5 ms·
Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory). A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will b
by nir 16y ago
Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory).
A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars.
Another example: Afghanistan. First we go in. Then we realize Taliban not only has a completely different notion of values, but of time itself - they are perfectly happy to continue fighting for 20 more years if need be. Now we're thinking, "let's just pull out and forget about it" - as if it's possible to just start off of a clean slate, no consequence.
Another example, Iran in the Middle East. The documents "reveal" what anyone should have known - Arab regimes are horrified of the option of a nuclear Iran. This is because the deepest rivalry in the Middle East, that shed the most blood, is the Sunni-Shiite (and Arab-Farsi) - see the >1m dead in the Iraq-Iran war - rather then the Israeli-Arab obsessively covered by Fox/CNN/Reddit/Beck/Stewart.
Finally, a personal favorite of mine: my wife often tells me how her (expensive Ivy League) university professors bring up various UN treaties nearly all nations but the US have signed. They seem to actually believe the various dictatorships that signed these documents will not ignore them completely the second they become inconvenient.
I'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. Just that I think the level of discussion is ridiculous.
- dkl 16y ago> On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left opposed the war in Iraq. How about this: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was NO reason to attack them??
- nir 16y agoI'm sure you're not reading support for the Iraq war in my comments? My problem is not with the anti-war point of view, but with naivety of the legality argument.
- colinplamondon 16y agoThey tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.
- hugh3 16y agoAnd don't forget that Saddam wasn't abiding by the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, which ought to be an immediate justification for resuming fire, since that's how ceasefire agreements work. Lack of legalistic justification was never lacking for the Iraq war. Whether it was morally the right thing to do, or whether it was a worthwhile thing to do from a US-interests standpoint, are genuine questions. (Which I don't feel like discussing today.)
- vacri 16y agoAnd don't forget that the US' allies were all saying "Just wait a few months until the weapons inspections agenda is complete, then we'll all go in as planned and sanctioned by the UN". No, the US had to accelerate the timetable, replacing "worthless weapons inspections" with Powell's equally worthless poster project showing "structures".
- guelo 16y agoAfter 9/11? ah, these arguments are giving me fond memories of wanting to pull my hair out back in 2003.
- netcan 16y agoNir, I have a similar background to you. Since you single out Americans, tell me where people have more realistic and worldview? Our home country?
- nir 16y agoI definitely don't single out Americans. In my experience it's just the same in Western Europe and other places. People who live in places where they are forced to exist "closer to the metal", eg Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa tend to be less naive. Not smarter or better in any way - just more aware of the forces that shape the world. The morning of 9/11/01 I was in a hostel in Adelaide, Australia. An American girl was in the TV room in tears, crying, "why would anyone do such a thing?". I don't mean to belittle her sorrow one bit, but I remember how the way she perceived this as illogical seemed so otherworldly to me. I mean, we grew up thinking it's obvious someone would attack our homes, if they could (and sometimes they did).
- netcan 16y agoI have seen those same tears in Kfar Saba. That said, I agree with you that the naive 19 year old in the US is more naive than her counterpart elsewhere. That doesn't say anything about Americans perception of Iraqi/Afgahni values. I don't think Americans are more naive about these than other people about similar things. Probably less. Fallacies, naivety. These are pretty wide.
- nir 16y agoIt's not the tears. I could tear up as well. It's the disbelief that anyone would want to harm you, even though they never met you, just because you belong to a group (eg nation) they're opposed to. It was strange to me, since I grew up knowing there are people who never met me who'd harm me given the chance. It was actually happening pretty close by, from time to time. I didn't realize, until then, that there are people who don't grow up with the same notion. Again, I'm not singling out Americans at all. I actually seem to have a higher opinion of America & Americans than most of my fellow New Yorkers..
- joelhaus 16y agoI'm not claiming to have a good idea on what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/etc. It's a shame that airing extreme views produces more ad dollars than airing centrist views, because apparently, it also tars how entire populations are percieved. My impression is that your questions are shared by many (most?) in the west.