Imposing democracy does not seemed to have improved the lives of the Iraqis. They are still being brutalized by jack-booted thugs armed with machetes and AK-47s, just under a different banner.

The 1990s showed that a mercanery army will want power over the country they have been used to invade. Which is the lesser of the two evils, fanatical islam or communism? Whoever wins will have to be dealt with eventually, in this case they were dealt with by using the Northen Alliance (I assume you were referring to afghanistan) who, incidentally, also have an appaling human rights record. You'd think people would learn from their mistakes.

Felix, you must see that, whilst your first hand experience of human nature at its worst gives you a unique perspective, it has also formed a sterotypical view, based only on the events you have whitnessed. We, who do not have that experience, cannot know what some people are capable of, but that knowledge does not sour our opinion of the majority.

Your words may have meaning to you, but of all the opinions on this forum, yours seem the most one sided. Your derision of the adverts is understandable, given your experience, but can you not appreciate the other side of the argument? That it is not 9/11 vs other problems, but that it is a comparison between the problems of two groups, who are in the majority innocents, illustrating the inbalance in public opinion, and that the outcry only goes to show that the illustration is a painfully effective one.

For me the main problem with the adverts has just become apparent. It shows people in need on the streets of new york. The hungry, homeless and HIV positive people in *our* western society, motly asked for it as Felix said. I don't give to beggars because they will probably spend anything I give on drink and if they had a mind they would be on welfare with a council home. The same is *not* true for those in societies where, even if you have the will, there is not always the way, where corruption and natural disasters make even the most hard working and moral people into charity cases. The adverts portray the former rather than the latter. This is just a view, but ist seems to me that this could be where some of the criticism comes from.

Imposing democracy does not seemed to have improved the lives of the Iraqis. They are still being brutalized by jack-booted thugs armed with machetes and AK-47s, just under a different banner.

</font>[/QUOTE]We should give it some time. Iraq has only just been 'liberated', and the local oil supplies should go a long way towards rebuilding the country.
In the meanwhile, the country doesn't even have a functioning army or government yet. I'm more worried about the Afghani's, who seem to be forgotten by the world, and lack the natural resources needed to rebuild their infrastructure. Plus, it's hardly an interesting place to invest in.

Afganistan had their legislative elections last week amid threats from the Taliban that they would attack polling places and voters (their disclaimer not to attack "innocents" is about as worthless as a palestinian suicide bombers statement that he won't harm innocents, their definition is nowhere near ours). The opium trade in Afganistan is going to be one of the biggest problems as it's a ready source of money, and alot easier to produce than food (which can be bought with the money earned from opium and at a larger profit margin), since it's controlled by our "allies" and enemies there it's going to be hard to stop, but a fundamental step. As far as modernization goes, they (the afgani gov't) don't want it and will resist it as long as they possibly can. But the people want a taste of a better life, and are seeking it, as the massive voter turnouts for the legislative elections have shown.

Saudi Arabia is frothing at the bit about the US training the Iraqi military and police due to the fact that the only realy representation of Sunni muslims there are Kurds, an ethnic group that has suffered for a very long time at the hands of their arab sunni muslim rulers, the other muslim group being trained is of course the shiite muslims who make up the majority of the population and share the same ideological roots as Iran (and are considered a large threat by Saudi Arabia due to their size and lack of shared religious beliefs, ie sunni's view shiites as infidels at best, and apostates at worst (apostacy has but one sentence in Islam).

What was that chinese curse... may you live in interesting times?

god bless you grojlach

Melcheor writ:
This little insult almost caused me not to even carry forward with the discussion. It's easy to insult when you don't want to mount a real argument. Looking to the most prevalent and general factors and trying to plan around them is not "justifying opinion with stereotypes." As I said before, I didn't state things that are universal to every individual, merely those that were generally applicable. For instance, whether you want to call it a stereotype or not, it is generally true that Africa has suffered through a long spate of changing regimes and recycled dictators -- you yourself even lament the fall of empires in Africa, because we all know the situation was caused by the void in power that the empires left.

As good sociologists, we make generalizations about groups, not individuals. Good social planners would be wise to plan around such general characteristics. Let's look at an example:

Not true. Take the trade sanctions against Saddam. We knew he would take advantage -- we knew every $1 sent his way would go first to him to build weapons and castles. Maybe a few pennies would actually make it to the Iraqis, but that's too low a percentage to spend the effort. If Sally Struthers ran a telethon to raise money for starving kids in Africa, and told us that at least five cents out of every dollar donated would make it to the needy, many of us would choose not to donate -- and rightfully so. The generalization that "some aid is better than no aid" is naive in that it doesn't consider these sorts of diminishing returns.
And, they may well be dead wrong. What if freedom actually were to set in and take hold in the middle east and africa? Those people could very well be much better off in the long term. What is worth more to a society -- injecting aid in the form of grain and food, or changing that society's whole paradigm such that it chooses to free its self from the yokes of oppression?

Assuming it can be done, and the people can actually be freed -- which remains to be seen -- then upending all the wrongheaded, oppressive, failed or failing muslim dictatorial regimes in the region could well be the best money spent.

Felix said:
I don't think so, Felix. I think he took you to task well on a few points.

For instance, when someone with anecdotal or first-hand experience posts on a board regarding How Life Is, we all tend by nature to give deference. But, your experience isn't the only truth of these issues. We cannot give it more merit that the pictures we see on TV or the news reports we hear. We simply can't do that. We add it into our database of information, but it isn't any "special" breed of evidence having more inherent validity than other sources of info.

I'm sure you understand.

Felix, you must see that, whilst your first hand experience of human nature at its worst gives you a unique perspective, it has also formed a sterotypical view, based only on the events you have whitnessed. We, who do not have that experience, cannot know what some people are capable of, but that knowledge does not sour our opinion of the majority.

Your words may have meaning to you, but of all the opinions on this forum, yours seem the most one sided. Your derision of the adverts is understandable, given your experience, but can you not appreciate the other side of the argument? That it is not 9/11 vs other problems, but that it is a comparison between the problems of two groups, who are in the majority innocents, illustrating the inbalance in public opinion, and that the outcry only goes to show that the illustration is a painfully effective one.

For me the main problem with the adverts has just become apparent. It shows people in need on the streets of new york. The hungry, homeless and HIV positive people in *our* western society, motly asked for it as Felix said. I don't give to beggars because they will probably spend anything I give on drink and if they had a mind they would be on welfare with a council home. The same is *not* true for those in societies where, even if you have the will, there is not always the way, where corruption and natural disasters make even the most hard working and moral people into charity cases. The adverts portray the former rather than the latter. This is just a view, but ist seems to me that this could be where some of the criticism comes from. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=blood red>Yes, I can see the other side. However, I have not always been a sterotypical soldier. I have seen things from within as well. That and views of that are not for discussion, but I will say. It is the human nature, and not the society, the way, religion, moral values, or the lack there of, that allow things that you cannot grasp, because there are no 'first hand' reporters there to 'show' the free world what can and will transpire with or without the aid of a superior force present. For it is the way of the man! Biased as it may be, It surely is not sterotypical.

A person can commit an act of wrong doing. Some could say it's evil, others might not think twice at all about it. But somebody somewhere will say it's sterotypical. When in all reality it falls right back to the point of the person. I judge a man by his actions, not the actions of others, but his actions alone. When the lives of others are at stake, one can only believe what is physically seen, said, or heard. And that can only be taught in the enviormental theater of operations. </font>

Timber, the stereotypes thing was a bit of a low blow, sorry about that. Still, my issue was that you seemed like you were using the unstable political climate as an excuse not to help. Like a "whatever we do it won't work" attitude. Africa's political is unstable, granted. But aid is not just sending supplies the government will likely confiscate. It is about giving money to organisations who will teach people skills and give them tools to live by their own means. This isn't easy for governments to take advantage of. Corruption stems from officials having to suppliment their income with bribes from big buisness. The underlying problem being poverty. Invading and securing may yet prove succesful (I have my doubts) but i think long term aid with the aim of reducing poverty would be more effective.

Felix, I think I might just have lost you. You're getting a little philosophical now...

[ 09-25-2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Melcheor ]

<font color=ggffcc> [img]graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img] Gotcha! Target Cease Fire! Recorder put ink to paper. Spotter, plot next target!</font>

--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg