Job Discussion Forums

[guest of Japan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the duck and the tasty cracker's posts.

[shenyanggerry]

I think what annoys most people about American actions is not the actions themselves. It is the apparent American belief that their actions are moral and done to help the countries attacked.

In the days of empires it was very clear. Empires were created to benefit the motherland, not the countries/areas occupied. The US is doing the same thing, only they're lying about it.

[johnslat]

Dear shenyanggerry,
"In the days of empires it was very clear. Empires were created to benefit the motherland, not the countries/areas occupied."

Well, I'm afraid I must disagree. You've heard, perhaps, of the "White Man's Burden" - how it was the God-ordained mission of the colonizers to bring "the blessings of civilization" and "the right religion" to the poor benighted heathen?
Hypocrisy was, I'd say, as alive and well back then as it is now:

"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!"

Rudyard Kipling

Regards,
John

[shenyanggerry]

I am aware of Kipling but he did not represent the government. There were also a lot of 'do gooder' missionaries. The general view was colonies helped the home country prosper. The 'white man's burden' was an excuse to ignore their political ambitions and deny them sufferage.

[johnslat]

Dear shenyanggerry,
"I am aware of Kipling but he did not represent the government"

Represent? No - but he certainly mirrored its "public-face" attitude; that's why the government tried to make him Poet Laureate (he refused the "honor"). But here's a site that you might find interesting:

http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/colonial.html

British governements back then were no more "altruistic" than any governments are today (or have ever been). Imperialism and colonialism came about primarily for mercenary motives, but these were always masked by the facade of "helping the heathen". Nothing much has changed in that respect.
Regards,
John

[leeroy]

A rant:

As The Economist points out, there were many bad reasons for going to war (or, "invading") - but there were plenty of good ones too.

Sadly, Bush and Blair chose to emphasize and exaggerate the wrong reasons - namely WMD and the so-called imminent threat posed to the west by Saddam and his forces. This was a mistake, but let's not write the whole thing off just yet...

For as long as the Middle East still has oil, then Western nations will have a vested interest in that area. It is unfortunate that Islamic fundamentalism has taken root in the same location - they see it as "picking on Muslims", despite honest (and, I think, genuine for the most part) claims that this is not the case by Western politicians. It's a shame that Jewish influence in the White House has affected US policy towards Israel, and is something that (I think) both I and most Europeans oppose.

The anti-war argument was a strong one, but I sensed that often people were not fully aware of the whole picture. It seemed there was a distinct knee-jerk 'anti-American' sentiment to the protests - people were viewing the invasion in black-and-white; Anything America Does Must Be Bad. The fact that the UN were too slow and ineffective in following through their resolutions was overlooked, "UN good, US bad" was the simple mantra chanted by millions worldwide - in a vain attempt to look knowledgable within the very complicated networks and spheres of Global Politics.

Resolution 1441 was not about finding weapons - it was about finding evidence he had destroyed them. Even with the world's military knocking at his doorstep, Saddam was still playing games. He had it coming to him. The much-touted notion of evil American soldiers killing innocent Iraqis often overlooked that Saddam and his cronies were responsible for the deaths of far more innocents than the US could ever muster.

Assuming the re-construction of Iraq continues and a stable government is implemented, the statistical losses of "innocents killed during the war" will be more than made-up for very quickly - if they haven't been already.

"Why just focus on Iraq? Why not invade North Korea if the US is so bothered about human rights?" goes the argument. Invading NK will be a lot more hassle, and as the anti-war crowd (correctly) argue, there's not as much oil in NK. So one of the reasons to go to war was the oil! So what? This does not invalidate the whole concept and/or idea.

The Arab, and wider Muslim world, has some issues to sort out. Imperialistic bullying from the West is not its number one problem. An introspective analysis of its place in the modern world is in order, one that will hopefully come about. As The Economist again observes, as much as Arab nations bleat about Palestine, they actually do little to help apart from funding suicide bombers, which is (in the long) run self-defeating.

Let's not kid ourselves, the US government is far from angelic - especially when it comes to foreign policy. But at the same time we mustn't get too carried away here, the rest of the world isn't that friendly either really.

It is easier to criticise, say, Bush not joining Kyoto, than to draw attention to the Indonesian army's conduct in Aceh and East Timor. Relatively, how many people protest against Bush compared to the Burmese government? What is this global obsession with America Is The Bad Guy? Most governments around the world are far more aggressive, far less competent and far more corrupt than the current US administration. As the US is "the biggest", though, a heavier spotlight falls on it. Where is it written that world peace and prosperity is solely the US's responsibility? It isn't.

So let's continue to be critical of our own Western governments, but let's not lose perspective here. The Iraq invasion can (and hopefully will) turn out to be a good thing.

Since the 1950s, according to the WHO, the percentage of those living in poverty has fallen dramatically. While some nations are getting poorer (notably in Africa), the majority are getting richer. Economic and cultural globalisation is not the big nasty influence that people make it out to be - but it is also not a panacea. The West can (and does) have a positive influence on the world - but we are so busy beating ourselves up about it that we don't realise this.

I'm no fan of Bush, both because of his policies and his mangling of the English language. But I'm an even bigger enemy of the gross simplification of world events that is so often touted by some who claim to be "anti-war", "anti-globalist", or whatever.

OK, rant over.

(edited for grammar, etc..)

[dduck]

Some posters get all wound up because country X did something bad in the past. Then someone from country X will kick off and show the hypocracy of the original poster, adding that country Y did it too and did it better. A small squable breaks out. Afterwards, we all retreat from our computers in the belief that we've each achieved some kind of small victory. In truth, nationality is only a jacket that some individuals wear and nothing to do with the problem, rather, it's a symptom of government and of self-interested individuals. Just look at Iraq.

On the whole, most people are quite nice.

Iain

[Irish]

Well said, Iain! A very sensible post.

[James_T_Kirk]

Leeroy,

That is the best rant I've ever read on this board...excellent post!

Cheers,
Kirk

[johnslat]

Dear leeroy and dduck,
I'd like to add my kudos - great posts. No nationality/country can claim innocence, especially with respect to its international conduct. Let's all try to remember, though, that what governments do does not necessarily reflect the desires, or carry out the will, of their people as a whole.
Regards,
John

[donfan]

Who in the hell made the US, and in particular George Bush, the barometer for what is considered justice? Bush is a raving hypocrite talking about justice when he basically cheated his way into the presidency.

[kimo]

When you're all through and wish to play a bit, you can get your toy here.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031216/ts_alt_afp/iraq_saddam_us_toy

Saddam should be most pleased.

[Roger]

A great, and convincing post, leeroy! I concur with you in many respects, yet I retain my right to disagree in one important one:

The USA claims (not very convincingly) it is the most democratic democracy in the world.
As a fellow democrat, I claim for myself the right to criticise my own elected government - a luxury no Arab, African or Chinese can indulge; and I also deem it my right to criticise fellow democrats, including elected leaders of other democracies.

In a true democracy, giving and taking reigns supreme, not lobbyism, parochialism, selfishness. A strong country can afford to be altruistic.

I am afraid the USA has had too many undeclared reasons for invading Iraq, and it has chosen to antagonise its own best friends.
The major issue for me is what is America's long-term intention? IT's clearly not simply to be a nation among others; it wants to dominate, bully others, arbitrate, be above the international law, dictate to others while never submitting to the decisions taken democratically by world institutions.

That's my personal beef with the USA.
And note that so much depends on that single man in the White House - not on the American nation, but on a pseudo-elected redneck from America's most uncosmopolitan South. How can the world learn to respect the USA under such circumstances reminiscent of Chinese emperors' power?

[struelle]

[lagerlout2006]

The US is a free and and great country but they do not export that.

As Fisk and other serious writers have said---the idea that the aim was to FREE IRAQ was so laughable that the US govt did not even allege this. It was about Saddam being a threat. A lie since Iraq had become the weakest nation in the area. Besides why didn't they attack North Korea who have said loud and clear they plan to build and sell WMD. ???

Bush wanting to execute Hussein reminds me of a Chomsky quote...

"No USA president of the last 50 years,,,based on Nuremburg,,,would escape hanging."

Have a nice day.