Is this how the westerners think??

[arun]

I read the following comment on bbc.co.uk.

With the end of the Cold war the world seemed ready to embrace a new golden age of peace and prosperity. Instead we were left with the growing problems of developing societies practising religious and social intolerance. In essence whilst the Western democracies emerged into the 21st century as modern civilised nations, much of the world has remained in the Dark-ages. After waiting for so many years for these countries to pull themselves upwards, and with the growing evidence that due to ingrained differences this may well be impossible. Is it not now time that those with the capability, the experience and a belief in the benefits of a functioning democratic and tolerant society, take up their arms and rid (even at a cost) the world of these backwards dictators and religious fanatics that blight the Middle East, Africa and East Asia.
I wholeheartedly support this war, and can only hope that Mr Blair and Mr Bush realise that they have started something that possibly cannot be finished in Iraq. We must have the resolve to see this through to the end, only then can the World's people be united and truly at peace.

-comment by some one from UK-

Later edited by the bbc to the following


After the Cold War, the world seemed for a new age of peace and prosperity. Is it not time for those with the capability, experience and belief in a functioning, democratic and tolerant society, to take up arms and get rid of the backwards dictators and religious fanatics that blight the world? I hope Mr Blair and Mr Bush realise they have started something that cannot be finished in Iraq. We must have the resolve to see this through to the end, only then can the world be united and truly at peace.

Is this how a common westerner think about the other parts of the world?

[kermit64]

there are plenty of people ( in the united states at least) that justify u.s. actions in the dame of spreading peace and democracy. personally i think the mindset expressed in that article is very extreme. the majority of people don't support attacking a country simply to install a democracy. too many times in the past has the u.s. traded a democratically elected leader in a given country for a dictator. but once the u.s. goes to war, the history books find a way to justify it.

[binaryDigit]

How funny, a "tolerant society" that is intolerant of other societies that don't match it's ideal.

Not EVERYONE feels this way, though many inevitably do. When people from the US look at the middle east, northern africa and other unstable regions, there is obviously a perception of "can't anything be done". Not everyone is going to agree that invading a country is the right choice of course. Another interesting thing is that there are those western countries that consider the forceful "re-working" of another countries govt to be barbaric and from the "Dark Ages". One mans dark ages is another mans enlightened times I guess.

Greetings from a wet Central Tx Kermit.

[toast]

Originally posted by the BBC
In essence whilst the Western democracies emerged into the 21st century as modern civilised nations, much of the world has remained in the Dark-ages.
Is it not now time that those with the capability, the experience and a belief in the benefits of a functioning democratic and tolerant society, take up their arms and rid (even at a cost) the world of these backwards dictators and religious fanatics that blight the Middle East, Africa and East Asia.

And the question is:

Is this how a common westerner think about the other parts of the world?

A common westerner is not as dumb as the guy who wrote those bits I emphasized in red:
- 'Dark Ages' is not an intelligent expression for Third World or LEDCs.
- We are not missionaries roaming through the world to get rid of the red scum anymore. There's no 'white's man burden' anymore, if you see what I mean

One who wholeheartedly agrees with this text is neither westerner or easterner but a complete, retarded idiot. Don't make your opinion of Western people from this text.

[symphonix]

I'm a "Westerner", an Australian, and I'd have to say that I and many people I know do not think like this. A lot of my friends travel extensively and express dismay at the impact western society is having on these countries.

The problem is that there are a lot of jerks in western countries telling us how much better it is that we have freedom and democracy. They then use this ultra-patriotism as justification for war. Worse yet, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of countless people to achieve this idealist image of what a country should be. That image is not a reality. And the people who say that freedom and democracy are worth dying for are never the ones doing the actual dying.

Anybody who has worked with the media or the government in western countries will know that you cannot trust anything they say without verifying it against the truth. Our governments thrive on fear, rumour, lies and corruption. Nothing distracts the population from a governments flaws like having an enemy to blame.

But, Arun, you will find that most westerners are open-minded, peace-loving people. Some have been misinformed or mislead by their leaders, who pedal fear and tell us that these countries are responsible for terrorism (the new fear catch-cry). But then, around half the population is willing to think for themselves.

[toast]

Originally posted by symphonix
[b]The problem is that there are a lot of jerks in western countries telling us how much better it is that we have freedom and democracy. They then use this ultra-patriotism as justification for war. Worse yet, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of countless people to achieve this idealist image of what a country should be.

No: depending on where you live in the former Western block, those jerks may be a majority, but may also be ultra-minoritarian.
I live in France. Anyone who would try to justify the war with the arguments given in the very first post of this thread would be laughed at, turned out to derision. In a word, humiliated for his ignorance, his mental limitations and his general aggressivity.

The kind of colonialism you are talking about, arun, has died with the Algerian conflict here in France. We still bear the scars of 'war as a mission' here, sic.

[Arden]

Originally posted by arun
In essence whilst the Western democracies emerged into the 21st century as modern civilised nations, much of the world has remained in the Dark-ages.

A more appropriate descriptor would be the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, etc.

After waiting for so many years for these countries to pull themselves upwards, and with the growing evidence that due to ingrained differences this may well be impossible. Is it not now time that those with the capability, the experience and a belief in the benefits of a functioning democratic and tolerant society, take up their arms and rid (even at a cost) the world of these backwards dictators and religious fanatics that blight the Middle East, Africa and East Asia.

First, the United States consumes around 40% of the world's resources. Only a handful of other countries have anything even resembling coming close to this. For every country in the world to live in as much luxury as we selfishly do would take more resources than the world has.

Second, most of these "backwards dictators" have either tricked their people into thinking they are "cool dudes" (i.e. Saddam), or keep their people in line using fear and oppression (also Saddam), or both. 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?). These dictators will keep ruling their people in fear, hating "enlightened" countries like the US, until someone assassinates them and takes their place. We are fortunate that our government does not allow any one person to completely take over power and use that power against our own people, but most countries do not have the experience, will, or initiative to create a system like this.

For an excellent perspective on this, watch Black Hawk Down. In one scene, a chopper pilot gets taken hostage, and his captor tells his position, why they will always have wars and hate those in power. It's really sad.

[habilis]

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

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

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.

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.

America has no interest in colonization.

human shield