# Is this how the westerners think??



## arun (Mar 25, 2003)

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 (Mar 25, 2003)

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 (Mar 25, 2003)

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 (Mar 25, 2003)

> _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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 25, 2003)

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 (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by symphonix _
> *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 (Mar 25, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 25, 2003)

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


----------



## Arden (Mar 25, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 25, 2003)

By the way, McDonald's sucks.


----------



## habilis (Mar 25, 2003)

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 (Mar 25, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 25, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 26, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 26, 2003)

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 (Mar 26, 2003)

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


----------



## Lyra (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arun _
> *I read the following comment on bbc.co.uk.
> 
> 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.
> ...



Arun - I take it this was from a forum of some kind, and the fact that it was edited indicates to me that perhaps someone there wasn't thrilled with it. 

It certainly isn't the way this common westerner in the UK thinks: it represents one of the extremes that so often crop up on boards and phone-ins, which is why I tend to steer clear of them - I have high  blood pressure. Whoever this is obviously knows little if any history and wouldn't believe in any case that we were grubbing about in woad while other great civilisations were flourishing. This sort of ignorance always reminds me of a simultaneously horrifying and hilarious conversation I had with someone I worked with, in a UK department store started by an Eastern European Jewish immigrant, who explained carefully to me why we shouldn't allow immigration, and how he was English through and through, being able to trace his family tree back to the Saxons ...!

Sadly, ignorance of this kind is deadly. Literally.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 26, 2003)

Time for a rare political outburst from me:
--------------------
No, surely all westerners do not feel that way.  

I think it is worth pointing out a few things that sometimes get overlooked:  When one speaks of a country being "in the dark ages" (or the bronze age, stone age, etc.) there are at LEAST three different things one might be referring to:

1 - Living conditions for the average citizen.    Most (though by no means all) 'westerners' live in circumstances where we take for granted such things as: adequate food, water, and sanitation; a roof over our heads and a source of heat when it gets cold; usually electricity and electric lighting; and a reasonable level of safety from crime.   By comparison, a place where some or all of these things are missing would definitely seem like the 'dark ages' to a westerner.  Obviously, given the choice, pretty much anyone in the world would prefer to live in such comfortable circumstances.   The observation that they can't and don't is not really an insult to the people themselves, but can seem condescending just the same.

2 - Government structure.  The United States - and most "western" countries - embrace the ideal of democracy (okay, okay, a REPRESENTATIVE democracy in the US at least).  The fact that we use it pretty much means, by definition, that we think it's a good system, or at least, better than the alternatives.   

This is not to say that people cannot be happy, comfortable, and treated fairly in other societal structures.    Indeed, a case can be made that in some ways, a system that is closer to communism (ACTUAL communism, not the thinly disguised dictatorships of the Soviet union, North Korea or China) is, strictly speaking, "fairer".   And history teaches us that there HAVE been some very benevolent kings and dictators - so yes, it is POSSIBLE for a country to be happy and prosperous under a dictator.

However, I will stand unashamedly by the notion that the government MUST put the needs of its citizens first, and that any system that fails in this regard is worthless - "medieval" to say the least.  The problem with a dictator is that there is no mechanism to COMPEL him (or her) to put the needs of the citizens first - the system is wide open to abuse.  Saddam Hussein is the classic example; he places himself at the center of the universe, and the Iraqi people are there to protect him.  He actually urges his citizens to act as human sheilds, protecting his military assets.  This is precisely backwards; the military should be protecting the public, NOT the other way around.  Adolf Hitler was probably more evil, but it's hard to deny that Hitler treated Germans (the gentiles, anyway) better than Saddam is treating the Iraqi people.  

Saddam's Iraq has a governmental structure that is utterly dysfunctional and has no place in the 21st century.  I say with no fear of hypocrisy that a change is probably necessary.   This is not to say that I necessarily endorse the way we are going about it -- but one way or another, it could not be allowed to continue.

3 - Social structure.   In many parts of the world, women are still treated as the property of their husbands, socio-economic classes or castes are strictly segregated and enforced, and races or ethnic groups are discriminated against and repressed.  These practices and customs can be many thousands of years old, and often have a religious basis.   It cannot surprise us that those who have always lived with these circumstances (at least, those who are members of the more socially powerful gender, class, caste or race) will see it as an attack on their culture and/or religion to criticize these practices.  

And I will be the first to admit that there is a certain amount of inherent hypocrisy in Americans criticizing such practices - we very definitely still have gender, race, and class bias in the US -- though at least they are not usually a part of our official laws!   Still, as someone once said  "If you won't take a stand for something, you'll stand for anything."   So here's my stand: these practices ARE out of place in the 21st century, and I feel we SHOULD oppose them, at home and elsewhere.   

Yet STILL this is not an insult reserved for middle eastern societies.  The US, like everyone else, continue to do things - including patently harmful and unfair things - for no other reason than we have always done them this way, or because we think God wants it this way.   That line of thought is common, and very human -- but undeniably medieval and illogical.


I hope, however, that I don't sound too black-and-white:  I am not saying that any of these things are NECESSARILY reasons to go to war.   It is not necessary to endorse this war to condemn Saddam Hussein.   It is not necessary to be a fan of George W. Bush to condemn Saddam.   I have never been a Bush fan, and while I agree with Bush about Saddam being unfit to run a 21st century nation, I am still very uneasy about this war.  Wars *are* sometimes necessary, and some things *are* worth fighting for --but I wonder if this war will really leave the world a safer and more stable place when we are through.  

In any event, now that we have begun, I feel it would be an even worse crime to stop before the job is finished.  Now that we have our hands dirty, we have to make sure that we achieve our stated goal of freeing Iraq from Saddam.   If we stop now, we'll have put the Iraqi public through another bloodbath, only to leave them exactly where they were before, at Saddam's tender mercies.  That would be unforgivable.

Bottom line - "we westerners" are all over the map in our beliefs.  Personally, I'd like to give everyone in every country the opportunity to live at least as comfortably and safely as we do, and to have a voice in how their government operates.  I just don't know what level of carnage is justified to achieve it.


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 26, 2003)

*habilis* - war on terrorism is a greatly dumb idea.  Not because it's not a worthy thing to go against, but because there will never be an end to it.  It's a person(s) last attempt at getting a point through - usually a warped idea, yes, but they feel they _must_ make it.  It's a part of human nature, sadly.

War against it tends to lend credence to these people that their idea works, that they are getting at least some of their point through - and gets them to attempt it again, in an even greater effort that might get the point across to even more people.

Hmm, and I don't think the Iraqis are going to be making much of their oil anytime soon, as most of the implements of doing the work with it have been destroyed.


----------



## toast (Mar 26, 2003)

Using means of coercition #1 (war) against means of coercition #2 (terrorism) makes sense only to _limited_ minds.


----------



## fryke (Mar 26, 2003)

Toast, I thought it was _clear_ to all of us in this discussion we're talking about George W. Bush?


----------



## Cat (Mar 26, 2003)

Two minor observations:

1) There is no such thing as a "westener". There are enormous cultural differences between so-called "western cultures".

2) When using the expression "Dark ages", one commonly refers to a certain period in the early middle-ages (not bronze or stone age), when history amounted mainly to emperors, churches and war (just like now ...).


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 26, 2003)

In my post I mention all three periods only because they had been mentioned in other posts, not because I thought they were all the same.

I think that when most people refer to countries like Iraq being "in the dark ages" they just mean generally that certain conditions that prevail there seem to us like they should belong to the distant past.  (e.g. absolute rulers, secular laws based on religious doctrine, something akin to a feudal system, no electricity, etc.)  Few have gone to the trouble to compare specific details of life in Iraq to specific historical periods.


----------



## toast (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brianleahy _
> *I think that when most people refer to countries like Iraq being "in the dark ages" they just mean generally that certain conditions that prevail there seem to us like they should belong to the distant past.  (e.g. absolute rulers, secular laws based on religious doctrine, something akin to a feudal system, no electricity, etc.)  Few have gone to the trouble to compare specific details of life in Iraq to specific historical periods. *



The points indicated in red do not belong to a distant past, in my very humble opinion.

- Absolute ruling is a very contemporary phenomenon. Absolutism is old, but totalitarism, which is even worse, is a XXth century event. It has known various forms, the worse of them being, without any doubt, stalinism and nazism.

- Secular laws based on religious doctrine are still applied in, at least, one third of the world (examples such as charia, tribal law and traditional practice like excision are eloquent enough IMO).
These type of laws are not part of the Dark Ages or of any other time period: they are eternal (ie. _secular_). All societies know 'stupid but old' rituals: they are latent to the state of society, and based of generational effects (hu ? never mind: this means 'hereditary' I guess).

- Feudal systems ? 
Feudal systems were based on agriculture. One of the very last feudal systems was China. Except in Africa, feudal systems have vanished. Even in Middle East ! 

- No electricity ? 
All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...

To sum it up, Dark Ages are definitely not the right terms to talk about Iraq, nor any other countries. Those are my alternates proposals:

- Iraq has _primitive_ representation system.
- Iraq features an _embryo__of popular sovereignty.
- Iraq is stuck in a _regressive__form of economical development.

Those terms, although I'm not sure of their total validity and meaningfulness as I'm not a native English speaker, signify, in my very humble opinion again, that Iraq is not stuck in the Dark Ages (what an idea  ) but stuck at the very first step of social and economical development.

For those who know the Rustow model of development, I guess Iraq is step 2 (preparing for take-off).


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 26, 2003)

Point taken, though I would point out that I referred to conditions that "SEEM to us"  like they belong in the past.  If you feel differently, that's certainly your right. 

Though absolute rulers and secular laws based on religious doctrine surely persist to this day, to me they emphatically BELONG in the distant past.  And I would argue that we had both concepts in one package in the Middle Ages: the Catholic church ruled Europe with an iron fist for centuries.  Secular monarchs (until, of course, Henry VIII, whose reign came roughly at the very end of the middle ages) - trembled at the pope's word.  

And I was off about the feudal system; I meant vaguely a master/peon system, a rehash of strict classism, and no, to my knowlege no such system exists in Iraq.


----------



## Arden (Mar 26, 2003)

Ed: That's the exact study I was referring to, as we just covered it in my AP Psychology class, and I noticed a number of correlations between its results and the current Iraqi situation.  Thank you for providing the details thereof.

Brian: Excellent political outburst.  I think you hit the nail (or Saddam) directly on the head.  I mentioned the Stone Age, etc., because many said we were going to bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age... oh wait they're already there; however, I think Iraq is more developed than Afghanistan.  (Interesting side note:  In The Best of the World's Worst, they tell where the worst golf course in the world is: Kabul. )


> _Originally posted by toast_
> *All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...*


Not since we knocked out their communication tower...


----------



## Darkshadow (Mar 27, 2003)

*toast* - generational effects basically means the way a group of people in an area are raised (the values that are passed on, the things they learn from those around them, that sort of thing).  Hereditary basically means something inborn, a bit different 

*brian*, a master/peon society comes a bit close to describing how things have been.  Not exactly, but pretty close.


----------



## toast (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *toast - generational effects basically means (...) a bit different *



I do agree. However that's too small difference for posting here 



> _Originally posted by toast _
> *All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...*
> _Answer by Arden_
> * Not since we knocked out their communication tower... *



Bombing media buildings, whatever the propaganda they bring to the masses, is forbidden by international laws.
Amnesty International and the secretary of Internal Journalists' Federation have already complained about that and GW. Bush will certainly have to pay for this terrible mistake.
The end does not justify such means.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 27, 2003)

Without knowing all the details, I have to wonder:   If Saddam used civilian TV station to send orders to his troops (and I am by no means certain that this was occurring) would that be sufficient to requalify the broadcasting equipment as a valid military target?  

If not, it seems to me that Saddam could get Geneva Convention protection for all his military telecom equipment by having a once-daily civilian news broadcast from each military radio.

Furthermore, I think the rule is to forbid the supression of a 'free press'.  Does a station under direct and full control of the government qualify??


----------



## Arden (Mar 27, 2003)

Considering all the sanctions Saddam ignores and all the Geneva Convention policies he violates, I don't think Bush will come under much fire for knocking out a TV tower that may have been used tactically.


----------



## toast (Mar 27, 2003)

Saddam does not use TV to send orders to his troops. He uses very good talkie-walkies that were provided to him by some very big country everyone here knows .

Indeed, Arden, I don't think Bush will get into much trouble because of what he did to the Iraqi TV.


----------



## Arden (Mar 27, 2003)

No, but he does use TV to enliven his people to obey his bidding, which includes acting like human shields and fighting against our troops.  I didn't say he uses them to talk to his troops; I said he uses them _tactically_, which includes involving his people in the war effort.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 27, 2003)

Isn't GW doing the same thing?  Using TV to involve "his" people in the war effort?  Wouldn't that justify Saddam doing the same thing to our media?


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 27, 2003)

Justified?  I'd say no, but perhaps what you meant was: would an attack by Iraq on an American media outlet violate the Geneva Convention? 

Perhaps not -- but that only means that the *Geneva Convention* might well NOT forbid it.  
This is not - _emphatically_  not - the same as saying that we'd have to LET him do so.  

Even if Saddam's use of Al-Jazeera to incite the people to fight DOES constitute an exception to the applicable provision of the Geneva convention, even that does not mean that Saddam had to LET us knock out Al-J.   Indeed, he could do more-or-less anything he liked to keep them on the air.   He would even be allowed to retaliate for the strike, if he liked (and had the capability). 

The issue is: did the US violate the GC (an international agreement we signed)  by attacking Al-J?

Edit: I did a little research -- in general, the GC declares structures of purely civilian use off-limits to attack.  However, there are exceptions - for instance, even an ambulance can be a legitimate target IF it's in the control of the military.   This, I would say, is why the Red Cross tends to wounded civilians, rather than a military medical organization


----------



## toast (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by brianleahy _
> *Even if Saddam's use of Al-Jazeera to incite the people to fight DOES constitute an exception to the applicable provision of the Geneva convention, even that does not mean that Saddam had to LET us knock out Al-J.*



Al-Jazeera is an independent Qatari TV. We are not talking about Al-Jazeera but about the official Iraqi TV, which I don't know the name.



> _Originally posted by brianleahy _
> *The issue is: did the US violate the GC (an international agreement we signed)  by attacking Al-J?*



Attack on media is forbidden, except when the media are in the hands of military forces.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 28, 2003)

Ah, my fault about Al-J vs. Iraqi TV.  I was confused.

I searched around the web for the text of the Geneva Convention.   I found sections of it, but didn't manage to find anything that specifically mentions media outlets.  Do you (or anyone out there) happen to know the applicable section/article number?


----------



## toast (Mar 28, 2003)

It's okay for the TV mistake 
I'll search the UN site. It must be somewhere.


----------



## Cat (Mar 30, 2003)

> For those who know the Rustow model of development, I guess Iraq is step 2 (preparing for take-off).



I do not know the details, but I thought the Rustow model was about democratization, not about economical development:

1. Preparatory  phase: Breakdown of the non-democratic regime
 2. Decision phase: Beginning establishment of a democratic order
 3. Consolidation phase: Further development of democracy; democracy  ingrained in the political culture

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

America has just started phase 1 in the worst possible way. Iraq was quite developed economically prior to Gulf War 1 and a peacefull demise of the ruling Ba'ath party could have made Iraq indeed a democratic beacon in the Middle-East.
Not just in politics, but also in economy (considering them separate domains for the sake of the argument) short term-profits achieved by the wrong means, bring long-term losses. The way something is reached in some area's is more improtant than the immediate results themselves. Decisions are made just by the way they are made (e.g. democratically) not by the results they obtain (e.g. removing a dictator).


----------



## tazmandevil (Mar 30, 2003)

The "geneva - convention" seems to be not a "stable" work. It is a thread-work, which is living and changing across actual situations on the world.

Today there is the 4. version of the geneva convention available and in discussion. The funny thing is, that each countries picks out what they want and discuss about others, that they don't like and so there are many different contracts about it:

http://search.admin.ch/cgi-bin/quer...t=.&q=Geneva+Convention&search.x=0&search.y=0

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/c0_518_12.html

www.eda.admin.ch/eda/g/home/foreign/hupol/4gc.Par.0009.UpFile.pdf/ mg_011205_4gcdeclarn_g.pdf

www.rotkreuz.de/voelkerrecht/genfer_konventionen/


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

[detail]
The Rustow model can apply to development as well as to democratization. Some works have been made to adapt it to political parties too.
[/detail]


----------



## Cat (Mar 31, 2003)

Thanks for the details! 

Even if the US will win the war and institute a democracy, it is likely that Mubarak will be right: This war will spawn a hundred Bin Ladens. Lesser demons to be sure, but hell of a lot of them!


----------

