5 ms·

I am from middle east and I am atheist (because so many people will accuse me of being Muslim).I want to touch on topic which is a little bit off topic. But for

by 0xFFC 11y ago

I am from middle east and I am atheist (because so many people will accuse me of being Muslim).I want to touch on topic which is a little bit off topic. But for people who wants to see big picture it is essential. I can only say one thing to your politician's : Get the fuck out of middle East. There is one way to change middle East and it is to change culture by improving your own society. When I read news about USA domestic issuse my mind blows up, how these fuckers (politicians) can bring us democracy?when they don't even care about their own people. Looks what's going on in Flint Michigan. At the otherhand when people go and see what is going on in countries like Norway/Finland(which didn't invade any country in middle East in recent years.didn't intervene and overthrow government in middle East) then they really start to think there is something wrong about us culturally (middle East) and we should start to change , and bring to ourselves what these country's have already, like democracy, freedom of speech.(this is when real change start to happen, not when some moron like bush spend billions and billions without achieving single goal and for just making enemy's) At the other hand by USA presense in middle East they (usa)are basically undermine our (liberal people in middle East) argument for common people in middle East.Believe it or not hardliners will say we are traitor and West's puppets, and believe me people believe it when West's does actually occupy or intervene in their country politics. I can't understand, what is hard to get? Get the fuck out of middle East. Overthrowing Mossadegh(democratically elected). Backing Saudi Arabia (one of the worst human rights record, maybe a little bit better than ISIS itself) for many years. Backing Egyptian dictator (mobarak) for many years. Backing Saddam against Iran , while Saddam did use chemical weapon. Backing mujahedeen (basically Tliban) against Soviet Union. And list goes on. You cannot keep snake in your backyard and expect them to only bite your neighbor. honestly asking ? What the fuck do you want from us?

chvid 11y ago
What are the particular problems in Norway, Finland and Flint, Michigan you are referring to?
- JeffreyKaine 11y ago
  Parent was praising Norway and Finland for their focus on leveling up their culture and economy. No problems there. As for Flint, Michigan... A quick google will give you a lot of info, but the gist of it is that they have had lead in their water for over two years and it's beyond toxic. Their government has failed them.
  - chvid 11y ago
    I can see that now - he seems to have edited his comment a few times.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      The guy obviously does not speak English as a primary language, so give him a break. I've seen less intelligible writing from Americans who only speak English.
  - hartpuff 11y ago
    I think he was (also) saying Muslims are misbehaving in Norway and Finland, and it can't be blamed on those countries attacking the Middle East, so people (rightly or wrongly) believe there is something wrong with Muslims/people in the Middle East culturally.
    - 0xFFC 11y ago
      No. JeffreyKaine explained 100% what I meant.
      - hartpuff 11y ago
        Ah, okay. My mistake.
trhway 11y ago
>Instead when people go and see what is going on in countries like Norway/Finland then they really start to think there is something wrong about us culturally (middle East) and we should start to change. it doesn't always work this way. Russia ventured out this way in 199x and crawled back scared (in particular by the number and size of things what are wrong with Russians individually and at a whole society level) into the old cage. It is very hard to overcome mentality developed over centuries.
- 0xFFC 11y ago
  I don't know about Russia , but for religious ignorance, this is like cure. Russia and middle East are two different story. I am in middle East and I can see , there is only one way to solve this problem (radicalism). and it must solved by middle East people themselves. whether you like it or not, . whether you spend 200 years from now bombing. This is not going to be solved. Yes. Sad news but truth. BTW mentality for middle East people started when your fucking government started overthrowing democratically elected government in middle East.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  What are you talking about? Russia was virtually a failed state in the 1990s, except for half-a-dozen pro-Western crooks who became instant billionaires stealing assets the Russian people had built and paid for, and who helped steal the 1996 election for their partner in crime, Yeltsin. I'm no fan of Putin or his own kleptocratic cronies, but whether you like him or not, Russia seems to have become far stronger and more stable under him than under his drunken pro-Western predecessor.
  - happosai 11y ago
    Keyword "seems". by eliminating competition around him, Putin is building a power vacuum to happen when he is inevitably gone. The idea that dictator is needed to stabilize a corrupt society isn't completely wrong. But it requires that the dictator is actively growing a next generation of self-thinking competent leaders. Putin is a +60y ex-spy treating every self-thinker as a threat, instead surrounding himself with inept yes-men. That is paving the the post-putin russia to look a lot like Maduro's venezuela.
selimthegrim 11y ago
Abdus Salam went around in the early 80s hat in hand ( I think UNESCO auspices) to Middle Eastern countries to found new universities. They threw like half a million at him and told him to pound sand. When everything settles down I would at least hope this new generation of leaders decides to invest something worth a damn in higher education. (And no, nothing I've heard about KAUST gives me any hope that that's a bellwether at present)
sdoering 11y ago
I can follow lots of your arguments. And I do believe that a lot of interventions does in the end lead to disaster. That one point of view. What would have happened on the other hand, if some countries did not intervene in Bosnia? Could we have watched one ethnic group genociding another? Should we have stood by the sidelines doing nothing? I have no final opinion on my last point, as I as pacifist do not believe in military interventions at all. On the other hand I am a realist and have to calculate the possible costs for every alternative. And in some cases the costs of inaction might outweigh the cost intervention. As said not really sure myself, still evaluating this thought. And I also try to look at the reasons behind these actions. Why did some countries (US and others) do what they did, what was to gain, what to loose. What are the economic implications - and so on.
- trhway 11y ago
  >What would have happened on the other hand, if some countries did not intervene in Bosnia? Bosnian Serbs having their own country? Unfortunately for them Bosnia is ally with Turkey, a NATO member. So the intervention was on behalf of Bosnia. Nobody cares though when it is allies who commit the same atrocities - like Turkey does to Kurds and what Saudi Arabia does today in Yemen (for fun consider a story - "rebels oust government, and a neighbor supporting the ousted government intervenes military" - in the last 2 years that happened in Ukraine/Russia and Yemen/Saudi Arabia - and compare which side Western countries have supported :).
  - 0xFFC 11y ago
    Exactly. Side note, https://theintercept.com/ https://theintercept.com/ One of the best sources for news.I have such respect for Greenwald, I would work for the guy for free. I think in this climate ,Greenwald and people like him are true hero's.
  - sdoering 11y ago
    I know what you mean. I am for once undecided on this issue and did not want to pull a Godwin. Therefore trying to find a more recent example and did this in Bosnia. The German part of that intervention by the way was against our constitution, but did happen non the less (it being a war like effort, without UN mandate is not allowed and explicitly forbidden by our constitution - but who cares as no consequences for the politicians did happen). I see hefty reasons to be against interventions and having studied history, I also see some cases where interventions might be, in the long run, for the greater good. But that can be decided in hindsight and I find it hard (to impossible) to do so smack in the middle of such a situation. We do not have lots of information and we have to make decisions under massiv uncertainty. If politicians then have multiple voices telling them this or that viewpoint (with their own hidden agendas) - who of us would be any better in deciding rationally? And I do mean the rational part of the decision, that cold hard rationality, that might not look good in the press, but is necessary? To make a decision is mostly easy. To do it right is hard (or do it based on ideology - also quite easy imho). So Bosnian Serbs having their own country? Did I get something wrong while studying history or didn't the Bosnien Serbs for the most part want to stay with Serbia? And weren't it the Bosniaks who pushed for a separate state? Weren't the Bosniaks the ones who did (in a 1990 questionnaire) identify mostly as a non religious ethnic group, but were traditionally sorted into the "Muslim" category since the Ottoman Empire (thereby gaining support during the war by muslim countries). Weren't it for the Serbs who did most (around three quarters) of the war crimes and atrocities (not that the other quarter wasn't as bad). So yeah - not intervening here might just have perpetuated a situation. It also might have made it worse. But that's easy to discuss in hindsight. Having only partial information it might not be that easy to decide in the given situation. And I am willing to give the politicians back then some slack for deciding in uncertainty. And no, that is no "get out of jail" card or anything. It is just me trying to have a rational view based in reality, while trying to build a more final view on these questions. Not saying, that the current interventions are anything good at all or not driven by purely economic interests or interests in securing access to natural resources or such.
tim333 11y ago
Or perhaps the west could limit itself to no violent spending. Just think if instead of blowing $1.1 trillion on the Iraq war they'd spent it on humanitarian aid, education and supporting the more peaceful and human rights promoting groups. It also has the advantage you don't have to figure too accurately who the good and bad guys are. In Syria there are loads of warring factions, all of which have been involved in atrocities so it becomes tricky knowing which to shoot hence the problems mentioned in the article.
- 0xFFC 11y ago
  Exactly.imagine what could have been achievable with internet.when I say internet, I mean free flow of information. Imagine more projects like Tor for people in suadi Arabia and Iran.imagine providing them more place like coursera/udacity. Imagine attacking their culture with cultral war.It would have been paradise for me at least. I live in middle east, I can see how internet make people to change their mind. It is beyond words I can explain.yes it would have take more time.you are not going to change a 80 million(for example) population culture overnight.but it is doable and after overcoming the hurdle you have done something great for humanity.one of the most achievement in human history maybe.when you culturally eliminating a religion from a area and replacing it with better culture.
force_reboot 11y ago
The US is in the middle east because of oil and Israel. Both reasons. If you think it's just oil, the ADL and AIPAC are going to get mad at you for not giving them credit where it's due. And on top of that, now it seems like liberals are bored with their success at home, and want a proxy war with Russia. The US will leave you alone when liberals decide that spreading liberal values isn't worth a war with Russia, and that supporting Israel isn't a liberal cause, and when conservatives realize that the oil isn't worth it, and that Israel is a horrible "ally".

by 0xFFC 11y ago

chvid 11y ago

What are the particular problems in Norway, Finland and Flint, Michigan you are referring to?

JeffreyKaine 11y ago
Parent was praising Norway and Finland for their focus on leveling up their culture and economy. No problems there. As for Flint, Michigan... A quick google will give you a lot of info, but the gist of it is that they have had lead in their water for over two years and it's beyond toxic. Their government has failed them.
- chvid 11y ago
  I can see that now - he seems to have edited his comment a few times.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    The guy obviously does not speak English as a primary language, so give him a break. I've seen less intelligible writing from Americans who only speak English.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  I think he was (also) saying Muslims are misbehaving in Norway and Finland, and it can't be blamed on those countries attacking the Middle East, so people (rightly or wrongly) believe there is something wrong with Muslims/people in the Middle East culturally.
  - 0xFFC 11y ago
    No. JeffreyKaine explained 100% what I meant.
    - hartpuff 11y ago
      Ah, okay. My mistake.

trhway 11y ago

>Instead when people go and see what is going on in countries like Norway/Finland then they really start to think there is something wrong about us culturally (middle East) and we should start to change. it doesn't always work this way. Russia ventured out this way in 199x and crawled back scared (in particular by the number and size of things what are wrong with Russians individually and at a whole society level) into the old cage. It is very hard to overcome mentality developed over centuries.

0xFFC 11y ago
I don't know about Russia , but for religious ignorance, this is like cure. Russia and middle East are two different story. I am in middle East and I can see , there is only one way to solve this problem (radicalism). and it must solved by middle East people themselves. whether you like it or not, . whether you spend 200 years from now bombing. This is not going to be solved. Yes. Sad news but truth. BTW mentality for middle East people started when your fucking government started overthrowing democratically elected government in middle East.
hartpuff 11y ago
What are you talking about? Russia was virtually a failed state in the 1990s, except for half-a-dozen pro-Western crooks who became instant billionaires stealing assets the Russian people had built and paid for, and who helped steal the 1996 election for their partner in crime, Yeltsin. I'm no fan of Putin or his own kleptocratic cronies, but whether you like him or not, Russia seems to have become far stronger and more stable under him than under his drunken pro-Western predecessor.
- happosai 11y ago
  Keyword "seems". by eliminating competition around him, Putin is building a power vacuum to happen when he is inevitably gone. The idea that dictator is needed to stabilize a corrupt society isn't completely wrong. But it requires that the dictator is actively growing a next generation of self-thinking competent leaders. Putin is a +60y ex-spy treating every self-thinker as a threat, instead surrounding himself with inept yes-men. That is paving the the post-putin russia to look a lot like Maduro's venezuela.

selimthegrim 11y ago

Abdus Salam went around in the early 80s hat in hand ( I think UNESCO auspices) to Middle Eastern countries to found new universities. They threw like half a million at him and told him to pound sand. When everything settles down I would at least hope this new generation of leaders decides to invest something worth a damn in higher education. (And no, nothing I've heard about KAUST gives me any hope that that's a bellwether at present)

sdoering 11y ago

I can follow lots of your arguments. And I do believe that a lot of interventions does in the end lead to disaster. That one point of view. What would have happened on the other hand, if some countries did not intervene in Bosnia? Could we have watched one ethnic group genociding another? Should we have stood by the sidelines doing nothing? I have no final opinion on my last point, as I as pacifist do not believe in military interventions at all. On the other hand I am a realist and have to calculate the possible costs for every alternative. And in some cases the costs of inaction might outweigh the cost intervention. As said not really sure myself, still evaluating this thought. And I also try to look at the reasons behind these actions. Why did some countries (US and others) do what they did, what was to gain, what to loose. What are the economic implications - and so on.

trhway 11y ago
>What would have happened on the other hand, if some countries did not intervene in Bosnia? Bosnian Serbs having their own country? Unfortunately for them Bosnia is ally with Turkey, a NATO member. So the intervention was on behalf of Bosnia. Nobody cares though when it is allies who commit the same atrocities - like Turkey does to Kurds and what Saudi Arabia does today in Yemen (for fun consider a story - "rebels oust government, and a neighbor supporting the ousted government intervenes military" - in the last 2 years that happened in Ukraine/Russia and Yemen/Saudi Arabia - and compare which side Western countries have supported :).
- 0xFFC 11y ago
  Exactly. Side note, https://theintercept.com/ https://theintercept.com/ One of the best sources for news.I have such respect for Greenwald, I would work for the guy for free. I think in this climate ,Greenwald and people like him are true hero's.
- sdoering 11y ago
  I know what you mean. I am for once undecided on this issue and did not want to pull a Godwin. Therefore trying to find a more recent example and did this in Bosnia. The German part of that intervention by the way was against our constitution, but did happen non the less (it being a war like effort, without UN mandate is not allowed and explicitly forbidden by our constitution - but who cares as no consequences for the politicians did happen). I see hefty reasons to be against interventions and having studied history, I also see some cases where interventions might be, in the long run, for the greater good. But that can be decided in hindsight and I find it hard (to impossible) to do so smack in the middle of such a situation. We do not have lots of information and we have to make decisions under massiv uncertainty. If politicians then have multiple voices telling them this or that viewpoint (with their own hidden agendas) - who of us would be any better in deciding rationally? And I do mean the rational part of the decision, that cold hard rationality, that might not look good in the press, but is necessary? To make a decision is mostly easy. To do it right is hard (or do it based on ideology - also quite easy imho). So Bosnian Serbs having their own country? Did I get something wrong while studying history or didn't the Bosnien Serbs for the most part want to stay with Serbia? And weren't it the Bosniaks who pushed for a separate state? Weren't the Bosniaks the ones who did (in a 1990 questionnaire) identify mostly as a non religious ethnic group, but were traditionally sorted into the "Muslim" category since the Ottoman Empire (thereby gaining support during the war by muslim countries). Weren't it for the Serbs who did most (around three quarters) of the war crimes and atrocities (not that the other quarter wasn't as bad). So yeah - not intervening here might just have perpetuated a situation. It also might have made it worse. But that's easy to discuss in hindsight. Having only partial information it might not be that easy to decide in the given situation. And I am willing to give the politicians back then some slack for deciding in uncertainty. And no, that is no "get out of jail" card or anything. It is just me trying to have a rational view based in reality, while trying to build a more final view on these questions. Not saying, that the current interventions are anything good at all or not driven by purely economic interests or interests in securing access to natural resources or such.

tim333 11y ago

Or perhaps the west could limit itself to no violent spending. Just think if instead of blowing $1.1 trillion on the Iraq war they'd spent it on humanitarian aid, education and supporting the more peaceful and human rights promoting groups. It also has the advantage you don't have to figure too accurately who the good and bad guys are. In Syria there are loads of warring factions, all of which have been involved in atrocities so it becomes tricky knowing which to shoot hence the problems mentioned in the article.

0xFFC 11y ago
Exactly.imagine what could have been achievable with internet.when I say internet, I mean free flow of information. Imagine more projects like Tor for people in suadi Arabia and Iran.imagine providing them more place like coursera/udacity. Imagine attacking their culture with cultral war.It would have been paradise for me at least. I live in middle east, I can see how internet make people to change their mind. It is beyond words I can explain.yes it would have take more time.you are not going to change a 80 million(for example) population culture overnight.but it is doable and after overcoming the hurdle you have done something great for humanity.one of the most achievement in human history maybe.when you culturally eliminating a religion from a area and replacing it with better culture.

force_reboot 11y ago

The US is in the middle east because of oil and Israel. Both reasons. If you think it's just oil, the ADL and AIPAC are going to get mad at you for not giving them credit where it's due. And on top of that, now it seems like liberals are bored with their success at home, and want a proxy war with Russia. The US will leave you alone when liberals decide that spreading liberal values isn't worth a war with Russia, and that supporting Israel isn't a liberal cause, and when conservatives realize that the oil isn't worth it, and that Israel is a horrible "ally".