Evolving Middle East Crisis Thread

[04SCTLS]

Like I said you are not interested in a serious discussion; only in being contentious to show how "enlightened" you are. Actual critical thought would involve too much self-reflection to be convenient. Can't challenge that "genius level" IQ of yours, eh?

You would fit right in with the G8 protesters. The highlighted portions demonstrate that ignorance.

Well ok fine
You can ad hominem me and figuratively put your thumbs in your ears and boorishly go La La La, La La La(I don't hear you) like you do when you run out of thoughtfullness and accuse foxy of changing the terms of the debate.
Or is holding your breath and turning blue a better metaphor?

There is no doubt our foreign policy is driven by material interests and not idealism.
You won't even acknowledge that.

 

[04SCTLS]

Agreed.

The partisan nonsense and dishonest rhetorical games need to stop, anyone is knowingly doing that has an agenda and are dangerous

.
How naive.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Were you born yesterday.
What about history.
You're the one always bringing up human nature argueing against social justice for instance when riding your hobby horses.

 

[cammerfe]

'Play Them Like A Fiddle'

Sometimes we even overthrow democratically elected governments like Iran in 1954.

Mosaddegh and those around him were intent on stealing the oil business that had been created in Iran by the British and managed to engineer a voting opportunity by the 'great unwashed' of the country. That's not quite the same as having a 'democratically-elected government'.

That whole part of the world is easily-enough led around by the nose by the use of het-up emotional appeals.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

There is no doubt our foreign policy is driven by material interests and not idealism.
You won't even acknowledge that.

Because it is an ignorant, simplistic and, most importantly, INACCURATE statement.

The fact that you won't stop to consider that fact shows why it is pointless to even try to discuss this with you. You have been sold on that understanding of foreign policy and won't consider any notion that doesn't share that premise.

Maybe when you grow up and are able to look past your own ego to critically examine your own preconceived notions, a reasonable discussion on this can be had with you. But I won't hold my breath.

I TRIED to engage you in a Socratic exchange in this thread and you quickly became defensive and simply tried to reassert your point instead of engage in meaningful dialog. This is nothing new with you, either. Apparently the possibility of critically examining your own preconceived notions is too great.

I have said before that ego and dogmatism destroy any possibility of meaningful dialog. In Foxy, we have the dogmatic propagandist and in you we have excessive ego. Both are a cancer to discourse.

 

[04SCTLS]

Mosaddegh and those around him were intent on stealing the oil business that had been created in Iran by the British and managed to engineer a voting opportunity by the 'great unwashed' of the country. That's not quite the same as having a 'democratically-elected government'.

That whole part of the world is easily-enough led around by the nose by the use of het-up emotional appeals.

KS

This is only one example of many.

 

[cammerfe]

We Should Feel Mortified!

We're cynical and practical when it comes to looking after ourselves.

Geezly! Shame on us!!!

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

Because it is an ignorant, simplistic and, most importantly, INACCURATE statement.

The fact that you won't stop to consider that fact shows why it is pointless to even try to discuss this with you. You have been sold on the understanding of foreign policy and won't consider any notion that doesn't share that premise.

Maybe when you grow up and are able to look past your own ego to critically examine your own preconceived notions, a reasonable discussion on this can be had with you. But I won't hold my breath.

Our policy is both economic and idealistic but the economic part usually takes precidence unless it's a strictly humanitarian effort.
We're a tarnished knight not a white one.

 

[04SCTLS]

Geezly! Shame on us!!!

KS

Shag seems to infer we're Bambi LOL and goes into one of his La La La snits if I point out our realpolitik.

I accept our actions and don't wring my hands over them.
I'm merely stating my opinion of what they are.

The rich make money off the poor and that's as old as history.
Us exploiting weaker countries for gain is nothing new.

 

[shagdrum]

This is only one example of many.

More accurately; one distortion of many to reinforce the notion of America as an "imperialist" country.

 

[04SCTLS]

More accurately; one distortion of many to reinforce the notion of America as an "imperialist" country.

There was Athens and Rome, The British Empire, The Spanish Empire etc.

We're not any different Constitution notwithstanding.
It is part of the human condition.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag seems to infer we're Bambi LOL and goes into one of his La La La snits if I point out our realpolitik.

Again, your ego blinds you to the truth. You don't know what I am saying (most of my time is spent countering your ignorance instead of conveying any alternative). You are simply jumping to absurd conclusions based on the fact that I reject your position.

Like I said, you would fit in well the the G8 protesters. They are about your speed.

 

[shagdrum]

There was Athens and Rome, The British Empire, The Spanish Empire etc.

We're not any different Constitution notwithstanding.
It is part of the human condition.

WOW!

You really have NO interest in entertaining ANY other point of view. When it comes to this, you are a dogmatist in addition to being excessively egotistical. Amazing.

 

[shagdrum]

Apparently you missed it in the back and forth, so let me restate:

I TRIED to engage you in a Socratic exchange in this thread and you quickly became defensive and simply tried to reassert your point instead of engaging in meaningful dialog. This is nothing new, either. Apparently the possibility of critically examining your own preconceived notions is too great.

 

[04SCTLS]

Again, your ego blinds you to the truth. You don't know what I am saying (most of my time is spent countering your ignorance instead of conveying any alternative). You are simply jumping to absurd conclusions based on the fact that I reject your position.

Like I said, you would fit in well the the G8 protesters. They are about your speed.

You can pontificate all you want but when you start not responding to arguments on to you technical grounds it conjures up the la la la and holding your breath till you turn blue metaphor image to me.
You're up to one insult per post Niedermeyer(from Animal House)
That tells me you're winning

 

[shagdrum]

04, can you counter ANY of the recent points I made, or is irrelevant ad hominem attacks all you have to offer?

I TRIED to engage you in productive discourse and you threw it back in my face.

You have made HUGE logical leaps about my "position" based, not on any position I have articulated, but simply on the fact that I don't accept your position.

If ad hominem is all you have to offer, then I am done. I would be competing against your ego and that is a battle that cannot be won.

 

[04SCTLS]

04, can you counter ANY of the points I made, or is irrelevant ad hominem attacks all you have to offer?

I TRIED to engage you in productive discourse and you threw it back in my face.

You have made HUGE logical leaps about my "position" based, not on any position I have articulated, but simply on the fact that I don't accept your position.

You asked me a rhetorical question about the purpose of our foreign policy and I responded.
You didn't want to make a hypocritical apology so I did it for you.
You haven't said anything to refute my contention that our material interests are at least as important if not more so than our ideals or that we helped create some of this if only as a side effect.

We have created some of our own problems due to our expediency but getting back on topic this time it seems we are not the main focus of the discontent.
I'm holding back commenting more in depth on whats going on because the situation is changing every day.
The pundit opinions of the future are all over the place.
I guess we all have to hold our breaths

 

[04SCTLS]

Apparently you missed it in the back and forth, so let me restate:

I TRIED to engage you in a Socratic exchange in this thread and you quickly became defensive and simply tried to reassert your point instead of engaging in meaningful dialog. This is nothing new, either. Apparently the possibility of critically examining your own preconceived notions is too great.

I have not studied philosophy the way you have.
You would have the advantage.
I said we are hypocritical because it's part of human nature which is meaningful and you have not refuted that or even offered your thoughts instead you dismiss me as a hippie G8 protester and egomaniac.


You're still larding your responses around putting me down.

 

[shagdrum]

You asked me a rhetorical question about the purpose of our foreign policy and I responded.

There was nothing "rhetorical" about it and you didn't directly answer it, but danced around it and got very defensive; attempting to reassert your position (see post #70).

You didn't want to make a hypocritical apology so I did it for you.

Where was any "apology" (hypocritical or otherwise) necessary?

You haven't said anything to refute my contention that our material interests are at least as important if not more so than our ideals or that we helped create some of this if only as a side effect.

A) That's asking me to prove a negative, and B) I tried to lay the ground work for articulating an alternative (and more accurate and comprehensive) view in that Socratic exchange I initiated, but you quickly got defensive and would not allow any critical examination of your preconceived notions, instead simply choosing to reassert your own position.

If you are unwilling to go through the basic logic of opposing views, to critically examine your own views and honestly (and humbly) make an effort to understand those opposing views, all that is left is competing assertions. That gets us nowhere.

Unfortunately, "nowhere" is all that discussions with you can go because you seem to approach them more as an exercise in ego then as a means to discern the truth.

 

[shagdrum]

I have not studied philosophy the way you have.

There is nothing "philosophical" about the Socratic method. It is simply a method of analysis between two opposing views which serves to critically examine both views in a civil manner.

Unfortunately, it is easily frustrated by defensiveness.

You would have the advantage.

Is that what matters? Who would have the advantage? Why do these discussions have to be a competition with anyone who disagrees with you? Why can't you simply approach it as a chance to better discern the truth and better understand the various schools of thought in this area?

That defensiveness only serves to dumb down the conversation and inhibit both intelligent thought and civil/meaningful discourse.

 

[04SCTLS]

There was nothing "rhetorical" about it and you didn't directly answer it, but danced around it and got very defensive; attempting to reassert your position (see post #70).



Where was any "apology" (hypocritical or otherwise) necessary?

To explain why our actions do not sometimes live up to our ideals

A) That's asking me to prove a negative, and B) I tried to lay the ground work for articulating an alternative (and more accurate and comprehensive) view in that Socratic exchange I initiated, but you quickly got defensive and would not allow any critical examination of your preconceived notions, instead simply choosing to reassert your own position.

If you are unwilling to go through the basic logic of opposing views, to critically examine your own views and honestly (and humbly) make an effort to understand those opposing views, all that is left is competing assertions. That gets us nowhere.

Unfortunately, "nowhere" is all that discussions with you can go because you seem to approach them more as an exercise in ego then as a means to discern the truth.

So strut and give me your Socratic more accurate and comprehensive view.
You don't have to be humble.
There are usually many competing "Truths"

 

[shagdrum]

So strut and give me your Socratic more accurate and comprehensive view.
You don't have to be humble.
There are usually many competing "Truths"

The Socratic method is a method of exchange, of back and forth. It is not simply a means of asserting a viewpoint. It is a way of insuring both sides understand the different points of view equally well and know where the similarities and differences are between the two points of view.

However, defensiveness kills that kind of discourse and, considering the level of contempt shown in this thread, I don't see that type of discourse as possible at this point and am tired of the pissing contest.

 

[04SCTLS]

The Socratic method is a method of exchange, of back and forth. It is not simply a means of asserting a viewpoint. It is a way of insuring both sides understand the different points of view equally well and know where the similarities and differences are between the two points of view.

However, defensiveness kills that kind of discourse and, considering the level of contempt shown in this thread, I don't see that type of discourse as possible at this point and am tired of the pissing contest.

Well you brought up the Socratic stuff.
I don't think playing tag to get at the truth is what we do here.
What we do is voice the many truths and our points of view
instead of trying to find the one truth.
Cammer said no matter where I'm coming from I have some kind of point to make.
Just because I don't agree with you and try to make sport out of arguing
with you in an entertaining well written manner doesn't mean I'm contemptuous of you. I may be amused by you but I"m not laughing at you and can respect where you are coming from.
I try to be witty in my barbs.

I presume this is your attempt at socratic engagement you said

So, the primary function of US foreign policy should be to promote our national interest, correct?

So what should I have said

Yes it should

or

it depends on how you define the national interest

and get into a long slog and move away from the primary function of this post like a thread within a thread.

But since I said in reality we even overthrow governments when it suits us
to move it along Cammer responded with more of a rebutt than you did. All you said was I was inaccurate but not how regarding say Iran 1954, Guatemala 1954, the Dominican Republic 1965 and others.

What are your points of view here anyways other than oooh very scary?
What do you get out of posting here.
I've learned a few things and sharpened up my rhetoric.
I went back over the post and you're the one wringing your hands and contempuously dissing and dismissing me in your little snit dance instead of responding to the challenge.

 

[foxpaws]

You really expect me to answer your loaded questions?

The democracy question - loaded?

Yep -

But it also is the question that should be at the heart of this discussion - and why the right is having difficulties with this issue. Just as your posts aren't agreeing (one day you post something that says that 'an orderly transition is necessary', and the next day you post something that states we should push for a '48 hour solution'), much of the right isn't on the same page either.

Turkey went this route - didn't they? And although perhaps they aren't our 'best friends' any longer, what they are is a true democracy in an Arab centric state. A democracy that wasn't enforced by victors, but a democracy that arose from a free decision by the Turks. This people based democracy is really the only form of democracy that has a chance of survival.

Egypt, like Turkey, has had a lot of 'peaceful' contact with the west. They see the benefits of a democracy because of this relationship. Also, Turkey has a fairly stable economy - without the benefit of oil. That is something Egypt needs to have as well - they don't have the mineral resources of their surrounding neighbors.

And something happened after democracy was established in Turkey - Shari'a was turned over in favor of civil law. A big plus. It appeared, that at least in Turkey, once the freedoms and benefits of a democracy were apparent, civil law soon became an important part of the equation.

I actually think the biggest difficultly democracy faces in Egypt is that there isn't a middle class. Western-style governing, such as democracy, is somewhat dependent on a strong middle class.

Egypt's current situation isn't ideal - but it is 'of the people', in search of 'by the people'. If democracy has a chance at all in the middle east it has to come from inside, not from outside.

It can only help to have another true democracy in the middle east. Turkey is a big thorn in Iran's side - I would love to see Egypt join in that same 'poking' of Ahmadinejad...

 

[04SCTLS]

Is that what matters? Who would have the advantage? Why do these discussions have to be a competition with anyone who disagrees with you? Why can't you simply approach it as a chance to better discern the truth and better understand the various schools of thought in this area?

Competition is the american way.
Competition brings out the best (in discussions) and allows the truth to rise to the top.
Respond with your best argument.
Conservatism is based on allowing free competition.
I could say your style seems ironically more cooperative and progressive(shudder) than conservative.
I can appreciate your argument without having to agree with it.
Or do you just want to hear Agreed every once in a while like you occasionally say.

 

[Calabrio]

The democracy question - loaded?
Yep -
But it also is the question that should be at the heart of this discussion - and why the right is having difficulties with this issue.

I
don't know who your referring to when you say "the right."
No one I've heard is against the idea of Democracy in the Middle East. In fact, the very goal of the Iraq War was to influence the spread of representative governments through the region, largely in hope of preventing a larger conflict from taking place in the future.

That point is important, this issue isn't whether the "right" supports the idea of freedom in the Middle East. The idealistic Bush foreign policy demonstrates that. And, if I remember correctly, it was the "left" that was arguing that people in the Middle East weren't capable of Democracy and that they needed someone like Hussein to keep them under control.... a rather progressive philosophy.

The issue here isn't whether Egypt should have a representative government. The immediate concern right now is will a government that results from riots and then met with escalating violence and chaos actually be free and sustainable. It is possible but highly unlikely when you view the situation and the players on the ground right.

If this were a region or ideology that was isolated, this wouldn't matter. However in this case, there is significant cause for concern because the results have national security and global security implications. And because these riots are spreading thorughout the Muslim world, the lens of the media just happen to be focused on Egypt right now.

And at this point, I have to add so that you don't misrepresent me, this DOES NOT mean the U.S. should get involved and protect the current dictator (even before the riots).

There isn't much the U.S. or any country can do besides apply diplomatic pressure on Mubarak to have him step down and assist in an orderly transition. Unfortunately, as we sit, things are spiraling out of control. His supporters, those associated with his government are spreading violence while there are foreign political organizations pouring into the country as well.

Turkey went this route - didn't they?

No. But why make this a conversation about the history of Turkey-
it's only relevant if you want to discuss the Ottoman Empire or the fact that it's moving towards Sharia law.

Egypt, like Turkey, has had a lot of 'peaceful' contact with the west.

That's not necessarily the issue.
The conversation is about the political powers at play here. You've agreed that the lack of a civic society in the country will make democracy very difficult. And all political organizations, other than the Brotherhood, have effectively been destroyed in that country, the dominant political power following a government collapse will be the Brotherhood. And when they take power, they will strong arm the population as well- regardless how idealistic the aspirations of the people.

And something happened after democracy was established in Turkey - Shari'a was turned over in favor of civil law.

Again, you're not following the politics in that region.
Things in Turkey were never particularly great, they never were a country with much regard for human rights or tolerance, but the situation has deteriorated. The Islamists are taking over that country as well. And if the dominoes continue to fall, as they are in Egypt, I wouldn't be surprised if Turkey is under Sharia law, or civil war, inside two years.

It can only help to have another true democracy in the middle east. Turkey is a big thorn in Iran's side - I would love to see Egypt join in that same 'poking' of Ahmadinejad...

But is not likely.

So, how does the world prepare for an Egypt that is controlled by Jihadists?
What does Israel do when the Egyptian government no longer prevents the transfer of weapons into Palestinian territories? What does it do to the power of the Jihadist movement when it's now supported by a state with a population of 84 Million people. What happens to the Christians living in the country? Are they dislocated or forced in dhimitude?

And, just as I asked earlier, if you don't think Egypt will fall in such a manner, present a realistic scenario where that doesn't happen, taking into account all that we do know.