Why West is Best

Saudi Arabia may have to go through a stage of control by Islamic fundamentalists.

I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. Yes, the glorious West has given the world Nazism, Communism and the latest movement, the non-ideological decadence, which may end up the worst disease yet.

But then, let's argue about the above quote a bit because it is an almost familiar argument. The they-hate-us-because crowd tells us they (the Islamicists) hate us because we have supported corrupt and ruthless regimes in the Middle East. This argument has been advanced time and time again since 9/11. But then, look what alternative to the Shah, to Mubarak and to the Saudi monarchy these "dissidents" have offered the people of Afghanistan. The Shah and the Saudis have been quite enlighened, compared to the system now in place in Iran which you say is liberalizing. Bringing up examples of 7000 filthy rich Saudi princes is as much a proof of anything as is bringing up the many freebies that Saudi Arabia's citizens enjoy thanks to the oil wealth.

But my main argument is with your deterministic theory which appears to state that a Middle East country must evolve through "a stage of control by Islamic fundamentalists" before, before what?, before becoming enlightened? How do you figure that? Afghanistan in the 1950s was a liberalizing, developing country. And now what?

Super article. Paul Johnson rules. We should give the muslims a quarter, and tell them to call us back in a thousand years -- if their civilization achieves anything worthy of note by then, that is.

We should give the muslims a quarter, and tell them to call us back in a thousand years

Now, wait! Where in this country can you make a call for a quarter? Better adjust it for inflation. (Darn it, I miss all those country and pop songs about phone calls for a dime, three songs on a jukebox for a quarter. Note that no one is writing such songs any more. How can they? Seventy five cents doesn't translate into songwriting material.)

"Compare the West to a relatively stagnant, primitive society, like Egypt under the Pharoh system.

They lasted for thousands of years. We will, quite possibly, create (or have created) the technology that will destroy humanity in the very near future. How do we "correct" for that?"

You correctly note that the argument over modernity is not a battle between the traditional "right" and "left", but rather over those that want to exercise more control over people and those who want to exercise less.

I don't know anyone who wants to go back to the time of the Pharohs, but plenty of the American right want to go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" fifties, while plenty on the left want to go back to an agrarian and frontier America. All of these people basically want a "do-over" on American history and modernity. The trouble with the nostalgists, though, is that they choose to see the past through their visions of what those times were like, rather than as they truly are. Although ancient Egyptian society may have been long-lived, by our standards the life of the average Egyptian was nasty, brutish, and short. Furthermore, they fail to see such triumphs over nature as "organic" farming as the technological marvels that they actually are: if you don't believe me, go plant a garden of carelessly selected seeds, use no pesticides or herbicides, and see what you get. To succeed at such a venture requires a tremendous understanding and use of natural controls such as beneficial insects and other biologicals, the use of improved disease and pest-resistent seed strains, etc., etc.. Furthermore, who among us of any political persuasion will refuse radiation and chemical therapy if we are diagnosed with cancer?

The idea that a society can reap the benefits of technology without dealing with the risks is wishful thinking. Moreover, once the genie of knowledge is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back. But, it seems to me that the civilized world has effectively policed itself in harnessing technology to the benefit rather than the detriment of mankind-- the only challenge now is to extend civilization to encompass the remainder of the world. The ultimate extreme of the anti-technologists that we are now battling-- the Taleban and bin Ladenites, the Islamo-fascists-- are an object lesson as to what lies at the end of the anti-modernist road: they want to destroy modernity, and are willing to use technology to kill as many people as are required to achieve their goals.

But, it seems to me that the civilized world has effectively policed itself in harnessing technology to the benefit rather than the detriment of mankind

Consider the following possibilities:
1. Nuclear War
2. Genetically engineered viruses
3. Natural (nonengineered) viruses
4. Nanotechnology robots which "eat" everything and self-replicate
5. Intelligent, larger robots that take over the world
6. An unanticipated, technological threat, developed in the coming decades, perhaps based on new discoveries in physics.

Can we stop any of these things? If nuclear weapons are any guide, then the destructiveness of the technology will be available long before a solution to the destructiveness is available. What happens when technology allows a small group of scientists, hell, a single nonscientist, to destroy the world?

You're right that the genie is out of the bottle, but he's one of those sneaky genies who twists your words around when you make wishes.

By the way, on the off chance that you ever do reply to my question about what you think should be done with Saddam Hussein now, and how you think we should have conquered Baghdad without killing any "conscripts," please note today's papers. 700 Taliban soldiers had "surrendered" and were imprisoned in what I suppose would be considered a POW camp. They had smuggled in weapons and revolted, killing several of their captors before they were crushed. I'd like to know how many of our boys you'd like to see killed guarding these treacherous "prisoners," before you'd decide it's better to kill the enemy than to let them kill our personnel. I am still assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that you are actually American.

"Can we stop any of these things? If nuclear weapons are any guide, then the destructiveness of the technology will be available long before a solution to the destructiveness is available. What happens when technology allows a small group of scientists, hell, a single nonscientist, to destroy the world?"

I don't know if we can stop those things, but I look at what we have stopped and I'm encouraged. A fifty-year standoff between the U.S. and the Soviet Union with enough nuclear power to blow up the earth several times over. Many killer chemicals for weapons have been known for much longer than that, and other than people like Saddam Hussein, not widely used since WWI. Many diseases eradicated, many vaccines, many new medicines to treat old diseases. I'm not morose by nature, so I don't sit around worrying about all the potential ways to die. Besides, most people are going to die of heart disease in their Lazy-boys.

If humans don't destroy it first, of course, according to astronomers the earth will be hit within a few million years by a giant meteor. Failing that, the sun will go through it's natural changes and kill all life here. But, as one astronomer put it, so what? It's not as though the earth is a major planet anyway. :)

Your justification for murder is disgusting. It is also illegal under international law. And you wonder why they hate you.

This conversation is over. Get back to me if and when you plan to join the human race.

But my main argument is with your deterministic theory which appears to state that a Middle East country must evolve through "a stage of control by Islamic fundamentalists" before, before what?, before becoming enlightened? How do you figure that? Afghanistan in the 1950s was a liberalizing, developing country. And now what?

I don't think I was saying exactly that. Or at least I didn't mean to. I don't regard these developments as inevitable at all.

When a country is ruled despotically (especially by a colonial despot), opposition forces develop ideologies to counter the ruler's power, thereby mobilizing the people against him. Nationalism, communism, and fundamentalism are are examples of the kinds of forces come to the fore. People take refuge in these emotional responses to their oppression.

When the only way to overthrow a despot is through violence, men of violence come to the fore. When the ruler is finally overthrown, it often happens that the forces unleashed go out of control. The history of nationalist struggles against imperialism and colonialism is full of examples of this. The longer and more desperately the Imperial power hangs on to power, the more violent it is likely to be.

I have this suspicion that Saudi Arabia is likely to give in to fundamentalism. The longer that it is ruled by a corrupt monarchy supported by an overseas power, the more radical the change will be when the system is finally overthrown. Constrast that with, say Jordan, where a relatively benign monarchy is gradually liberalizing.

Fundamentalism is not inevitable. But the longer and harder that we fight to avoid it, the more radical and violent it will be when it finally takes power.

I just won $25. I bet another freeper that you would NEVER give me a straight answer about how we should have deposed Saddam, or about what you want done now. Because, like all liberals, you can't say what should be done, you can't even really say what shouldn't be done. You can only wait till something is done and then howl that it shouldn't have been done.

If you ever want to prove that you aren't full of BS, you answer those two questions. 1) How should we have deposed Saddam without killing him, without killing any Iraqi soldiers, without killing any civilians, without creating refugees, without trampling anyone's "rights," without the danger of him being reinstated, etc and 2) What do you want done now, do you want Saddam killed, aided, or what. I confidently predict that you will never answer these straight questions.

And now go. Before somebody drops a house on YOU.

Bumping to Clash of Civilizations list.

I never said that Baghdad could have been taken w/o casualties and refugies. Your fantasy about this says a lot about your approach to the whole topic. It seems you have a lot of problems distinguishing between war to accomplish a definite objective and war to exact vengeance on the enemy (e.g. to satisfy your bloodlust).

If we decided to liberate Kuwait in 1991 a certain group of Iraqis conscripts would have had to die. They did. If we had instead decided to take Baghdad, more Iraqi conscripts would have died. The two groups are not necessarily the same. Some of those who would have died in the liberation of Kuwait would have survived an attack on Baghdad. And vice versa.

Roughly three-quarters of the 200,000 Iraqi conscripts who died in the Gulf War did so pointlessly. That is to say, their deaths were not necessary to obtain the liberation of Kuwait, nor did this serve any other purpose. Pointless killing is murder.

The million or so Iraqis who have died due to the embargo have also died pointlessly. This also is murder.

Your attempt to conflate the people who have died pointlessly with those who might have died in a war to depose Saddam is, to say the least, disingenuous.

From this long history, it has become evident that equality in law cannot be finally ensured without the mass participation of the public. But it is important to understand that the rule of law must be established first before democracy can successfully evolve. That is the great political lesson of Western civilization.

I think Johnson skipped a step in here. What is the basis for the "rule of law" that needs to be established? At a minimum, there needs to be a consensus about an objective moral code.

It seems you have a lot of problems distinguishing between war to accomplish a definite objective and war to exact vengeance on the enemy (e.g. to satisfy your bloodlust).

Or to make sure he doesn't strike again? But no, what I'm having a problem distinguishing is WHAT YOU WANT. You seem to say we should have "taken" Baghdad. I want to know HOW we should have done that. I want to know if we should have KILLED Saddam Hussein. I want to know how we should have done it WITHOUT killing SH, if that is your stance. I'm trying to get you to actually state WHAT YOU WANT. But for some reason, you are extremely evasive about that.

If we decided to liberate Kuwait in 1991 a certain group of Iraqis conscripts would have had to die. They did. If we had instead decided to take Baghdad, more Iraqi conscripts would have died. The two groups are not necessarily the same. Some of those who would have died in the liberation of Kuwait would have survived an attack on Baghdad. And vice versa.

And you are okay with one group dying but not the other? Why might that be?

Roughly three-quarters of the 200,000 Iraqi conscripts who died in the Gulf War did so pointlessly. That is to say, their deaths were not necessary to obtain the liberation of Kuwait, nor did this serve any other purpose. Pointless killing is murder.

No, they died so that they didn't turn around and charge back in the minute we left.

The million or so Iraqis who have died due to the embargo have also died pointlessly. This also is murder.

But there is a point. We are trying to get Saddam out of power. You yourself seem to say this is a valid goal. Is it a valid goal? Let's start with that: DO YOU THINK DEPOSING SADDAM IS A VALID GOAL OR AN INVALID GOAL? See if you can answer that question before we attempt to go on. And let's not even get into the oil-for-food program that allows Saddam to sell billions of dollars in oil every year for food (which he then doesn't use for food, not OUR fault). Let's not even get into the billion dollars in humanitarian aid funnelled to Iraq over the last 10 years, you don't want to talk about that, I know. Let's just talk about what you want. What do you want? Do you want Saddam killed, or do you want the embargo lifted with him still in power?

WHAT DO YOU WANT?