"They" are not like "us": the most common bias of international politics
-
Diego Moita wrote:
The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Well reasoned and well said. Because of what you wrote, I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
No, no way. They are inferior humans and need to be carefully bred and cultivated from someone superior, preferably with lineage directly pointing to the Inquisition.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
This article is very funny: a Russian pundit "predicts" that the U.S. will fall apart in 2009-2010 and the US territory will be controlled by China, European Union, Mexico and Canada[^]. But my point here is not about an idiot saying bullshit about US politics. The really interesting issue is the mechanics of the bias, how it is generated. Basically Russians see politics in every country in the world the same way they see their own politics: split appart by nationalist and ethnical feelings and under assault of extern superpowers. That's why they love Putin. He is a thief and a tirant but he gives them security and stability. A lot of people in the Russian Federation's provinces know that they were sovereign countries before communism. And the Russians imagine the Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) as being in the same state. It is easy to call this whole thing as stupid, but the fact is that a lot of the foreign policy of the American government has been repeating the same bias inverted. When Bush-father anounced a "New World Order" he believed that Russia would fall into the ranks of capitalism and open society, not into kleptocracy. When neo-cons created the domino effect theory to justify nation building in Iraq/Afganistan they completely ignored the power of tribal and clan loyalties; these don't exist in the U.S. The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Well reasoned and well said. Because of what you wrote, I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because of what you wrote, I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
Doesn't that blow the whole "Christianity is evil/bad for humanity" thesis? Well, assuming that the rule of law is a Good Thing.
-
Most of the time things get more worse when someone tries to change it, even if the intention was only to make it better. US policy may need to give a little more respect to this fact.
-Suhredayan
The problem is that every country you talk to seems to have a different (the same) view on what the best policy is. Everyone wants us to leave everyone alone except to provide aid or when they want our help in blowing up the other guy.
-
Oakman wrote:
Because of what you wrote, I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
Doesn't that blow the whole "Christianity is evil/bad for humanity" thesis? Well, assuming that the rule of law is a Good Thing.
-
Most of the time things get more worse when someone tries to change it, even if the intention was only to make it better. US policy may need to give a little more respect to this fact.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
US policy may need to give a little more respect to this fact.
Amen. Tell Israel they're on their own, but the weapons shop is always open. Ditto to the Saudis. Dump Nato and call our troops home and send em to guard our own borders rather than everyone else's. Stop protecting South Korea. Tell Japan it's time to learn how to stand up for themselves again. Wish Taiwan good luck and goodbye. Wave aloha to SEATO and ANZUS. Pull out of Iraq in 16 days not 16 months. Abrogate NAFTA and CAFTA. Tell the UN to head elsewhere and reclaim all that prime real estate for taxable purposes. Cancel the 20 billion in aid we have scheduled for Africa. Ignore Darfur. Cancel all Most Favored Nation trade treaties, except with the British Isles. Drop out of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Wish India and Pakistan the best of luck, and assure them they are free to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, without, at least, American interference or interest. (The fallout's likely to have disapated over the Pacific, don't you think?) Sounds like plan to me! :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
Doesn't that blow the whole "Christianity is evil/bad for humanity" thesis?
The worst thing about Christianity is that poseurs like you use it to cloak their racism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The worst thing about Christianity is that poseurs like you use it to cloak their racism bigotry.
His bigotry is not limited to race, although racism colors it.
-
suhredayan wrote:
US policy may need to give a little more respect to this fact.
Amen. Tell Israel they're on their own, but the weapons shop is always open. Ditto to the Saudis. Dump Nato and call our troops home and send em to guard our own borders rather than everyone else's. Stop protecting South Korea. Tell Japan it's time to learn how to stand up for themselves again. Wish Taiwan good luck and goodbye. Wave aloha to SEATO and ANZUS. Pull out of Iraq in 16 days not 16 months. Abrogate NAFTA and CAFTA. Tell the UN to head elsewhere and reclaim all that prime real estate for taxable purposes. Cancel the 20 billion in aid we have scheduled for Africa. Ignore Darfur. Cancel all Most Favored Nation trade treaties, except with the British Isles. Drop out of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Wish India and Pakistan the best of luck, and assure them they are free to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, without, at least, American interference or interest. (The fallout's likely to have disapated over the Pacific, don't you think?) Sounds like plan to me! :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Bravo!
-
Oakman wrote:
I found myself wondering if it is possible for countries that cannot trace their lineage directly back to the Western Roman Empire and the medieval Catholic Church to support the rule of law over the rule of men.
No, no way. They are inferior humans and need to be carefully bred and cultivated from someone superior, preferably with lineage directly pointing to the Inquisition.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
They are inferior humans and need to be carefully bred and cultivated from someone superior
Never said that, nor meant it. But the rule of law seems to have received short shrift outside of the area I described - do you disagree?
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
preferably with lineage directly pointing to the Inquisition.
Better, perhaps, than the pogroms?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
This article is very funny: a Russian pundit "predicts" that the U.S. will fall apart in 2009-2010 and the US territory will be controlled by China, European Union, Mexico and Canada[^]. But my point here is not about an idiot saying bullshit about US politics. The really interesting issue is the mechanics of the bias, how it is generated. Basically Russians see politics in every country in the world the same way they see their own politics: split appart by nationalist and ethnical feelings and under assault of extern superpowers. That's why they love Putin. He is a thief and a tirant but he gives them security and stability. A lot of people in the Russian Federation's provinces know that they were sovereign countries before communism. And the Russians imagine the Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) as being in the same state. It is easy to call this whole thing as stupid, but the fact is that a lot of the foreign policy of the American government has been repeating the same bias inverted. When Bush-father anounced a "New World Order" he believed that Russia would fall into the ranks of capitalism and open society, not into kleptocracy. When neo-cons created the domino effect theory to justify nation building in Iraq/Afganistan they completely ignored the power of tribal and clan loyalties; these don't exist in the U.S. The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Facilitate trade for (for us), secure resources (for us) for who ever us is, seems to be the reason for international politics.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
The problem is that every country you talk to seems to have a different (the same) view on what the best policy is. Everyone wants us to leave everyone alone except to provide aid or when they want our help in blowing up the other guy.
Ray Cassick wrote:
Everyone wants us to leave everyone alone except to provide aid
I would like to disagree, US may have brought few countries with their financial/technology aid, like Saudi, Singapore etc. I have seen the affect personally too, there are special queues for US citizens at their Visa counters etc. Having lived in India (country with on of lowest per-capita income) for more than twenty five, I still cannot recall an instance where we approached US for any aid.
Ray Cassick wrote:
when they want our help in blowing up the other guy.
US have played a nice role in messing my part of the world, by supporting Taliban during 80's and strengthening Pakistan-ISI, and always supporting non-democratic Pakistan military government through out the history. And US till date has only prevented us from blowing up these bad elements. Having said that, I don't deny the fact that, US have always tried their options, with only intention to make a better world.
-Suhredayan
-
suhredayan wrote:
US policy may need to give a little more respect to this fact.
Amen. Tell Israel they're on their own, but the weapons shop is always open. Ditto to the Saudis. Dump Nato and call our troops home and send em to guard our own borders rather than everyone else's. Stop protecting South Korea. Tell Japan it's time to learn how to stand up for themselves again. Wish Taiwan good luck and goodbye. Wave aloha to SEATO and ANZUS. Pull out of Iraq in 16 days not 16 months. Abrogate NAFTA and CAFTA. Tell the UN to head elsewhere and reclaim all that prime real estate for taxable purposes. Cancel the 20 billion in aid we have scheduled for Africa. Ignore Darfur. Cancel all Most Favored Nation trade treaties, except with the British Isles. Drop out of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Wish India and Pakistan the best of luck, and assure them they are free to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, without, at least, American interference or interest. (The fallout's likely to have disapated over the Pacific, don't you think?) Sounds like plan to me! :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Wish India and Pakistan the best of luck, and assure them they are free to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, without, at least, American interference or interest.
I am not an expert to comment on everything happening around the world. But in this part of the world, it was this same American interference or interest that made things so bad. It was US who supported Taliban, Pakistan-ISI and Pakistan's non-democratic Military through out the history. It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them. However I don't deny US wants to see a better world, but I always feel there is something missing in the policy.
-Suhredayan
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
They are inferior humans and need to be carefully bred and cultivated from someone superior
Never said that, nor meant it. But the rule of law seems to have received short shrift outside of the area I described - do you disagree?
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
preferably with lineage directly pointing to the Inquisition.
Better, perhaps, than the pogroms?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Never said that, nor meant it. But the rule of law seems to have received short shrift outside of the area I described - do you disagree?
I’m not entirely agreed with the generalization. The Orthodox Church created similar moral foundations, but in the countries outside Catholic Church area of influence. Of course it’s the same religion just different churches but still – the generalizations are dangerous and usually wrong.
Oakman wrote:
Better, perhaps, than the pogroms?
I'm lost here.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
This article is very funny: a Russian pundit "predicts" that the U.S. will fall apart in 2009-2010 and the US territory will be controlled by China, European Union, Mexico and Canada[^]. But my point here is not about an idiot saying bullshit about US politics. The really interesting issue is the mechanics of the bias, how it is generated. Basically Russians see politics in every country in the world the same way they see their own politics: split appart by nationalist and ethnical feelings and under assault of extern superpowers. That's why they love Putin. He is a thief and a tirant but he gives them security and stability. A lot of people in the Russian Federation's provinces know that they were sovereign countries before communism. And the Russians imagine the Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) as being in the same state. It is easy to call this whole thing as stupid, but the fact is that a lot of the foreign policy of the American government has been repeating the same bias inverted. When Bush-father anounced a "New World Order" he believed that Russia would fall into the ranks of capitalism and open society, not into kleptocracy. When neo-cons created the domino effect theory to justify nation building in Iraq/Afganistan they completely ignored the power of tribal and clan loyalties; these don't exist in the U.S. The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Pure bullshit. You simply are not perceptive enough to understand that you are making a fundamentally racist argument. If what you are saying has any merit, and if we do wish to embrace classical liberalism (unrelated to neo-liberalism, btw) than it is entirely appropriate that we either isolate ourselves from the 'others', disallowing emigration and integration, or we actively seek to force them to accept our views, violently if necessary. Which is it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Wish India and Pakistan the best of luck, and assure them they are free to do what they want, when they want, how they want, to whom they want, without, at least, American interference or interest.
I am not an expert to comment on everything happening around the world. But in this part of the world, it was this same American interference or interest that made things so bad. It was US who supported Taliban, Pakistan-ISI and Pakistan's non-democratic Military through out the history. It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them. However I don't deny US wants to see a better world, but I always feel there is something missing in the policy.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
I am not an expert to comment on everything happening around the world. But in this part of the world, it was this same American interference or interest that made things so bad. It was US who supported Taliban, Pakistan-ISI and Pakistan's non-democratic Military through out the history. It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them.
Nothing that the US has done, for better or worse, since it assumed a more international role following WWII, has happened in a political vacume. Every thing that we did was for the purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
suhredayan wrote:
I am not an expert to comment on everything happening around the world. But in this part of the world, it was this same American interference or interest that made things so bad. It was US who supported Taliban, Pakistan-ISI and Pakistan's non-democratic Military through out the history. It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them.
Nothing that the US has done, for better or worse, since it assumed a more international role following WWII, has happened in a political vacume. Every thing that we did was for the purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every thing that we did was for the purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Did US really needed to do all those things? wasn't it was only a matter of time then, for the USSR to go down.
-Suhredayan
-
suhredayan wrote:
I am not an expert to comment on everything happening around the world. But in this part of the world, it was this same American interference or interest that made things so bad. It was US who supported Taliban, Pakistan-ISI and Pakistan's non-democratic Military through out the history. It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them.
Nothing that the US has done, for better or worse, since it assumed a more international role following WWII, has happened in a political vacume. Every thing that we did was for the purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Holy Shi'ite. And you complain about the left's greater good. Let's have a little war instead of a thermo one. :rolleyes:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
Everyone wants us to leave everyone alone except to provide aid
I would like to disagree, US may have brought few countries with their financial/technology aid, like Saudi, Singapore etc. I have seen the affect personally too, there are special queues for US citizens at their Visa counters etc. Having lived in India (country with on of lowest per-capita income) for more than twenty five, I still cannot recall an instance where we approached US for any aid.
Ray Cassick wrote:
when they want our help in blowing up the other guy.
US have played a nice role in messing my part of the world, by supporting Taliban during 80's and strengthening Pakistan-ISI, and always supporting non-democratic Pakistan military government through out the history. And US till date has only prevented us from blowing up these bad elements. Having said that, I don't deny the fact that, US have always tried their options, with only intention to make a better world.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
I still cannot recall an instance where we approached US for any aid.
FYI U.S. Government Aid[^] to India FY 2000: $170,024,000 FY 2001: 162,723,000 FY 2002: 166,209,000 FY 2003: 242,473,000 Note that the above does not include any U.S. Foundation aid. The Gates Foundation, for instance maintains a full-time office in India to facilitate the administration of its many grants. Earlier The Rockefeller Foundation's grants to Indian agriculture enabled the development of a number of new, high-yield, disease resistant crops. There was a special funding organization called "The Aid to India Consortium" consisting of the World Bank and thirteen countries: Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, West Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Collectively they gave RS434.7 - almost 70% of all aid received, between FY 1974 and FY 1989. In 2007, the U.S. slashed its foreign aid to India, based on its reclassification away from "developing nation" since it had one of the best performing economies in the world and its own foreign aid program.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every thing that we did was for the purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Did US really needed to do all those things? wasn't it was only a matter of time then, for the USSR to go down.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
Did US really needed to do all those things?
Almost certainly not. ANd we are certainly responsible for cleaning up our messes. But the notion that any conflict of such complexity can be conducted perfectly is ludicrous. Warfare is an inherently messy process, but the cold war could have ended very much more messily than it actual did.
suhredayan wrote:
wasn't it was only a matter of time then, for the USSR to go down.
It is only a matter of time before everything goes down. The real question is do you confront evil and actively try to destroy it or do you not? If you do decide to fight it, than you have no choice but to fight it on its own terms. Evil will never fight good on good's terms.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
purpose of defeating the USSR in a way that would not result in a thermo-nuclear conflagration. I think we succeeded well enough at that.
Holy Shi'ite. And you complain about the left's greater good. Let's have a little war instead of a thermo one. :rolleyes:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]