Is this how the westerners think??

[Arden]

Originally posted by habilis
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the opposite of ridding the world of brutal genocidal dictators called appeasement?

No, the opposite of that is called isolationism. Appeasement is the giving in to demands of expansion-hunger dictators like Hitler, not merely sitting by and letting them kill their own people.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with getting rid of these terrorist/dictator types.

It's extremely expensive, time consuming and prone to waves of disapproval to remove just one terrorist dictator, much less tens or hundreds.

I think I can speak for the common McDonald's lovin westerner, or at least one of the 70% of americans that supports the liberation effort. We don't believe this elaborate Bush-hating conspiracy theory that we're taking oil away from the Iraqi people and going to colonize Iraq.

GW has said to us that "The oil belongs to the Iraqi People". If GW lies, he won't get re-elected, hence, he won't steal the oil, America, both conservatives and liberals alike would never allow that to happen.

This war is not about oil because if we cared so much about Iraq's oil, and getting our hands greasy with every last drop, we would have pulled a France and not gotten involved in a long, drawn out military action.

The vision that us 70% of common westerners have is one where, in the very near future, Iraq rebuilds itself with it's oil revenue, enriches IT'S OWN people and muslim culture, not a westernized one. We want Iraqi's to enjoys the ability to speak their mind without the daily fear of getting your whole family tortured, then executued in front of your eyes for it. What is wrong with this? Still, on a daily basis, I am completely confounded that their is opposition to this.

The vision I have is that we develop energy-efficient, fuel-efficient, cost-effective alternatives to burning hydrocarbons to make our expensive toys run, but for the next 50 years we will need to rely on oil, so it'll be good for them to learn how to run their country democratically (and maybe capitalistically). Iraqi's are afraid to speak their minds because they don't want to die a horrible death; that's where your opposition has gone. Saddam has them convinced that he's a cool guy and we're the enemy, even if some Iraqi villagers are praising the arrival of US and Coalition troops; I mean, look at the last Iraqi election: 100% voter turnout (yeah right), 100% voted for Saddam. I'll bet the ballot was half check here for Saddam, half "Republican Guard soldiers will be at your house with scorpions, chains and cleavers in approximately 1 hour."

America has no interest in colonization.

Nope.

[Arden]

By the way, McDonald's sucks.

[habilis]

arden: When I said I was confounded that their is still opposition, I meant here in the states and Europe where you'd think we would know better. Maybe i'm interpreting wrong, but are you opposed to the war?

PS - There's no way McDonald's sucks unless you wanna be healthy or something...

[Arden]

Originally posted by habilis
arden: When I said I was confounded that their is still opposition, I meant here in the states and Europe where you'd think we would know better. Maybe i'm interpreting wrong, but are you opposed to the war?

I'm opposed to baselessly invading another country just because they "could" do something "in the future," but I'm not opposed to making a clean and swift resolution (there's no such thing as victory in war) to a problem already begun. Countries like France and Germany rely more heavily on Iraqi oil than we do, so they don't want cut off their artery. (Plus, the French are pus—er, pansies {thanks mdnky}! No offense, toast.)

PS - There's no way McDonald's sucks unless you wanna be healthy or something...

I don't mind being healthy, or unhealthy, or whatever, but McDonald's just sucks... mostly in the burger department. (They're too small, they're underflavored, they're the size of chicken nuggets, they don't taste that great, they're only 50x the weight of an ant's body...)

[mdnky]

Originally posted by arden
I don't mind being healthy, or unhealthy, or whatever, but McDonald's just sucks... mostly in the burger department. (They're too small, they're underflavored, they're the size of chicken nuggets, they don't taste that great, they're only 50x the weight of an ant's body...)

I'll second the McDonalds thing...horrible food. Makes me glad I live near Cincinnati....hmmmmmmmm 3-way from Gold Star!


As far as the original topic in this thread, I don't think every westerner thinks like that.

We could spend hours debating on what constitutes a "just cause" for a war, but then we'd be wasting time because we will never agree on that issue. And, that is probably a good thing. War isn't something to be proud of or to like, but in some cases it is needed. Let's just hope that the outcome of this conflict leads to better things.

[toast]

Originally posted by arden
The tendency for humans to obey orders given by another is very strong, even if the orders go against one's beliefs, and especially if given under extreme pressure (at the barrel of a gun, maybe?).

Most authoritarian regimes combine psychological and physical pressure, which both lead to blind obedience of the people.

Psychological pressure can suffice, though. The actual war is a good example of that.

[edX]

such a great point toast. a good time to dust off the old psychology 101 textebook and refer to "The Milgram Obiedience to Authority Study" from 1963.

participents were told they were involved in a learning experiment. the idea was to measure how discipline effected learning. they were given control over a device that would administer a chokc to the 'learner' every time they made a mistake. and each time the shock would be greater - up to 450 volts. in the end, almost all the participents administed the full 450 volts despite cries of pain from the other room. all because the person overseeing the experiment told them it was ok and that it really wouldn't harm them. of course, the shocks were faked and the real purpose was to determine if people would follow authority or their own conscious. when debriefed about the experiment, most felt really bad about themselves for not having known better and thought for themselves - realizing the harm that would have been done had it been real. many of them had to undergo therapy to be able to deal with this.

just tell people that it's ok or right and most people will go along if you're in a position of authority or are expected to have knowledge they don't. we've 'proven' and hence known this from the early 60's.

[toast]

Another good reference about authority and obedience is Theodor Adorno and alii, "The Authoritarian Personality". It's very hard to find, though.