Considering that taking "decisive offensive military action" would be political suicide as the leader of a nation that is completely jaded with regards to warfare, I can see why he wouldn't. The public perception, whether correct or not, is that Iraq and Afghanistan have been colossal wastes of lives, money and time. If Obama came out tomorrow and said he'd decided to attack yet another country posing no direct threat (they still maintain they are building nuclear power plants rather than missiles, and it'd be difficult to spin putting a monkey into space as an immediate threat) but who he thought looked a bit shifty, he'd be crucified. People don't want another war, aside from the scary far-right armchair generals who think we ought to just bomb the world and remake it in our own image.Therumancer said:That said it's a moot point, I expect Obama to do absolutly nothing about this except maybe flap his gums some more. We don't have a leader who is capable of taking any kind of decisive, offensive military action. By the time he's out of office it might very well be a moot point since we will have delayed so long it won't be practical to just go in there and attack the infrstructure and technology base.
It's pretty hard to seperate citizen and government in the mind, to be honest, because whenever news stations (or even the article we've just read from Greg) mention a nation doing something they always say 'Iran' or 'America' rather than 'the Iranian government' or 'the American government'. Likewise, whenever something horrible is done by the Israelis, we blame Israel as a whole (though recent polls suggest that many of them do support continued oppression) rather than pointing out that the government is being a dick.unstabLized said:I know that people have different viewpoints on things like this, and you have every right to have an opinion, but one thing I ask of you is that please, never assume that all of Iran is like what you see on the news. The people in that country are struggling very hard everyday to survive, to the point where they can barely even get food anymore. They can't have a voice because the government censors everything, and if someone does say something, they'll be either brutally punished or killed on the spot. Say what you want about the government, and I'll probably agree with almost everything you say, but don't mistake the people in the country. A lot of the people in Iran are completely against the government, but they can't say anything or get away.
One lesson you're sure to learn on the Escapist is that if we suppress religion, all diseases will instantly be cured and nobody will ever do anything mean to anyone else. Just look at Soviet Union, that was a real paradise!Happiness Assassin said:Iran launches monkey into space and this turns into a thread about bashing religion? Why? Even if we didn't have religion, people would still find excuses to kill each other.
Well, depends how you define "few hundred years", but the Ottoman Empire used to launch invasions on parts of Europe now and again almost until the very end of its existence. And the Big One, which purported to take the entirety of Europe was just over three hundred years ago.Verlander said:It's funny, but I've never seen the Middle East invade Europe/USA, at least, not in the last few hundred years. Nor have I seen them nuke anyone. Actually, unless my history is madly off only one country has used nuclear weapons offensively against other humans...
BUT this is the internet, therefore it's all religions fault. All of everything is.
SonicWaffle said:Considering that taking "decisive offensive military action" would be political suicide as the leader of a nation that is completely jaded with regards to warfare, I can see why he wouldn't. The public perception, whether correct or not, is that Iraq and Afghanistan have been colossal wastes of lives, money and time. If Obama came out tomorrow and said he'd decided to attack yet another country posing no direct threat (they still maintain they are building nuclear power plants rather than missiles, and it'd be difficult to spin putting a monkey into space as an immediate threat) but who he thought looked a bit shifty, he'd be crucified. People don't want another war, aside from the scary far-right armchair generals who think we ought to just bomb the world and remake it in our own image.Therumancer said:That said it's a moot point, I expect Obama to do absolutly nothing about this except maybe flap his gums some more. We don't have a leader who is capable of taking any kind of decisive, offensive military action. By the time he's out of office it might very well be a moot point since we will have delayed so long it won't be practical to just go in there and attack the infrstructure and technology base.
Regarding your other points, the problem I've got with them is the perspective bias. It's nothing to be ashamed of, as it's something everyone does, but the automatic assumption beneath everything you posted is that the Western way of running a country is just better. Certainly I agree with you, but that's because I've also been raised in a culture that praises its own values and scorns those of other cultures as lesser. Women's rights, gay rights, everyone's rights are important and keeping religion as far away from politics as possible is of paramount importance - but just because I believe those things doesn't mean I can expect people from other cultures to accept them too. Because these Islamic countries don't align to our value set, we must by necessity invade and attempt to make them like us, because our culture is inherently superior. Let's try flipping the perspective; if Iran were the more powerful nation, how would you feel if they invaded your home to crush the infastructure and educate you on how Shariah is clearly the superior system? How would you feel if, whenever you protested that your way was better, they laughed and told you that once your culture had evolved a little more, you'd agree with them?
Problem the first being that "the right thing to do" in this case is simply personal opinion. There are many, many people (myself included) who think that the "right thing" is not to crush a civilization because they're different from us and we see them as dangerous. Viewed objectively, which is the more dangerous - the small theocracy who are rumoured to be working towards a nuclear arsenal or the enormous country which wields power on a global scale, has enormous stockpiles of nuclear weaponry, is heavily influenced by its own religious lobbyists (albeit not to the degree of Iran, granted, but it's widely considered an impossibility to hold high office without claiming to have certain religious beliefs) and has a reputation for launching largely unprovoked wars against smaller countries?Therumancer said:Well, to my way of thinking political suicide doesn't much matter, the right thing to do is the right thing to do.
The right decisions being to cripple developing nations in the hope of turning them into clones of America, under the banner of making them less dangerous? With no regard for what they may think about it, because we Westerners are the superior race and we get to make the decisions? I apologise if I'm sounding hostile here, but that's a seriously disturbing notion.Therumancer said:You are however correct that Obama isn't likely to take such action given his platform. As a person he doesn't have the guts, and his platform was basically based around playing to how much people hate wars, especially long wars. I myself have commented that Obama isn't likely to take any of the needed actions against The Middle East, China, etc... let things get worse, and hope that another president decides to make the right desicians with their career.
Perspective again. From what you say, growing up and joining the world community involves toeing the line set by the most powerful.Therumancer said:To be brutally honest whether we simply go in and wreck their tech base, or go all out and pretty much level the entire region and population, the bottom line is pretty much to remove the threat they present to the rest of the world. I really don't care if they want to live a religiously based life in their own deserts as long as they keep it entirely to themselves. The point of everything, including the mass murder I've presented in other threads, is largely a matter of removing the threat posed to the rest of the world until they grow up to join the rest of the global community, and honestly if they never do, it's all about just keeping them contained so they don't bug anyone else. It's not nice, but it's what I think.
This encapsulates the problem I'm having, really. What you're saying is that if other nations want to thrive, they should change themselves to suit us, because we have the innately superior culture. That if they become like us we won't need to bomb them anymore because they'll have officially become Good Guys.Therumancer said:Understand also that I do not believe (after all this time and attempts) that an outside force can change their entire way of life and point of view. They have to do that internally, on their own. This is the folly of the entire "winning the peace" strategy and these stupid occupations we started. Hence why I favor a break and contain strategy, even if it involves the deaths of tens or even hundreds of millions of people if you take it to the extreme, or the half measure of simply removing dangerous technologies and developments until they are ready for it (like we see here). Take what action is needed to ensure the culture remains localized, humble, and no threat to anyone, but other than that let it go on it's own and it will either get over it and join the rest of the world, or it won't, and they can be riding their camels around the desert and herding goats to eke out a humble survival while they live with their god, while the rest of the world has hover cars and maybe even moves out to explore the stars. All entirely their choice to remain that way instead of progressing, and if they are happy with it, so be it. If they aren't... well they can choose to re-evaluate their priorities and change.
Point taken, in terms of scaleJoJo said:Call back when the U.S. is openly stating that it intends to wipe an entire sovereign nation off the map, until then a comparison is silly.Rainforce said:Thank goodness the US is in no way a perpetual war machine that spends most of its money on military advancements at all, right?JoJo said:It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?
I guess it's good for Iran, at least when they get the rest of their politics somewhat sorted out.
Well, now your getting into the kind of "big picture" thinking that goes well beyond the scope of the events we're talking about.SonicWaffle said:[
This encapsulates the problem I'm having, really. What you're saying is that if other nations want to thrive, they should change themselves to suit us, because we have the innately superior culture. That if they become like us we won't need to bomb them anymore because they'll have officially become Good Guys.
As I said in my last post, I don't disagree with you that Middle Eastern culture is often oppressive, barbaic and arse-backwards. I just don't support the idea that Western culture is the only way for the species to progress. We're not some sort of Master Race, and we shouldn't be trying to homogenise the world to our liking. I ask again, would you accept the same thing if the positions were reversed? If some country bombed yours back to medieval days because they didn't like your culture and considered you dangerous, and then told you that if you didn't behave exactly the way they told you then your country would not be allowed to participate in global affairs?
I think the most obvious reaction to such would be seething resentment, absolute hatred of the oppressive regime that would make the current distate Iran has towards the West look like a mild grudge. Much like the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan currently, all we'd achieve is to inspire and motivate the next generation of terrorists.
If your suggestion applies to Iran, and you see that as the best way to deal with the "backwards" cultures, then why not extrapolate that to a big-picture solution?Therumancer said:Well, now your getting into the kind of "big picture" thinking that goes well beyond the scope of the events we're talking about.
I think you're making some pretty big assumptions there. For one thing, the supposed "global culture" to which everyone will belong would most likely internalise the bickering and power struggles that today occur between nations, instead taking place between voting blocs or individuals. For another it would eliminate factional competition of the like that fueled the space race to begin with. Iran are making strides in their space program because they feel they're competing against someone; America is much more relaxed and content to take their time because the threat that pushed them into space has receded. Competition is good to a certain extent, but in this future where we can no longer show external signs that we're struggling against one another the most visible signs of progress will stagnate.Therumancer said:In the final equasion for humanity to survive, thrive, and get up into space and be able to spread itself out and solve it's resource/population problems we first need a world unity. That is to say one global culture that dominates, sets standards, and everyone belongs to. The bottom line is that as long as more than one group exists on a large scale paranoia, distrust, fighting, and perhaps most importantly the duplication of actions (ie playing "money see, monkey do" with technology instead of entirely developing new things) is inevitable. In short the whole "New World Order" and "One World Goverment" schtick is fundementally correct. There is a reason why most fairly viable speculative fiction about the future of space exploration has such a thing established in the backstory, oftentimes glossing over it's development, or relegating the nasty details to obscure backstory so it doesn't interfere with the high morals of the present tense of the stories (such as with Star Trek).
From a Western perspective, certainly. From the perspective of some hardcore Islamist Western civilisation may represent a trade-off between physical comfort and spiritual truth.Therumancer said:This leads to a sort of impartial analysis of differant cultures and their relative benefits in the long term. How do differant societies influance the life of the everyman, and future technological development. In the final equasion all societies are going to have their "haves" and their "have nots", a utopia is impossible, and a degree of social oppression and things like poverty are always going to exist simply as a fundemental fact. Considering that there is no perfect system, and that only ones that currently exist (as opposed to hypothetical exercises in society building) can enter into a discussion about reality, then Western Civilization becomes the best overall model for a human civilization.
As a Westerner, I'm comfortable where I am. That doesn't change the fact that Western civilisation is only the superior model in the eyes of Westeners. Presumably every model thinks of themselves as the best, and sees flaws in our system that we would never consider. Plenty of people within our own nations are unhappy with the model we have, some wanting theocracy or dictatorships or socialist paradise, and they're able to arrive at the conclusion that they're unhappy with our model despite being burdened with the inherited cultural perception of superiority.Therumancer said:When you consider what societal model would benefit the greatest number of people, and provide the greatest amount of freedom, there are really few better alternatives. Sure other models might work in a purely functional sense, but would you want to live there.
Just an aside - I may be mis-remembering, but didn't Karl Marx say the same thing with communism? The ultimate ideal of a functional society rather than a model to be imposed on the unwilling?Therumancer said:Incidently it's important to also understand that I respect liberalsm (despite what some people might gather) as an ultimate ideal of how a society should function. I just think we're not to the point where it's viable.
That's a very dodgy argument. "We'll do what's right when it becomes easy to do so, but until then it's our way or nothing"?Therumancer said:Holding those principles as an endgame is important, but in the here and now they are not something we can actually live by or set policy according to, because the world simply is not ready for it. Such principles work when everyone is on the same page, and following the same rules, but not when your working on getting things to that point and/or defending yourself against a world where your position is actually in a minority. Forced intergration, then tolerance of what was intergrated is the way to success.
As I've pointed out though, surely this applies to your future society as well? Certainly we could claim to offer higher quality of life and more freedoms, but we wouldn't really be giving much of a choice as to whether people wanted this society pushed on them. In your original point about Iran you showed that you certainly wouldn't be averse to using force in attempting to integrate nations into the homogenous Western culture. It's a little disingenuous to claim you'll be giving people freedom of choice by manipulating them into a position where they have to accept your value system or suffer for it.Therumancer said:I'm not the best person at breaking this all down, there are people far better than I am at it. The bottom line is that when you consider what's best for humanity though it becomes far more debatable. Especially when you consider that a lot of the rival systems we discuss such as Islamic Theocracies are based around simply not giving people a choice, and indoctrinating them to the point where they resent being given a choice if it appears. Overall a society where everyone is brainwashed or indoctrinated is a possibility for a functional society, but in the final equasion, would YOU want to live there? The only people that are liable to say "yes" are those already indoctrinated, and of course the ones pulling the strings.
The comparisons are easy to make, considering that those robber barons or Princes are likely attempting to emulate the 1%. American celebrity culture enfolds the world, and many of these peoples' ideas of wealth could conceivably be drawn from Hollywood.Therumancer said:The Prince/Religious Leader/etc... who has a thousand differant sports cars, a harem of 40 babes, fifty cars, etc... and hangs out with all his buddies who are the same way, probably thinks his is a great system. Ditto for the Chinese communist robber baron, who sits pretty high up in the party and owns a bunch of Sweatshops. Comparisons can be made between both of them and the much criticized "1%" of the Western World, but at the same time we peons have a much higher standard of living on average (even during a recession) and also have the abillity, even if slight, to potentially rise up and join that 1% from which people rise into and fall from all the time.
This is pretty much what the entire discussion boils down to. The arguement as to whether it's all perspective based or one where a paticular way of life can be called better than another objectively. As I explained, yes it can, unless you get into very personal and subjective arguements involving spirituality and things like that. Even so you have to look at things like what benefits the most people.SonicWaffle said:[
As a Westerner, I'm comfortable where I am. That doesn't change the fact that Western civilisation is only the superior model in the eyes of Westeners. Presumably every model thinks of themselves as the best, and sees flaws in our system that we would never consider. Plenty of people within our own nations are unhappy with the model we have, some wanting theocracy or dictatorships or socialist paradise, and they're able to arrive at the conclusion that they're unhappy with our model despite being burdened with the inherited cultural perception of superiority.
I find it interesting that you make the point of less developed nations being run on an "agree or suffer" basis yet claim this is a negative - wasn't that essentially what you were proposing for Iran, and eventually everyone else in this grand future? That those who refused to ape Western cultural values could go and live in an isolated desert while everyone else rode around in hovercars? In the big picture is there that much difference between punishing those who speak ill of Mao or punishing those who don't conform to the global culture?
?
Yes we know, now tell bush god doesn't existUkomba said:That never happened.
i was going to say something similar, a country take its first steps into space which if may lead into a man flight and all we can talk about is the country's religion. But this great news, like really great news, well done to Iran, lets hope they get a man flight.Happiness Assassin said:Iran launches monkey into space and this turns into a thread about bashing religion? Why? Even if we didn't have religion, people would still find excuses to kill each other.
You do realise this only occurred after WW2 when military industrial complex had started being run as a privatised corporation (war profiteers anyone? hang the Germans ones, but US ones are good for the economy).Lucky Godzilla said:Uh, you do realize the specter of Soviet invasion kick started the single largest military spending spree in recorded history? I mean, have you studied anything about the Cold War? does the term containment policy ring a bell?