En route to my French class tonight I swung by the New World Metro to grab a panini. A lovely girl in her early twenties helped me with a big smile. Being the talkative guy that I am I asked her about her accent because I couldn't place it. (English was a second language, but it was excellent). She bantered back with "guess". I started thinking, looking to the ceiling... then she interjected with "Iraqi".
Now I've met a number of Iraqis here that came over during the war with Iran. They are always quick make some distinction I can't even remember now that lets me know they were part of a group that left ages ago. So I ask this girl, when did you leave Iraq?
She smiles, "About 2 years".
"How do you like it?"
"I love it here, great country."
"I really like it here as well."
"Oh yeah, where are you from?"
...hummm.
"I'm from the US... err Texas"
Then the gut shot - "I guess were not supposed to get along?" she tries to keep the smile friendly.
She tells me "I've lived through too many wars", "It's hell when you don't know if you will live through the day", "I got into Jordan during the start of the war, and then came here... I'm one of the lucky ones."
I pathetically retort "I didn't vote for *him*". The guilt has contorted my face. She tells me not to worry about it, "I'm over it" she tells me.
How can anyone be "over it"? How does someone young and beautiful stay young and beautiful when they deal with what she has?
So much of the pain she has dealt with is the result of my country, particularly my state's most famous... err infamous export. damn. I think to myself, "maybe I should invite her for a coffee?" Yeah, that'll do, I'll by you a coffee to assuage my guilt for my country destroying your country, home, and probably causing the death of your family members...
So I tell her she has all of my respect and I take my panini and walk back into my ridiculously comfortable lifestyle that has never been threatened or needed me to fight for it.
Independent of who I vote for, I am still responsible for what America does. It has a government "for the people, *by* the people". And I believe the last few years will leave a stain on all Americans' conscience when history begins to judge... as it has begun to do already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Regardless of whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, do you think the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under Saddam's rule?
Does that help you rationalise it, eyal?
No, I don't really need to rationalize anything with regards to Iraq :) Yes, on the circumfrence it helps rationalize a certain modus operandi in international relations.
The moral question still remains, and on a larger scale, is use of force against another country always evil to the degree that it invalidates any positive outcomes or necessities of using that force, which may or may not be greater than the negatives or price paid to achieve those outcomes.
You've hit the nail completely on the head:
"The moral question still remains"
alas I see you're not inclined to ponder possible answers to this very real question.. no matter, recognizing the existence of the question and the possibility of different "truths" will probably suffice for now :)
My apologies, allow me to be a little more verbose.
The original question of "do you think the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under Saddam's rule?" cannot be answered without defining exactly what it is you can and will use as a reference.
The Iraqi people suffered immensely under Saddam, and they are suffering immensely now.
Do the Iraqi people have less personal, political, and economic safety and freedom now under American occupation or before under a tyranical dictator (who was possibly placed there by Americans)?
Under American occupation the Iraqi people have to suffer the spawning of a new generation of Islamic radicals and terrorism. These people who will eventually return to their home states, "exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies" there and further afield.
The middle class that once existed in cities such as Baghdad is now flying and leaving the country (hence the chance meeting Trey had) and we hear comments from Iraqi bloggers such as:
"For me, June marked the first month I don't dare leave the house without a hijab, or headscarf. I don't wear a hijab usually, but it's no longer possible to drive around Baghdad without one. It's just not a good idea. (Take note that when I say 'drive' I actually mean 'sit in the back seat of the car'- I haven't driven for the longest time.)"
Consumer items such as petrol is now harder to get and much more expensive. Being out after dark isn't an option for a large number of people. There is an ever increasing civilian body count from the violence in Iraq.
Compare that to Saddam who brutally repressed any opposition with notorious ferocity (then again, Americans do have Extraordinary Rendition to get around that pesky due process thing). Attacked Iranian schools, killed thousands of his own and his neighbours' civilians using all manner of traditional and chemical weapons and generally did whatever it took to retain his grip on power. He maintained a ruthless security force who tortured, raped, and murdered.
To me, I think they both suck. And using a question like "do you think the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under Saddam's rule?" in answer to a post of a person's honest emotional feelings of guilt towards the citizen of another country sucks too.
Do you think the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under Saddam's rule?
Let me go and come back later. I need to "ponder possible answers to a very real question" while civilians In Iraq are gradually losing their lives and livelyhoods - and while Americans are becoming increasingly at risk of terrorism in a world they've made even more unsafe.
Thanks for the more "verbose" response. It is always nice to have a discussion.
Let me see if I can address the points you raised.
1. No one disputes the fact that the Iraqi people are suffering. I sympathize with their suffering at a human level. It is a tragedy no matter how you look at it.
2. Indeed in some places on this planet, life suck - at least by some definition or another. If we go back to the actual question for a second then it was about what sucked more, and beyond that the legitimacy of using violence in certain situations, realizing that there is a risk that life will continue to suck to some degree post-action.
3. I don't know what the Iraqi people as a whole think or feel about now vs. then. I do not presume to know that for a fact. Maybe you have some factually based evidence related to that which I will be more than happy to learn about. My question to Trey was mainly to see whether he felt it was all gloom and doom in his opinion or if he saw anything at all positive or at least promising for the future in Iraq now vs. then. Particularly given his personal feelings of guilt (for something he has had no hand in). Maybe I should have phrased it differently, but then I didn't know you were going to read it and respond :)
4. Hopefully you had a good break while you went away and presumably advanced the prospects of saving Iraqi lives and their livelihood while I was over here idly pondering questions which in themselves, as you say, suck :)
To summarize my thoughts on your response, I think you're looking at the details of the particular suffering of the Iraqi people, while that is commendable and important (honestly, no tongue in cheek). I on the other hand, am looking at two different things: a. whether Trey saw any glimpse of hope or positivity in this, and b. the bigger picture of the expectations vs. outcome vs. future implications of such inter-national action as we've seen in Iraq.
As for the American aspect of it, it is of a lesser importance in my opinion, but I have to say your comments reek of brainwashing induced hatred for the strong and hypocrisy with regards to the international community. Throughout history empires have all behaved the same. One does not need to go too far into the past either, indeed if you need examples, both recent AND current then let me know.
Hi Eyal,
Let me first consider your point 2 where you wrote:
"If we go back to the actual question for a second then it was about what sucked more"
Yes, indeed, what sucked more ? but before answering this, we need to agree on a common way to measure what we consider. And that really is the problem, since, how do you measure suffering ? Is suffering really a linear function of an objective situation ? I doubt very much so, as to admit this, is to say that subjectivity is a pure, simple and direct consequence of objective factors. I disagree with this view, and contends the opposite saying that some people in the most peaceful and free environment can suffer more than people in war or under a tyrant. Obviously I dont mean that war or tyranny are desirable states of affair, but to equate war, dictatorship and suffering is not correct either.
As a consequence, to decide an action only on the ground that people are suffering is flawed on a logical point of view.
As another consequence there may simply have no answer to your original question:
"do you think the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under Saddam's rule?"
Because there is no such thing as the iraqi people as a whole and we cannot devise a measure for the "betterness off"
Therefore I agree with one of your last statement, the real question indeed is to be found in:
"the bigger picture of the expectations vs. outcome vs. future implications of such inter-national action as we've seen in Iraq."
But here, as you know my position since we already discussed this, I am rather critical of american policy. Let's consider for instance the situation in Iran which is clearly linked to what has happened in Iraq since US intervention.
While Kathami was president, USA consitently refused to normalize diplomatic relationships with Iran, and maintain a highly critical line against Kathami. Then in 2005, Ahmadinejad is elected reversing most of Kathami reforms (which he had already done in Tehran as its mayor), now Iran appears as the problem number one in Middle-East, and promises to strengthen his power in Iraq as soon as US will be gone. I dont see much positive points in that, and Iran is clearly a much more powerful, complex and dangerous adversary than Iraq has ever been for the world safety.
I therefore consider that US failed gravely in handling this region.
As for Europe, their weight in some part of the world may be significant (especially on an economical side), but in the middle-east, due to their military weakness, they simply dont exist.
In conclusion then, the international situation is much worse than before, Iran becoming a major threat may provide an important financial and military base for terrorism. Furthermore, the mood in USA is to leave Iraq as soon as possible, especially the democrats tends to campaign on that for the coming mid-term elections, clearly, if that happens, things will only get worse; the responsibility of USA now is to stay in Iraq for at least 20 years, and maybe more. Preventive attack was just a nice new word for colonization.
Hi JP,
From a purist point of view yes it is not possible to define level of suffering and there is also a difficulty to consider the Iraqi people as whole. However if we move away from a perfect ideal objective to approximation to the best of our capability then we can come up with tools and techniques to create metrics and benchmarks that will help answer this question. It is, in my opinion, similar to the way democracy is handled today, we've obviously moved away from Athenian model due to practical reasons. If we decided we had to either stick to the 'perfect' model or abandon the whole attempt then the only option is abandoning representation of the nation's will, the same goes with regards to the concept of the betterment of the nation as a whole. Also people do make these assessments about their lives asking questions such as will my life be better off (suffer less) with this political candidate or the other and which one would be better for us as ______ fill the blank with any nationality (people as a whole).
As I said I wasn't using the question to justify or rationalize this particular war.
On the Iranian side, this is of course one of the main concerns I alluded to in terms of ramifications of the situation in Iraq. It is pertinent in the face of what is clearly an escalating situation right now as we 'speak'. True, the US could have handled the situation better during Khatami's period but putting the Ahmadinejad phenomenon squarely on its shoulders would be incorrect in my opinion. You are also ignoring the role of the Supreme Leader which is in effect a higher position than the President. So back to today, the world is now faced with the dilemma - what should be done about Iran? Should the US or any other country/international body etc. take any actions against Iran, seeing that this time we do actually have a case of WMD :) - and at the hands of an extremist lunatic? The linkage therefore is knowing that actions against Iran (military or otherwise) will bring about suffering to the Iranian people. But then if action shouldn't be taken because of the potential suffering of Iranians then what are the consequences of that and is that a price the world is willing to pay in the long run.
Europe is indeed weak, tired and more inwardly looking than perhaps ever before, but that's not the real problem. The problem is that Europe is devoting its entire attention and focus (at whatever low quantity it is to begin with) in the wrong direction - towards being a counter balance to the USA instead of looking productively at addressing issues, preferably together with the US but if not then in its own way. The truth is that Europe is not really interested in the region or other areas of conflict, it is interested in jockeying against the US for its own political and economic reasons. Realpolitik. That's of course not limited to Europe. But because the US is currently stronger, having its way more often than not, and it has free media, then that's where the heat is directed while the atrocities of Russia and China for example, are being largely ignored by most people with concerns about lives, livelihood etc.
I hope Trey doesn't mind us 'hijacking' this post in a different direction.. are you still around? :)
"I have to say your (American) comments reek of brainwashing induced hatred for the strong and hypocrisy with regards to the international community"
Of your entire comment, this is the bit that stuck out and made me re-re-read it. What reeks about them?
I thought I'd go back and try to reference each of the comments I made re: Americans. Let me know if I've missed any.
1. "(who was possibly placed there by Americans)"
Saddam's Wikipedia article makes a few references to this fact including going back to the late 50's when "Saddam was involved in the attempted United States-backed plot to assassinate Prime Minister Qassim" and "managed to flee to Tikrit with the help of CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents" and "Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred to Beirut for a brief CIA training course. From there he moved to Cairo where he made frequent visits to the American embassy. During this time the CIA placed him in a upper-class appartment observed by CIA and Egyptian operatives." and in the Iran-Iraq War "secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
And there is a wee photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam from the early 80's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
2. "Under American occupation the Iraqi people have to suffer the spawning of a new generation of Islamic radicals and terrorism..."
I hear this is the consensus view of the US government's 16 different intelligence agencies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1159070400&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
3. "...Americans do have Extraordinary Rendition..."
Again, drawing from the Wikipedia article "Extraordinary rendition is an American extra-judicial procedure....to avoid US laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
Tell me more, please.
"while the atrocities of Russia and China for example, are being largely ignored"
I could not agree more. I would also add Darfur to the list too.
The answer to your question about anti-American bias is much simpler than that - Tony Blair and the Brits (oh yeah and your very own head of state :) .
Need I elaborate?
Any opinion on why is it that the world - from the average person in the street, through NGO's to heads of state care more about US's actions in Iraq than Russian ones in Chechnya, Chinese in Tibet and Sudan in Darfur?
Hi Eyal,
As for measuring the level of suffering, what I meant is that it is most often used for populist propaganda in order to influence public opinions, and given the nature of this matter it is practically the only use it can have. If one wants to take seriously into consideration such a question, then it has to enter in rather complex questions, which are more philosophical than political; and it is not a matter of purism vs pragmatism, but of propagandist disinformation vs intellectual honesty.
To put the matter of suffering in a simple way:
War/Peace doesn't imply the dichotomy Suffering/Happiness, it does imply however the one Action/Thought, this is underlined by Hannah Arendt in her preface to "Between Past and Future" when she recalls Rene Char writing:
Rene Char, writing during the last months of the Resistance, when liberation - which in our context meant liberation from action - loomed large, concluded his reflections with an appeal to thought for the prospective survivors no less urgent and no less passionate than the appeal to action of those who preceded him.
So to equate war (or resistance or tyranny) with suffering is simply to say that action implies sufferings while thought would imply happiness. Clearly suffering in action is more apparent, but does it certify it is higher than suffering in thought ?
And not everybody decide about who to vote for in relation with suffering. Suffering has been ranked in our over-medicalised society as the ultimate evil (you may read Foucault in relation to this), and that leads to the kind of propaganda I am talking about. So if we want to put suffering into the picture, then the first thing is to question our own societies, and own conceptions of suffering. It has not universally been seen as the greatest evil, many cultures will for instance consider it as a valuable and necessary part of life, and some will even aim at some kind of suffering as part of an initiation or betterment of their lives.
As for the Iraqi people as a whole now, surely there is a problem here, even beyond a theorical point of view of whether there is anything as "people as a whole" (Iraqi or other). Practically then, it is even impossible to talk of the Iraq nation as we would talk of Israel, USA, New Zealand or France in terms of nation. So it's hard to make sense of US hopes for democracy in such a context.
About Iran:
You wrote:
"True, the US could have handled the situation better during Khatami's period but putting the Ahmadinejad phenomenon squarely on its shoulders would be incorrect in my opinion"
I am not saying that USA is the only cause for Ahmadinejad rise, but I am saying that they had the power to avoid it, they could have helped Kathami when he was asking for it, and that would have given him a serious impulse against his internal ennemies, primarily the supreme leader. Instead they decided to refuse this help, and the outcome happened to be Ahmadinejad. Europe could have done more as well, though their help was not as needed as the one from USA, France even established some economical links with Iran against the US embargo, though I think it was more for immediate profit than a part of political strategy.
Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq can only lead to an increase of Iran influence in the region.
As for the course to take, given that a US attack against Iran is totally excluded, the only way remains diplomacy. Furthermore, Iran is a much more complicated society than it seems, there are still strong democratic forces in Iran, and 80% of the population is literate (compare with the 40% in Iraq), those forces may be helped. It definitely for a more subtle strategy than the ones that have so far been employed.
As for Europe being obsessively in opposition with USA, I think it is not quite right. Why is France and Germany condemning Iran right now along the same lines as USA ? To oppose the war in Iraq was not to be against USA, it simply was to be realistic as the likely outcome of such an intervention.
If you think of Israel/Palestine problem, I already told you that the debate around these questions are very lively in France in the medias, and most french see the last moves of Sharon as rather positive.
This french anti-americanism theory has sold a few books in France and elsewhere, but it really is a way not to look at the complexity of reality.
As for your last post, you may well add Congo, that has more dead than anywhere else even though the war is officially over, people go on dying from curable disease, NGOs may well want to do something, but except of financing their own army to secure the region, they cant do much, they are not suicidal. The same applies to Chechnya, and in some limits to Darfur. As for the government heads, I agree with you, I dont see anybody in the rich countries political world right now, with any courage.
As for Chechnya, the best may well be to support Kasparov in his effort to attack Putin.
"Need I elaborate?"
Yes please!
Tony Blair is anti-American?!?
Btw, my very own head of state is the Queen of England... and who knows what the f**k she thinks...
John - that's what I mean about the Queen. Just count how many references there are in this thread to US caused suffering and how many times the British are mentioned who are just as much part of it as the US. But somehow you hardly ever hear people, including yourself, blame the British for what's happening in Iraq, all heat goes to the USA, if that's not a bias then I don't know what is.
JP - I will need to reply to you another time. I'm actually in Israel on vacation now :)
Meanwhile then, just a few precisions:
When I said a military intervention in Iran is impossible, I have omitted a very interesting option which might weel be what will happened eventually: A military strike from Israel against nuclear facilities. No doubt that it will be vocally condemned by western powers (maybe including USA) but vocal condemnation does not mean it does not make your life much more simple. Anyway, I tend to agree with you on this, on the diplomacy front, there is a kind of hypocrisy, especially from european powers, USA these last few years has been more direct, but is it really a good thing ? Isn't diplomacy a kind of art of manipulating language and ideas not in order to stick to a stiff moral code but to achieve what you want ? How has USA profited from a more direct and often reckless approach ?
Again that's more of a philosophical matter, about the definition of truth, and its absoluteness or relativity as well as its level of relativity.
As for ypour last question about Chechnya,...
Well, the answer is fairly easy, USA claim to be a democracy, actually the first one, defender of human rights...etc. Russia may well claim to be one too, nobody really believe it, Sudan does not claim so, and China neither. That's the reason why other democracies feel compelled to criticize some actions done in the name of democracy where they feel they are not compatible.
Trey, you are stirring shit up. You've got to yo-yos talking about justification and morality. One with a polka-dot bowtie and his prep-school blazer and another, well shit, probably wearing the same shit but also wears black-framed rectangular glasses except during the evenings when he sits down with his i-mac at coffee shop wearing his capri pants, puma sunday shoes, and a t-shirt that says "i am hip and intellectual".
What the fuck is this "verbose" shit?! You both had good points and may have had good intentions but then it turned into a fucking ego stroking fest. "oh let me show him with my arsenal of words" "oh let me rebutt that with my artillery of verbage" . Shut the fuck up! Go do fucking Jeopardy or something instead of showing off how big you cock of articulation is. SHUT THE FUCK UP! AND DO SOMETHING instead of surfing the web finding space to in which to input your thoughts so people can reply and make you feel good about yourself.
What's your problem anonymous?
Is it that we make us feeling good about ourselves? Well, then, do you propose we should make us feeling bad about ourselves?
And by the way, didn't your concise rant about us made you feel good about yourself?
And indeed at a much lower cost than us, as instead of articulating a point, you simply had to dismiss everything as "verbose shit", how much comfortable it is, isn't it? So here you are above us all, who are still "digging the shit", contemplating us, little worms, and in your infinite generosity, you give us a great advise: DO SOMETHING, I guess it is something other than digging the shit, not sure what it is though, but here is the problem, I am a shit-digger, I like it, I enjoy the smell very much, and notice that I am useful, if nobody were to dig into your shit, who would know what it covered.
The problem with you, big acting guys, is that you dont even look where you shit, somebody has to do the job, right?
Haha that was a good one JP. I was going to propose sprinkling our texts with more 'shit' and 'fuck' which would then make the posts more meaningful, readable and cool instead of bow tie-like.
I am not sure a military action against Iran is possible, especially if you're considering just an Israeli action. They have learned from the Iraqi nuclear experience. It is also obvious though that diplomatic efforts are futile, especially with everyone other than the US supporting 'civilian' nuclear Iran.
What is more likely in my opinion is that Israel will reach a situation similar to MAD with Iran. But that assumes Iranian leaders are logical people, which may be an incorrect assumption.
Europe opposing the US - if it was on Iraq only or limited topics then yes you could say it is not really just an 'automatic' response. But Europe/Russia/China oppose the US on almost everything: Iraq, Israel, N. Korea, Syria, Intl trade, capital punishment, intellectual property rights and others.
Interesting that you mentioned Arendt, there was an article about her in the papers here not long ago. Her work, particularly that on Eichman, was/is very controversial here.
On suffering, I still claim to take a more practical approach. Psychologically speaking people are 'programmed' to think in terms of maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain/suffering. This is true whether the suffering is physical or mental like admitting a mistake. The self inflicted suffering you talk about is perceived as far less painful than the alternative suffering resulting from not inflicting the pain. Ultimately it is still a form of avoidance of suffering (hierarchical).
Singling out the USA for its actions while while avoiding criticizing other countries' atrocities just because the US is a democracy and claims to promote human rights sounds like primary-school type behaviour or a teacher reproaching the good student and not the class's bully because the teacher doesn't expect much from the bully anyways which is neither fair, nor morally right, or is effective in the long run for promoting overall 'good behaviour' in the 'classroom'.
And where is John?
Hi Eyal,
As for Iran’s logic, well, they certainly have one, though it might be different than the one required for a MAD strategy, remember Canetti’s description of the shiah festival. MAD being based on the fact that both sides value existence above all, I am not sure such a thing is true of shiah extremists, let’s then hope that the Iranian leaders are not even close to support the behaviors Canetti talked about.
But I still think that if Israel feels an emergency they will strike.
I believe there is a genuine difference of view between Europe and USA, it is very obvious even at a very daily level: The importance of religion, the self-confidence it entails, the self-righteousness, those certainties about good and evil,…; and to be sure, the current US government does certainly embody all those differences in a very strong manner. There has been countless books to explain the seeming opposition on current affairs, and I only read a countable number. Mainly, Europeans seriously doubt a genuine will from the US administration to fight terrorism, such a doubt is now also spreading in USA, it appears more and more as a way to stay in power, gain control, and furthering individual positions. To Europeans, USA appears more and more as a factor of insecurity rather than of security, in view of their recent actions. However, European opposition is not systematic, it’s still goes on a case by case basis:
On Iraq, we already discuss.
On Israel, as I said, here things have changed in the recent times, I was not in France at the time of the Liban war, but I don’t think France unanimously or even officially condemned it. In France, the Palestinian cause is seen with more and more defiance. What I mean is, on this matter, I don’t see a clear opposition between USA and Europe, only a different approach, which does not shock me.
On N.Korea, I don’t think Europe has played much role so far, and I doubt it should, as for China, well, it’s China, should we be surprised they somehow oppose USA, well, the war, on a commercial point of view, has already begun, and nobody’s befooled, in the near future, a war will be on between USA and China on at least diplomatic and economical front, as for the rest, all options remain open.
On Syria, I guess this one’s about France, and there, while I again don’t see a systematic opposition, I also am against French position, which is just too coward in name of colonial or economical links.
On Intl trade, nothing to shock me here, that’s the modern front where war is waged, as long as nations are still in place, it will be so. On a public opinion point of view, there is a very clear difference between USA and Europe, that can be accounted, at least partially, in terms of population and history difference. Marxism still has offspring in Europe that it has not in USA.
On Capital punishment, well cultural difference is here fully at play.
On intellectual property rights, same though I think the difference between Europe and USA is not that big, and you may extend this to property in general, Marx again, not everybody has to be like USA in order not to oppose it systematically.
I know that some in USA may have the ambition to build the world order at its image, but clearly it is totally absurd since physically impossible (even ignoring cultural differences), USA is 3 times less populated than Europe, not to speak of China or India.
On suffering:
"The self inflicted suffering you talk about is perceived as far less painful than the alternative suffering resulting from not inflicting the pain. Ultimately it is still a form of avoidance of suffering (hierarchical)."
Not necessarily, though it will necessarily appears so in our way of conceiving these things in today’s language structure, but it was not always so, consider stoicians or buddhists, indeed their aim is to free themselves from « suffering », but their definition of suffering is radically different from the one most people have today, for them suffering is life, existence.
But I agree with you that in order to act, we must choose a definition of suffering that satisfies ourselves, however, the problem is when our acting impacts other people. In such a case, it would be wise to think about their definition of suffering rather than ours, we cannot claim that our definition is the absolute one, we cannot impose them to be happy in our terms, it is their terms that import. However, I very much doubt that such a work has even been considered seriously by any government in the world so far, colonial history is here to prove that, and the war in Iraq just added a new page to this history in the very same terms.
"a teacher reproaching the good student and not the class's bully because the teacher doesn't expect much from the bully anyways which is neither fair, nor morally right, or is effective in the long run for promoting overall 'good behaviour' in the 'classroom'."
Well, in our case, the teacher certainly is not Europe, it will rather be USA who is giving lessons of democracy to the entire world, including Europe whose countries are regurlarly singled out by US administration to be in breach with human rights because instead of financing religious sects, we condemn them for financial frauds or unhuman treatment on their so-called followers. So yes, there is very significant cultural differences between Europe and USA. Incidentally, criticisms of Europe in USA are easily balancing criticisms of USA in Europe.
On the other hand, relationships with China and Russia are at a much more indifferent level. And particularly, relationships between USA and France are the most complicated for historical reason, but that would take us a bit away from this conversation.
Ahhh, meeting Persian women in supermarkets. For me, that spells pleasure.
But Iraqis are not persians...
Post a Comment