did you answer what “actions” the Islamic world should be allowed to carry out that are illegal? No

Have you even tried to put foward a good argument that intention is NOT a key factor in deciding the moral culpability for an action? No.

Have you demonstrated there is ANY ground for believing mass genocide (e.g. Holocaust) is equivalent to civilian war casualties, where the aim of that war is to free the civilians (e.g. Normandy landings)? No. I would like you to try any significant number of people who don’t live in insane asylums that would agree with you on that point.

Have you demonstrated any course of actions that the allied forces in WW2 could have taken without killing civilians? No

In fact have you demonstrated that civilian casualties are murder within war? No.

Have you shown that some civilian casualties are NOT inevitable in war? No.

Have you read how people in Normandy feel about the Americans who spilt their bloody for them? Obviously not.

Have you stated that friendly fire litigations will only stand if they show negligence on the part of the shooter? No

Are you going to admit that negligenmce is another one of those distinctions YOU don’t recognize in killing and so:

1. You CANNOT use this example without being contradictory? Probably not.

2. It is incomparable to any civilian casualty case in the eyes of any present legal system? Probably not.

Have you convincingly shown any holes in the C.I. argument? No.

Have you shown any convincing link between the emergence of Japan in 1800s and their participation in WW2? No.

Have you shown any link between Japan feeling a threat to it’s culture and it attacking China? No.

Have you shown any reason why America would want to antagonize Japan when it had all the cards to lose (as per Blauboads sarcastic response to your “timeline”)? No.

Have you demonstrated that the US WASN’T pursuing an isolationist stance and wsa generally anti-war at the start of WW2? No. You haven’t even looked at that one, you just flatly deny what virtually every historian says about pre-WW2 America.

Have you shown any incidences of how they were antagonizing Japan, apart from a quote from a mere Captain in the American Navy, who was clear flying in the face of contemporary American policy? No.

Have you demonstrated the slightest understanding of the concept of Marxism and it’s follower Communism? No.

Have you established any link between Capitalism and Communism? No.

Do you know what these terms mean? No.

Now seeing as your theory is the unconventional one, have you shown any similarity between the economic models of America, the economic model of Europe, the economic model of pre-breakup USSR and the economic model of China? No.

Have you demonstrated that Industrialisation isn’t merely a natural stepping stone for all cultures as they gain more advanced technologies, instead being part of the Western Enlightenment project? No.

Have you answered my question whether you think they would work now? No.

Have you answered whether you believe in them as viable government models now? No.

Have you answered whether you think they were beneficial to those at the lower levels of class? No.

Have you shown them to have any benefit at all, rather than merely stating they do? No.

Have you admitted that you keep reffering to the actions of American medelling in other countries outside the context of the Cold war? No.

Have you admitted that this type of war was better than a direct confrontation between American and USSR forces, which would have resulted in mass extinction? No.

Have you admitted that the Americans had no other choice in order to protect their freedom and the freedom of the rest of the Western world against comunist overthrow? No.

My point was, and is, that there was a war going on and the war was fought in such a manner that it was all about converting countries to your side’s ideology. Now you seem to argue that America was evil for doing this. My point is that it had 3 options:

1. Not challenge the USSR at all: Result, a world dominated at first primarily, then eventually completely, by communist states.

2. Fight a covert war influencing other countries political situations.

3. Have a direct confrontation between themselves and the USSR, which would inevitably have gone Nuclear and resulted in mass extinction.

Now 1 + 3 were not viable options. You seem to believe in the Magic option number 4. What is it please?

If you can’t find the magic option number 4 you have no right to challenge American actions in that period because it worked, they won the Cold War didn’t they? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you actually believe they didn’t win it. Funny how the rest of the world realizes they did.

No, no it definatly would not. Seeing as it is Islamic fundamentalists who are currently threatening terrorism, and they tend to come from countries that would be involved in your trade coalition the likelihood of them being able to easily establish links to buy WMDs would be very high.

They’re not debating tricks sedm, it’s just plain rude or a sign that you don’t know how to answer these difficult questions for you world view and are flailing blithely on.

I think that you will find I have addressed most of the points you require (even the ones you have made up for this post). That I haven`t spelt them out in words of less than eight letters is not through laziness, I simply presumed a base level of intelligence on this forum. I am happy to continue to debate, but it seems pointless if you will not be able to follow.

That your knowledge/understanding of history/economics/philosophy/genetics is not up to the standard required for the debate is not something that I can really help you with. I do not have the time nor inclination to explain all my points from first principles. I have suggested some light reading to help you, maybe Amazon.com should be the next port of call.

Blauboad, continue?

And yet again, avoid answering a single question!

I would be insulted by your comments if I wasn’t happy in the knowledghe that I have decimated virtually every single argument that you have come up with, shown you hold contradictory stand points and shown that you avoid the important questions everytime. You’ve been outwitted and outclassed, damn I’m good

The day you show to me that Communist Russia had an economy mirroring Capitalist America will be the day I go and admit myself to the insane asylum. Fortunatly that will never happen because by definition they were diametrically opposed ideologies!

Perhaps you should stop stubbornly relying on only one source of argument, that of the writings of Gray and Berlin, who are not exactly considered conventional nor are the considered the final word on the subject.

What is most important in academic thought and rational thought, you would know this if you had actually done some, is getting yourself a blanced set of sources to read from and then considering their relative merits and demerits. Once you have done this and realised that the Gray/Berlin world view is not the only world view and certainly not the accepted world view you wlll understand some of my arguments.

Right.

That is simply wrong. It is a Western misunderstanding - due primarily to the US/Russian rivalry. European contemporary thought has a common source and runs ultimately to the same utopian end. Marx was born in the West and could not break beyond its indocrinated goals. As I say, if you want another thread on this I`d be happy to argue you down. We seem to have run a little off topic in this thread.

Do you even know who they are? They by no means present the same (or even similar arguments). Would you prefer I quote Nietzsche or Marx, Becker or Socrates? We may live under majority rule (just about), but the majority view is not always correct.

I concur with almost everything Matt has said. Remarkable, because it’s not often that happens. Where I do not agree, it is only because I haven’t studied them enough to have an opinion. That said, let me point a few things out to dear old Sedm1000.

“Contemporary European thought” does not necessarily run toward a Utopian end. I am tempted to think you don’t know much about contemporary European thought, because quite the opposite is true in most fields where teleology is a relevant question. Furthermore, the Islamic worldview is Utopian, just like the Christian one is. Even if what you were saying were true, it would provide no grounds for a split between Europeans and Islam.

Furthermore, I have been reading many statements from Islamic people regading the Iraq war, and whether they are against it for it, they quite often rely on precisely the sort of “greater good” argument which you claim not to use and which you claim is exclusively “Western.” Do you honestly believe that you have to have read Socrates (or absorbed him through “westernization”) to arrive at the idea of a “greater good”? Anyways, Islam has a pretty slim credentials to be considered “Eastern.” It certainly has much more in common with Christianity than with Buddhism or Taoism.

Moreover, Islam is hardly a religion of moral relativism, especially in its fundamentalist forms. I repeat, how can you apologize for Al-Qaeda but demonize the US for the same thing: imposing their morality/culture/“projects” on others? I submit it is because the US is perceived to be more successful at it. That is hypocrisy.

Now, please don’t try to lord it over anybody that he doesn’t know who “Gray” and “Berlin” are. Seeing as you provided no titles, and only the thinnest of context, for all I know you could be talking about Thomas Gray and Irving Berlin. The local university library gives 893 listings for author “Gray,” 472 for author “Berlin.” Give it up.

By the way, I’m familiar with the whole “Western Enlightenment project” West vs. East argument. It’s nonsense, and its majors “thinkers” are not anybody named Gray or Berlin–more like Adorno and Said. I asked to see you meant the same thing and to check if you could give a coherent, intelligble account of it. Apparently, you can’t.

So, beyond the necessity of exluding some Muslims from murder laws, you provide no justification, explanation or clarification of your position that Islamic thought and justice is so unfathomably different from that of the “West” that the “two” “cultures” could not interact on the basis of any set of laws.

Your advocation of total legal autonomy is untenable. For one, the scale at which the boundaries between leagal systems are drawn is necessarily totally arbitrary. Why stop at “East” vs. “West”? One can keep dividing until we reach the level of individuals. It helps I guess if, against all evidence, you believe in a fine border that divides two radically different cultures “East” and “West.” But if you won’t allow the “East” to be victimized by “Western” law, then why allow one “Eastern” nation to victimized by another “Eastern” country’s law? Anytime two people share a law–your argument would have to go–one of them is a victim and should rise up against his oppressor. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of law, or at the least, it is a cynicism so acidic that it makes social life–let alone global social life–impossible. Eventually we would have to throw out all law to satisfy the liberationists, and then do you imagine things would be better? Only the truly naive would want to find out.

I saw an ironic anti-protest sign that drove the point home for me. It showed a picture of a paunch-bellied Saddam gloating over a pile of emaciated corpses. The slogan read, “Saddam only kills his own people: It’s not our problem.”

I suppose you could bear that sign with no sense of irony whatsoever.

The Islamic version of utopia is non precise and under some interpretations superficially achievable. Christianity cannot make this same claim.

Again, no I don`t. Half the problem in this thread is dealing with things you simply imagine

The life example of the prophet allows for moral relativism in Islam -it is certainly not specifically excluded. Al-Q, again, do not impose their culture or morality, but attack Westerners that do. There is no grand ambition of a uniquely Muslim world, but one in which their culture is not threatened.

I have no desire or need to “lord” over anyboy here. I am simply accustomed to discourse amongst individuals of a wider knowledge base. Take the names of John Gray, John Rawls and Isaiah Berlin to your local library if you want some light reading.

Would you care to Enlighten me, or at least to argue with my (very breif and dumbed down) description.

Justice - cultural - fahsionable etc. Might have said all this before. Two separate cultures cannot be expected to maintain the mutually comparable laws for any length of time (unless they cease to be separate). This makes the concept of a universal law a bit unjust - which is not really much good

If I have to point out my rejection of law one more time…Ethics - Taoism. You might think the resultant world would be chaotic. Is that not how it always has been, is meant to be?

“All religions, nearly all philosophies and even a part of science testify to the unwearingly, heroic effort of mankind desparately denying its contingency.” - Jacques Monod.

You have conceded the (at least potential) universality of the “greater good” argument. It doesn’t seem to phase you that this concession undermines your argument that legal principles cannot be applied cross-culturally.

Al-Qaeda is no less Utopian than the Bolsheviks were. They want revolution against existing Middle Eastern governments and a repressive, closed theocracy. The Communist Utopia was achievable too, that was the whole point. Fundamentalist Islamism is just another of the myriad of utopian ideologies–like communism and facism–that the 19th and 20th centuries have cursed us with. Like the others, it needs to be crushed for the good of the world. Seeing as you’re used “to discourse amongst individuals of a higher knowledge base”–as pompous a phrase as I’ve ever read–you must then be familiar with Nietzsche’s analysis of nihilism. and I shouldn’t have to explain the relevance of it to this discussion.

And if AQ is motivated by a desire for cultural identity, tell me exactly how was the “West” forcing its culture on to Afghanistan? You dodged this the last time I brought it up. They had exactly the culture they wanted–repressive, sadistic, etc.–but it was not enough for them.

Christian Utopia is, in most forms, not achievable by any act of human beings or human government. For all intents and purposes, it is not “utopian” at all, since Christian life is not organized around utopianism.

Matt and I have argued ad naseum against your lumping everything you don’t like into one catch-all “Western Enlightenment project,” so no, I won’t do it again.

Go back over my last point. You obviously didn’t understant it, even though you quoted it. One thing I will add to it is the observation that every single country that has embassies, diplomatic relations, trade or military agreements, or UN representation has freely entered into a consensual legal agreement which comes with obligations as well as rights. Why would they choose to oppress themselves like that? Oh, I know, the US is twisting their arm. Like we just can’t sleep at night if Botswana hasn’t claimed its spot in the UN.

Why does this make it unjust? It does not follow. When I go to England, is it unjust that I can’t drive on the right side of the road? This is exactly the sort of non-critical non-argument that makes communicating with you such a unique pleasure.

Randomly came across this little nugget:-

[i]Japanese militarism and imperialism steadily developed for five principal reasons. Although all five reasons existed from early in the Meiji period to the start of war in China in 1937, the relative importance of these reasons differed depending on the time period. The first two reasons, Japan’s desire to be a Western-style imperialist power and Japan’s concerns for its security and safety, played important roles in the growth of militarism up to the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. The next two reasons, Japan’s belief in its leadership role for Asia and Japan’s frequent provocations by Western powers, gave rise to an expansion of militarism and imperialism from 1905 to the 1930s. The final reason, Japan’s desire to secure its economic interests, rose in importance as Japan entered the decade of the 1930s.

Western imperialism played an integral part in Japan’s aggression toward foreign countries. As this essay analyzes the five causes of Japanese militarism and imperialism, the significant role of Western imperialism in each cause will become clear. In some cases Japan followed the examples of the Western imperialist nations, and in other cases Japan needed to counteract or defend against the actions of Western powers. The stubborn and provocative attitude of the imperialist Western nations toward Japan provided a favorable environment for Japan’s advance toward militarism and imperialism, which ultimately led to World War II.

…

A series of coercive acts, insults, and provocations by Western imperialist countries from the 1850s to the 1930s caused great anger to fester among the Japanese people. Japan’s signing of unequal treaties with America, France, Holland, and Russia in 1858 placed restrictions on Japan’s national sovereignty, such as extraterritoriality, which meant that foreigners in Japan had immunity from the jurisdiction of the Japanese legal system. The 1921-22 Washington Conference naval treaties forced on Japan an unfavorable battleship ratio of 5:5:3 for the US, Britain, and Japan respectively, and the Western powers at the London Naval Conference of 1930 coerced Japan to accept the same ratio for its heavy cruisers.

Strong racial prejudice by Westerners toward Japanese, in addition to Chinese and other Asians, led to several severely insulting incidents for the Japanese people. In 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference, Western countries rejected the simple Japanese request to have a racial equality clause included in the League of Nations Covenant. In 1905, California passed anti-Japanese legislation. In the following year, the school board in San Francisco ordered Japanese and other Asian children to attend segregated schools. In 1924, America passed the Japanese Exclusion Act to shut off Japanese immigration into the US. This series of international affronts to Japanese pride and status provided fuel to the militaristic and imperialist sentiments of Japanese government leaders and ultranationalists.
[/i]
Japan’s March Toward Militarism
Bill Gordon
March 2000

Where? That I said “good” (in quite a facetious manner) ? I can only see your confusion lying in the limitations of the language. Universal applicable to the universe, and good variable, subjective and of human comfort. Arguments cannot distance themselves from the concepts as they are indivisible from philosophy. Anyway, if you are going to bring Nietzsche into it, how can you argue “greater good” or deny my stance on murder and law?

There was Western political pressure, and support of Anti-Taliban movements, alongside the general diffusive pressure of Western culture that we see throughout Asia today.

No you haven`t, you have hardly made an effective approach to the subject. Is you unwillingness to tackle it a concession as to the strength of its argument?

I did understand it, and thought it was rubbish. At best you have illustrated my point that law is useless. I am to some extent arguing above the mundanity of actualities, but even you must concede that most philosophy can only be corrupted if drawn into practical application.

1. In the analysis of Japanese history you quote, provocation from the “Western powers” is just one of five reasons over the whole period. As the US was one among others of the “Western powers” involved, let’s be generous and say that the US was %50 responsible for that one, and %50 percent of 1 out of five reasons would make it 1/10th responsible for Japanese imperialism. As the argument that brought all this up was about WWII, I’d also point out that from the 1930s, the author cites the primary reason for Japanese imperialism to be its “desire to secure its economic interests” and NOT western interference. Weighting that one heavier, US responsibility would sink to something like 1/15–hardly the damning case you want it to be. And this is, I presume, a source close to your own ideological bent. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to quantify things like this, but I’m only pointing out the hierarchy the author himself is proposing, and within this, there is little cause for blaming the whole thing on the US.

2. You conceded that people outside of “the West” can and do utilize the same sort of arguments “Westerners” do. In this case, the argument was that it is worthwhile to sacrifice some to save many, i.e. the “greater good” argument.

Universal means present in all human societies (e.g. some sort of incest taboo is a universal). I assumed that someone “of a higher knowledge base” would not require definitions for basic terminology.

You don’t need to resort to anything so grandiose as the “limitations of language” to explain your failure to communicate. Your own motivated ambiguity and conceptual sloppiness are enough grounds for you to be misunderstood without having to seek elaborate philosophical justification.

Nietzsche contradicts himself on many issues, so it doesn’t really say much that I use some idea from him but go against some other one. That said, Nietzsche is certainly not a relativist when it comes to values, and he would in no case be arguing in defense of Al Qaeda.

3. The “West” was almost totally shut out from Afghanistan. If worldwide outrage could not stop the ancient Buddha statue from being destroyed, why should a lesser degree of pressure have had any greater influence? Supposing you take them to be representatives from of “West,” then the opposition tribes of the Northern Alliance were in sad shape and hardly a threat to Kabul.

The cultural imperialism argument is always an elitist argument. It presumes people should not choose for themselves what their culture ought to be. It sounds nice, but it always involves a minister of culture backed by a gestapo to enforce what sort of culture its citizens are and are not allowed. If your “project” is to see the East be self-determined and develop its own ways, then you betray it with your crusade against western culture. After all, we aren’t airlifting all that inane pop music to the third world: the people themselves are buying it, pirating it and reselling it in many cases. (That local artists, both traditional and modern, produce music and sell it back the world market is something we’ll just conveniently ignore.) Sedm1000, however, knows what is best for those people, when they manifestly disagree. Taking that position and then calling America arrogant and oppressive, it’s quite a feat. If you want to see cultural self-determination, look at the shining example of the Taliban. But, you know, it’s hard to enjoy the culture when your brain is spattered against a ditch.

When will you get it that industrialization is not culture, but that it transforms culture? I thought you have some vague Marxist leanings, you should know that. The “West” industrialized first, so there will inevitably be similarities in the cultures that emerge in the industrialized East with the established industrial cultures of the West, that does not mean Uncle Sam is beating them all over the head and forcing them to eat at McDonalds. Technology has made cultural isolation possible only where the population wants it (e.g. the Amish, Ashkanazi Jews, and other rare birds) or where the people are coerced into it (e.g. old Afghanistan, North Korea, and–in principle if not reality–Iran).

4. “Western Enlightenment project” as you have used it is a meaningless conflation of many contradictory and totally different things, even typologically different things. Communism, capitalism, industrialization, naturalism, imperialism, civil society, modern democracy, totalitarianism, modern rationalism, sentimentalism, racism, abolitionism, Zionism, anti-Semitism, etc. etc. etc. can all be justifiably grouped under that rubric. If you’re going to use a term that massive to mean something specific, you’d need to explain exactly what you mean, and defend the apparent unity that the phrase seems to give it. But then you’d open yourself to criticism. It’s so much safer just to ignore it and act snide.

5. Yes, when you don’t understand an idea or when it threatens your own cherished opinion, it does look rather like “rubbish,” doesn’t it? Pardon me for pulling you into the “mundanity of actualities” from whatever fantasy you are having. I won’t disturb your daydreams anymore.

Anyway, it’s clear no one is convincing anyone else and it’s getting more aggravating than fun. Feel free to enjoy the last word.

Well I counted two . If you want to assign weighting, shouldn`t the primary insult count heavier? Either way, you cannot deny the US has a significant share of the blame.

How does non-westerners using the “greater good” argument concede a point?

Universal means anything in the universe (i.e. everything, or nothing as Nietzsche might have it). Much of Nietzsches problems arise from the frailties of human conception, illustrated in his "there are no opposites" defence. In terms of action, is something "good" because it is right, or right becaue it is "good"? Can it just be? Nietzsche makes some interesting points badly due to the confusion of his limitations; The apologetic paradox that he created eventually destroyed his mind. I wouldnt suggest you follow the same course.

There is no real reason that greater pressure should be more productive than lesser pressure, as the stubborness of many should illustrate (;)). Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were key Western intermeditaries, and Russia and France also opened dialogue with the Taliban pre-9/11 - the Taliban ministers often travelling to them.

Self-determination does not preclude adoption of a Western, or Western-influenced, culture. I have only argued against a Western imposed culture, which the aggressive and US sponsored spread of capitalism can be argued determined to achieve. Japan has been my prime illustration of a society that has managed to maintain its identity despite considerable barrage, but to do this required a War for which it is roundly blamed and condemned.

Again, something that I have never said. Industrialised cultures differ in the base from which they were constructed, but industrialisation has the ability to erase/modify that base and implement (require) a new social model. Industrialised countries HAVE promoted their own technology abroad, and this has transformed the cultures of the societies they industrialised (see Railroad in Asia, or Oil economy direction by US). If you want to talk McDonalds, look at the pressure it exerted on China.

Cite your issue with the “ism” and I`ll rebutt it.

Isn`t phillosophy just an indulgent fantasy? There should be no “ought”, just “is”.

Remarkable, you almost conceded that your opponents are capable of critical thought.

Understanding your argument does not automatically result in acceptance of your solution, per se. The threat of aggression followed by measured force, followed by reconciliation is a classic tack. Yes, it gets results. But launching tirade, after tirade, after tirade is another matter. A praetorian world under US patronage is the goal and I cannot see that it is feasible… Whether it is intended to be benign or otherwise doesn’t really matter.

Did you actually read the whole thread Nat?

I’ve been keeping tabs on it I tend to read the first couple of paras and then read the rest of the post if it starts off interestingly/informatively…

The past couple of pages have been interesting in macro

Don’t worry Nat, I remember you.