you're basically quoting the administrations justifications for the war and going "yup sounds believable to me!" This has been discusses elsewhere in a bunch of different threads but "time to save the iraqis!" argument is just unbelieveably unbelievably naive.glad you find the subject matter amusing! anyway in what way shocking?
Do we need to assuage Western guilt? Do you feel personal guilt for the actions of your great great great etc grandfather or whatever? The world a few hundred years ago was a pretty brutal place (as perhaps it is today). Western colonial exploits were often barbaric but equally by modern standards so was the rule of many 'native' elites. Colonial rule was a highly differentiated procees across time and space and to say it was entirely malign or benign is simply wrong-headed. The history of humanity is one of conquer and assimilate, conquer and so on. Nothing in the evolution of mankind is pure; and the Western nations were engaging in nothing historically new when they excercised their new found power as widely as possible from the Sixteenth Century onwards. If Europe had not flourished then would the world have continued as it was? I think this is highly unlikely; if Europe had not aspired to dominance then some other region would - the Islamic world pushing on its borders is a good example.
Why do you raise this issue of 'Western' guilt? If like me, and the vast majority of people, you feel deeply uncomfortable with the poverty and suffering of people in many of the ex colonial territories, then surely your over-riding concern should be considering how these independent nations can be helped to prosper. If you feel the need to assuage your own guilt then, well, do it quietly somewhere private. The people of the developing world do not need our pity (or our guilt); what they may need is constructive assistance towards building a prosperous future. But that is for them - i.e. internally within the own dynamics of their society - to decide.
FUCKING UNDENIABLE. Burden of proof is on you, good sir.
Usury is not an exclusive 'Western' practice you know and can the loans really be considered high interest when much of the debt is cancelled anyway. And given huge quantities of the money is pocketed by self-serving elites perhaps we should stop giving this 'aid' anyway?
there is no doubt that the 'West' has supported brutal dicatorships in the past and continues to do so. But surely the systematic cutting of support to such regimes should be encouraged not poo-pood. And as for 'our drug trade' WTF are you talking about? Supply and demand mate. We didn't invent drugs nor the drugs trade. If you can make more from producing 'illicit' crops than standard ones then its a rational choice. Surely its the prohibitive laws that cause the problems?
Everyone shouts foul when the West does not act i.e. in Rwanda and Sudan (although in the latter UN peacekeeping forces are due to be deployed in early 2008); and shouts foul when the 'West' does act like in the case of Iraq.
Are you opposed to intervention per se in all situations/contexts?
...perhaps followed up with a screening of Costa-Gavras' "Etat de Siege" (State of Siege), as relevant today as it was in 1973.
That made me think of the whole ConocoPhillips oil vs indigenous peoples of Ecuador issue. Anybody following this?nomadologist said:What is it that guy says in Blood Diamonds? (Not my favorite film, but still)--"Let's pray they don't find oil here." That'll be the day the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congos, etc.
What is it that guy says in Blood Diamonds? (Not my favorite film, but still)--"Let's pray they don't find oil here." That'll be the day the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congos, etc.
The key problem is that such countries as the Central African Republic, Sudan, the Darfur region, etc are abundant in valuable natural resources (eg uranium) and have a long history - still continuing - of violent colonial intervention, the principal source of the 'humanitarian tragedies'. In the case of central africa, the problem is largely the result of continuing French intervention.
Whoever suggested European colonialism was history?
I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization;
Here is your point that you always make: Yes, Gavin MAY BE right, but he is BLINDING himself to Tea's fair-n-balanced position-of-no-position. You don't even say that, actually. It WOULD BE idiotic IF I were to blind myself to your brilliant regurgitation of nonsequiter mainstream media platitudes "sectarian strife blah blah blah back to you Katie." The point you make every time. When in fact I know everything you said, I haven't blinded myself at all, it's just that it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER because IT SAYS NOTHING, IT MAKES NO POINT WHATSOEVER. Sort of like 98% of the banal crap you post here. Oh and then baselessly accuse me of CHEERING ON THE VIOLENCE for good measure, because you can't actually respond to what I ACTUALLY POSTED you pathetic piece of shit. And then when it gets too hot, you can "moderate" Vimothy to prove how fucking level-headed and fair-n-balanced you are. Thanks for making such wonderful thought-provoking commentary. You truly are an asset to the board.
DID YOU READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED? The U.S. has killed FOUR TIMES as many civilians as the terrorists have!