Is this how the westerners think??
- Thread starter arun
- Start date
Cat
Registered
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 ...).
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
Colonel Panic
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.
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
Gone !
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
Colonel Panic
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.
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
Where mah "any" keys at?
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.)
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.
)Not since we knocked out their communication tower...
Darkshadow
wandering shadow
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.
brian, a master/peon society comes a bit close to describing how things have been. Not exactly, but pretty close.
toast
Gone !
Originally posted by Darkshadow
toast - generational effects basically means (...) a bit different
I do agree. However that's too small difference for posting here
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
Colonel Panic
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??
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
Where mah "any" keys at?
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.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
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
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
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
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?
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?
Cat
Registered
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
Registered
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/
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/