Globalism Post 9/11 1021
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation. As the U.S. evolved rapidly from an industrial to a data-based economy, much of the world hasn't come along, or doesn't want to.
Our technology is running away from the rest of the planet, from genomics to supercomputing to bio-tech research to weaponry. Globalism, arguably the single most significant political issue on the planet even before 9/11, is even more critical now, even though there is little consensus on what it is or how we should feel about it or even define it. Deep-thinking billionaire philanthropist Soros jumps in with a significant new book -- George Soros on Globalization -- in which he advances some exciting and startling ideas about the future.
Anti-globalization protests have become a staple of international summit meetings, Soros points out, a sort of "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." A ferocious advocate of open societies, he takes on what's good and bad about globalism, and how we might put it to better use. We'll take up that discussion here.
As Soros points out, 'Globalization' is a much overused term with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. Soros uses it to mean the development of global financial markets and the growth of trans-national corporations, along with their increasing power over national economies. "I believe that most of the problems that people associate with globalism," writes Soros, "including the penetration of market values into areas where they do not traditionally belong, can be attributed to these phenomena."
One could also blame the globalization of information and culture; the spread of television, Internet and other forms of communication; and the increased mobility and commercialization of ideas.
But Soros understandably concentrates on economic issues. Globalization as he defines it, is new. At the end of World War II, most countries strictly controlled international capital transactions. International capital movement accelerated in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and financial markets became truly global only in the early 1990s, Soros says, after the collapse of the Soviet empire.
That period also happens to coincide with the most explosive growth of the Net and the Web, perfect engines for the new data-driven economies and systems for the rapid movement -- literally -- of capital.
By contrast, as we can see on the evening news most nights, while governments may not be able to restrict the flow of capital, they're still fairly effective at controlling the movement of people. (Although even there, the Net ultimately makes that more difficult, at least in terms of intellectual property and ideas. This kind of content is liquid, no longer confinable within territorial boundaries.
Since capital is the essential ingredient of contemporary production and economies, countries compete to attract it. It's no accident that nations who can't or won't are also incubators for political discontent and terrorism. Globalism has transformed our historic economic and social arrangements. Since capital can move anywhere in seconds, any nation-state's ability to exercise control over an economy has been radically undermined. This was a huge club the British held over the Chinese government during negotiations over the transfer of Hong Kong. The Chinese were forced to be somewhat more democratic when, with the stroke of a key, billions of dollars in capital could have fled Hong Kong in a micro-second, even if its people couldn't.
"The globalization of financial markets," argues Soros," has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete, because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can."
This was no accident, he explains, even if few Americans had any idea it was happening. The Reagan administration (along with Thatcher) was determined to reduce the state's ability to interfere in the economy and, helped enormously by globalization's rise, it succeeded.
So, exuberantly costumed demonstrations aside, globalism is not about to evaporate or even weaken, not any time soon. Quite the opposite: nation-states and their constituents now have to choose between globalism (and its attendant prosperity) or religious fanaticism. This leaves us with the central question:
Next: Is Globalism good or evil?
Give me back these moments of my life. (Score:4, Interesting)
This series has become not so much commentary as a diarrhetic stream of self-righteous sewage.
Please, Mr. Katz, save your future tantrums for the walls of the public restroom stall of your choice. Speaking for myself, I have nothing better to do whilst engaged in such places, and I wouldn't feel such a sense of loss if I invested the time to read your writings at times such as those.
Your anti-globalization mantra is poorly constructed. You toss in so many unsupported perjoratives in the process of hating globalization and its perceived dark army of supporters that I begin to dislike you intensely and view you with suspicion.
Your juvenile rantings have a curious boomerang effect, as I begin to feel warmly about globalization. My reasoning is simple: any issue against which a nincompoop such as yourself might rail is worthy of consideration.
grep -v Katz
Re:-1 troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Example link, rather than have me rehash old arguments: alternet [alternet.org].
Re:Evolution (Score:1, Interesting)
It could, and it has; especially by the capitalists, those who are the direct beneficiaries of "Globalism" in its current form.
Perhapse evolution isn't the right word for this. But if we're changing over our society, from the primitive economic structure utilized by the rest of the world towards a more advanced, digital society in general...isn't that the next step?
You are building a result into your hypothesis. By supposing a linear development of the sort you outline, any development becomes The Next Step(TM). Not only that, but any development (used in the literary meaning, as in plot development rather than economic development) is removed from its contemporary circumpstances and abstracted into the imaginary realm of Human Progress(TM), a placement that follows the rhetoric of inevitability and deprives current action of any meaning other than the polarized "for or against" of King Shrub.
If what we do truely proves to be superior in the next few years, won't natural selection then come into play with other parts of the world who are resistent to the changes come about?
Don't fool yourself. Changes don't "come about" they happen and are made to happen. Don't close your eyes to the role of the US in the misery and poverty of the world and circumpstances of terrorism become much less mysterious. The US is the largest destabalizing force in the world. This is not accidental, this is not the result of our freedom loving ways or wealth-increasing economics, it is the result of the predatory and monopolous (if that's a word...) practices of the mega-corporations, their capitalist owners, and the CIA their Saruman.
In this context your speak of evolution and natural progression are quite appropriate. You are using the vocabulary of Social Darwinism and Manifest Destiny to support the actions and policies they are meant to support.
Re:running away from the world (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to say that most Americans are not actively running away from the world. [What stands for "news" in many Arabic language daily papers would leave many of us open-mouthed and incredulous.]
Rather, we ignore the rest of the world and consider America to be our world.
That's why most Americans were aghast and surprised by the 9/11 attack, because most of them didn't have any clue about the ideas that circulating in the rest of the world.
Our own media bears much responsibility in this regard, because it, too, has largely become part of an apparatus of market-based forces - infotainment used to embed valuable advertisements. George Soros makes a good point there.
I think the scariest part of globalism is that with free movement of corporations between nations, there will be a tendency for those corporations to be attracted to nations with a vacuum of regulations, enabling them to operate in what they find to be the friendliest environment from a pure market perspective. Zero corporate taxes, little corporate liability or responsibility apart from "returning shareholder value".
Unfortunately, I don't think a good, rational consensus can yet be built at the international level as to a proper corporate regulatory environment. There are too many special interests that would burden things in all kinds of contorted ways, pretty much as many nation states have done. There simply has to be a way of achieving some balanced policy that combines both perspectives, where returned shareholder value is everything, and where cost is no object to achieving a global optimum of human happiness.
As a consequence, you'll see more and more nations gravitating towards being run for corporate interests, which have only the small inertial forces of ethics among their chief executives preventing them from abandoning even more traditional human values and morals in order to achieve a better return on shareholder value.
It will probably be some years before this evolution of nation/corporate states comes to a head, but inevitably it will.
While I strongly believe that free, unfettered flow of accurate information and individual empowerment (such as democracy) are vital to finding a good solution, these two particular ideals may not necessarily be included in either the solutions that provide maximum shareholder value, or in some of the proposed solutions that supposedly provide optimum global human happiness.
Re:America is better. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think what makes the USA so resented is the very fact that because of the fact our Constitution has been pretty much stable since 1789, we have perhaps the second longest-lasting representative republic (the first being Great Britain) in the world. This has provided a stable base for economic development in this country.
It also has helped that even with our unfortunate War Between the States in 1861 to 1865, our country never had a situation where the entire country suffered grevious losses on an unimagined scale. Look at Great Britain--they lost a very large fraction of their country's finest young men in World War I, which began their decline as a world power. France and Germany in the 20th Century suffered seriously from the effects of two World Wars. A large part of the former Soviet Union in its European parts suffered horribly in World War II. Japan suffered heavy losses during World War II. Chinca suffered heavy losses during World War II, especially the areas under Japanese occupation.
I think the world envies us because when we put the mind to it, we have the capacity to out-produce just about anyone on this planet. Why do you think we pretty much put the structure of the Internet into place? CERN in Europe may have invented the World Wide Web, but it was here in the USA that the World Wide Web was developed to be very easy to use, thanks to the development of the Mosaic web browser in the early 1990's.
I also think the success of the USA has shown that Islam is often incapable of relevancy in the 21st Century. Their religious leaders need to form the equivalent of the Council of Trent AND the Second Vatican Council so they can make the religion relevant in our modern world.
Re:"Islam is a peaceful religion." (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:European perspective (Score:1, Interesting)
why are you generalising so much?
"They think we're arrogant"
No, I don't...but you start giving me some reasons to think that.
I have may US American friends (in the US as well as here in Geneva) that admit to never knowing about the conflict in the middle east for example. Although the USA is big you cannot really compare this to an inner state relation (Ohio-Michigan) because these matters are more important because things like 9/11 arise from it.
The USA is a great country but with people like this [slashdot.org] the picture the USA delivers to people outside of the US worsenes.
Incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)
Modern Saudi Arabia wouldn't exist without the US sticking its nose very far into the Middle East. The regime is propped up with US aid and oil money, although paradoxically it is the Saudis funding most of the anti Western efforts.
The reason they hate the West is because the West, for all its trash culture, is a free culture, and their model of rule is a contradiction of freedom. Their culture is in decline, their power is eroding, and they know that if their own populaces were empowered, most of them would be executed.
Re:-1 troll (Score:1, Interesting)
Why does globalization create misery? How about loss of culture, loss of history, loss of religious beliefs when american scientists arrive on the scene, destruction of traditional ways of life, end to work-for-subsistence and rise of the 40-hour work-for-a-boss week, the rat race, the need for consumer awareness, and on and on and on. A change from "I live my life as we have always done it here" to "I live my life as the Americans do it over there."
Globalization puts everyone in the rat race, on the treadmill to make the corporations richer. Whether they want to be there or not, now they have to be because other ways to subsist evaporate when western capitalism arrives. No traditional subsistence farm on your family lands like you used to have, and you can't afford a digital camcorder (not like you could use one where you live) but you sure can watch General Hospital and have a heart-attack-in-a-bun, mate!
Americans don't lend any credence to concepts like "quality of life" or "psychological dischord," Americans believe in dollars and they whirlwind through the world like a tornado leaving dollars, hamburgers, unavoidable secularism and the 40-hour work week in their wake, convinced that everyone is better off for it, determined to "elevate" everyone in spite of themselves...
And then they wonder why people "don't appreciate it" and bitch and moan about all those damned darkies who don't know what's best for them and aren't enlightened, when it's only the Americans who get to retire young, eat health food and who never had or wanted religion and culture to begin with.
Damned Americans... Sold their soul, now they want the rest of the world to sell their soul as well.
Re:European perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont think that it is so much of a perspective problem, I think that America needs to readjust its view of where it fits in the world. Have a look around folks....why dont people like you? Have a go at understanding that, maybe try and fix it. But hey, not with bombs, alright?
The Problem Isn't Globalization, But Our Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
We talk of free trade and then enact tariffs to protect our industries from "unfair" trading. We talk of democracy and we support repressive, undemocratic regimes. We talk of justice and refuse it to innocent victims of our bombings. We talk of international rules but ignore them when it doesn't suit us. We talk of equality but treat all others as inferiors. We talk of freedom but want our "partner" nations to do what we tell them to do. What do you expect?
And who is to blame? We all are to blame. The media is to blame for ignoring their public responsibility, printing and broadcasting spineless mush (like this piece) that serve the interests of corporations and stability. The government is to blame for supporting coroporate profits to the exclusion of higher social and diplomatic goals. And we the public are to blame, for electing these bozos, for giving them high approval ratings when they do not deserve them, for not demanding better coverage of the foreign press and international affairs, for being content with our computers, our SUV's, our anime cartoons and our prosperity with no thought as to how these things are produced. We are to blame because we allow our government to continue to act hypocritically and we say nothing.
So don't give me that bullshit about "abandoning" the global arena. Globalization isn't the problem. It's our hypocrisy that is pissing people off. And it's pissing me off too.
US sticks its nose where it doesn't belong (Score:2, Interesting)
They hate the US because Americans because they stick their noses everywhere it doesn't belong.
America is the only country in the world which prosecutes non-citizens for breaking American laws in countries outside their own. Two examples comes to mind: Dmitri Sklyarov with the DCMA (whom /. knows only too well), and James Sabzali for selling water purifiers in Canada to Cuba being prosecuted now in Philadelphia. (The funny bit is that there is a Canadian law (Canada's Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act) which prohibits Canadians from abiding by the American embargo -- meaning that while in Canada, James Sabzali was would be committing a crime if he abandoned Cuban sales due to the American embargo).
Wanna keep the world happy America? Consider your actions on the rest of the world. Stop the international policy of invading smaller countries because of US self interest (Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam... God does the list goes on and on). Abide by international treaties even the US has agreed to (UN fees, Kyoto protocol... hell, even NAFTA and WTO you disregard when it doesn't favor you). And by all means, rid the world of the idiot you put into power: Bush.
Yeah, troll me cause I'm unamerican.
We bitch, but we don't hate... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the same time, I don't dislike my own country and culture--and that's where the conflict with the American media comes in. US media companies lobby hard to push their way into foreign markets and the US government uses the GATT to knock down foriegn media restrictions and tarrifs.
The US has a population of over 250 million so it outputs a lot of media (plus it's a big export industry). Just based on economies of scale, the US media can swamp smaller markets like Canada and most individual European and Asian countries--and they do. In many countries domestic magazines, movies, and TV all have trouble competing for space with American products. We just don't have the population base to support as much output. Canada is lucky to make a few movies a year, for example.
Now add to that the fact that Americans for the most part just don't want stories about non-Americans or non-American values (nor should they, really). It's not the fault of the average American that their government and media flood foreign markets with American media products. Nevertheless, you have a lot of people in Canada, Europe, and Asia swimming in a sea of media and culture that is specifically, intentionally, not about them.
Most people don't give a shit: they just want pretty girls and big explosions, but they end up being alienated in their own countries. People like me who actually think about these things get pissed off (not that it stops me from watching Star Trek, The Simpsons, and South Park).
The thing is we all have this impression that Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world because your media sure as hell does not. It panders to you like you wouldn't believe. We get the impression you're out to shove your values and ideas down our throats because your media does just that. We ought to realise it's nothing personal because they're just selling product, but it still sucks. Furthermore, we're all hypocrites because we buy the damn stuff anyway. Then we bitch about it.
It is a bit galling, however, for most of us to see our homegrown media struggling as it does, then to see protests in the US over foriegn influence in the media, or about productions in Canada, or about foreign ownership. Maybe it's because you don't know what your government and media companies do overseas, but it really smacks of hypocrisy, too.
Most Canadians, Europeans, and Asians are not like the terrorists. They may bitch about the USA, but they don't hate it. We all have our rude American stories (I once cruised down the Rhine in Germany listening to an old American guy loudly bragging how the US blew up this bridge and that castle and wondering when someone was going to deck him) and they're kind of fun to trade because they're something we non-Americans all have in common. Bitching is our way of reclaiming our own non-American identities back. There's a big difference, though, between bitching and hating. You can bitch about people you like.
Before you slag me off, think about how life would be if nearly every movie, TV show, magazine, and website was in German, about Germans, and hardly mentioned America. Even if you watched the shows and enjoyed them, you'd probably bitch about Germans (or whatever nationality you want--I happen to like Germans, too).
Re:-1 troll (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes.
Even the US has anti-monopoly laws, do you think they shouldn't apply once you cross that line in the sand?
People want to be entertained. The Mexican government recognizes that there is value in Mexican art. Maybe they should have passed that law.
Here in Canada, we have Can-con laws governing minimum levels of Canadian content on radio and television. Initially, this did bring down the level of quality of what we were exposed to - and led to endless repetition of the few good initial efforts. But now as our industry matures, we do have a popular culture to call our own.
This fits in with what Jon talks about above: Outside the US, we don't want a homogonized global culture. In the face of US-based corportate bullying, the onus falls on governments to try and protect local culture. Just because hollywood can spend more on actors, film, effects, doesn't mean the other cultures' stories aren't worth telling.
No, US companies aren't forcing people to watch their movies, but they work very hard to ensure that people don't have the oportunity to watch anybody else's movies either.
Deconstructionist view of the universe (Score:4, Interesting)
Antiglobalists, and Katz to some extent, fall prey to the currently very vogue deconstructionist view of the universe. In that sense, the only proposal of their vitriolic spew is to attack the organic unity of any tradition or political philosophy that the avante garde determine is their next target. The great problem with adopting a Derrida-esque view of the universe is that you aren't left with much but nihlistic fatalism and a sense of martyrdom. There's an article in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs that points this out perfectly. The author (whose name escapes me at the moment) states that antiglobalists make the assumption that desconstructionism (a philosophical movement that sprung out of a reaction to formalist literary theory) should not be considered to be a more appropriate or humane or sanctified way of viewing the universe than economics, at least not a priori. His point is that deconstructing globalism doesn't necessarily get you anywhere, and its not even a necessarily appropriate thing to do.
So Katz secures his place in the vanguard of populist philosophy by lamenting the evils of globalism while recognizing its pacifying effect on populaces that, in Katz view, are likely to succumb to religious fanaticism. We all admire the irony and struggle in Katz' voice. Lets all have a quiet moment and think about what a great writer Katz is.
The only problem is that Katz' deconstruction of globalism hasn't left us with anything productive. The net gain to the universe is zero. No new knowledge has been propogated, no new thought inspired - just insipid moaning and ranting and raving.
All I'm asking is that when we discuss matters of such great importance that our goal be to synthesize some new rational thought that actually produces a net gain for the universe. If we discuss globalism, let's discuss ways of mitigating its faults rather than eloquently rehashing all of the arguments against it.
Re:Running Away? (Score:5, Interesting)
They see us making trade demands from everyone, our fingers in too many pies, and think it greedy or maybe arrogant. But it's just that we're the largest trading partner of most countries. Our national interests are simply more distributed, and unsurprisingly, our foreign policy follows our interests. But there's a strange sort of dichotomy. I think it might come from the value placed on individuality, where by and large people take care of their own crap. Perhaps other cultures see national agreements more holistically. And perhaps expect something more than free trade for any concessions made, and we've left the building. We're watching Access Hollywood for an update on the personal dramas of Britney and Justin, or something equally mundane. A baby who inexplicably fell down a well, whatever. And the populace of other countries feels that the US is too conceited for it power, or too powerful for its conceit. But the truth is much less interesting. It's simply a matter of my goods for your money or my money for your goods, and if you expect me to even entertain the prospect of this process, there are going to be a few things we need to agree on first.
Then you have people, such as the palestinians, who expect to just be happy because some book I've never read says they deserve it. They picked a fight, they lost. And now they're really loosing. (Good.) They expect the US to wave a magic wand and just solve all their problems for them, without any effort on their part. Even if the world did work that way, and history has consistantly shown us it doesn't, why on Earth would we possibly intervene on behalf of the palestinians, given the past years events, and the occasions they choose for celebration?
If it wasn't in such a tragic context, even Arafat's recent statments would be funny. According to him the US is directly responsible for palestinian deaths because the Isralies use some american hardware, and the palestinians are not directly responsible Isralie civilian casualties because they are short on saritonin re-uptake inhibitors, or something. They really feel entitled to everything, and it's somehow our obligation to just give it to them, and they shouldn't even have to stop killing innocent people to get it. It's pretty obvious I've got no pity left for the palestinians. But I do think they have an excuse of sorts.
Some of the data I've read suggests the the majority of the people in the muslim world, which is vastly poorer than the west on a per capita average, are illiterate. Being illiterate and raised in enviroments that even in their mildest forms I would consider reactionary and fundementalist, and having few sources of information, they grow up without bullshit detectors. This and the fact they grow up with a religion that extols, in some instances, the murder of civilians and suicide, and a culture where people think nothing of using people for political ends, well it's to be expected. But we can't make them rich, we can't make them smart, we can't grow bullshit detectors in vasts and have missionaries and peace corps volunteers insert them using a novel out-patient procedure. They've got to help themselves, too bad for them they don't see it that way. Too bad for us too.
Well, at least I get to see some stuff blow up on CNN. There's the steel lining I guess.
Religious holidays (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot to mention religious holidays.
Personally, I don't see how Muslims could avoid being worried about the way globalism is likely to push christmas and other christian holidays on them. Many christians really get an attitude when you don't want to celebrate their religious holidays with them, and many of these people control the popular media which is being exported, increasingly, to foreign nations. It quite literally is a threat to the Muslim way of life, as well as the ways of life of other religious peoples, as well as atheists, some agnostics, and probably others too.
Re:The Problem Isn't Globalization, But Our Hypocr (Score:1, Interesting)
i realy hate the way that america is acting in politics around the world. usa thinks it the gratest nation in the world, but is blinded with its own self.
i live in a country that has the most celphone connections per person, the most internet conections per person, free education(all the way...) , free medical help, unemploment asistance, working law-making systems, democracy, over 2 party's(closer to 5 in the "congress..") a woman president and 2rd most women in congres of all countries(or first, cant remember), nro 1 in competibility in the markets, the leader of the democratic party is daiting a key member(and a good looking member it is..) of his opposing party. the president is a old 70's radical... who got maried after being elected w her boyfriend. 1st or second country in the world to give woman the right to vote. lots of clean nature, and still a good urban enviromeant..
ok, so the taxes r a little bit high.
AND i still think this country isnt the gratest in the world. far from it. no country is.
nationalism is masturbation.
ps, ok, ill let u in on this one, the country is finland.
Re:-1 troll (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem I have with globalism (in general) is the ideaology behind it. Who is really pushing for further globalism? I can tell you: the people that have the *most* to gain from it. Corporate interests, and breauocrats. They stand to gain a huge profit margin of they can move their huge industrial complexes, agriculture, and R&D to countries that aren't as well off. Politicians get kickbacks and other nice things from being the corporate's personal puppets.
Corporations aren't really interestered in the well fare of the economies (or people, and nature) of the countries they occoupy. They want to exploit their lower standars of living, lower wages, less protective laws (both working rights, and environmental), to gain for themselves. Almost forgot: they get huge tax breaks for doing all of this too (local taxes are almost nil to a huge corporate, tariffs and duties are reduced because the politicians of both countires get kickbacks).
Oh, and as a result of that activity, the people of this foreign land *might* get some increaced wage. They'll also get massive inflation, as the economy of [insert some country] is artificially pumped up by outside economic activity. Guess who wins?
Not Juan Gonzales, coffee bean farmer; this much is for sure.
Sure, globalism in itself is not a bad thing. More jobs == good, (how could that be bad?). However, the premise for globalism is a very bad, one sided ugly mo-fo. It only serves to make the rich of 1st world countries richer, and keep the less fortunate in squalor.
Re:Next: Is Globalism good or evil ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Globalism gives us many wonderful things we all want. The question isn't Globalism: yes or no. The question is how best to encourage its benefits and deal with its disadvantages. No one has proposed any alternative to Globalism that isn't much worse than things are today, let alone how good they could be.
One of the charming ironies of global capitalism is that it achieves the "from each according to their abilities" part of the socialist creed far better than pure socialism ever did. Of course, a pure capitalism doesn't address the "to each according to their needs" part at all, which is why there aren't any pure capitalist societies in the world, and why we need to strengthen and improve the World Bank and IMF, not eliminate them.
What we want is a global economy where people can compete ferociously on production, but where there is properly integrated environmental protection, and a safety net where none starve, and all can get a good education irrespective of the economic success or failure of their parents.
Global capitalism means we can all get goods and services as the lowest cost available for the quality we need. Remember, the two ways you get richer are through wages going up and prices going down. Those who want high steel tariffs want to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
For those curious about the details, check out David Ricardo.
Re:I don't know what subject to give this... (Score:4, Interesting)
a) americans think the sun shines out their ass
b) americans are amazingly ignorant about non-us
c) [and this really grates] americans are more powerful and more successful (although standard of living is often higher in europe).
In 3rd world, it is much more love hate relationship, jealousy plays a part, but a feeling that they've been robbed of freedom and wealth by US is much more significant. West encourages and finances coups. Then it lends money to resulting dictatorships. The money is spent by dictators on arms bought from west and used to subdue population. Country then has big debt that it owes west which is paid for by growing export crops (coffee, choclate, coke, whatever). However, the export crops have collapsed in value, so they can barely afford to buy grain from US after having converted their agriculture to cash crops at behest of IMF. Also, the regimes we prop up are necessarily friendly to western business interests at expense of local industry. Effectively, entire populations are enslaved and set to work for west, their natural resources exported for a pitance, and all this without us having to bother with the hassle of explicit invasion. Neat, huh.
Anyway, accurate or not, this understanding of what's going on is what makes people less than fond of US. It's not that they "hate our freedom", they hate their own slavery and don't think it's entirely an accident.
Re:Its about -concentration- of wealth (Score:2, Interesting)
At this point, the rampant corruption, graft, and mishandling of the country has gotten nearly everyone pissed off at them, and it is only through kissing the right asses at the Mosques are they even able to keep a grip on the reigns of power.
Concentration of wealth? It's more about the equality of opportunity (and the lack therof). People (usually lefty commie bitches) like to complain about how the majority of the wealth in this count is in the hands of a few, but they haven't seen anything till they get to countries like Saudi Arabia. There, the rich are rich beyond any conceivable means, while to poor are pathetically poor. There is no middle class. If you are born poor, you will die poor. If you are born into a rich family, chances are you'll die richer.
A guy in my company likes to tell his "war stories" from the gulf war. When our troops were over there to prevent Saddam from rolling on the Al Saud's, the royals there basically hooked soldiers up with their summer mansions for R&R. Try bathrooms with solid gold fixtures and pearl/onyx tiling. Try bathtubs the size of swimming pools. Try "modest" houses having a few dozen bedrooms. That's how the rich live over there. And the poor? If they're lucky they've go enough rags to cover their asses so they don't get sunburn on their buttcheeks. If they're truly lucky, they die from infection caused by a camel spiders bite. They don't even have the opportunity like the poor in this country to get a job that pays modest wages and allows for a decent living. That's why you've got millions of young disgruntled males making love to their AK-74's (yes, 74's, the 47 is an old clunker no self respecting Jihaddi would carry into an airport) on video. What about jobs? Guess what, the Al Saud family - partly to keep the poor poor - hire all their labour from outside of the country. Whereas countries like Egypt actually try to westernize and raise up the poor.
Folks, if there's any hope of peace in the middle east, it is only through democracy and economic reform.
Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)
Its also kind of insane that you say American's don't care about "quality of life" considering we've all worked very hard to make sure its pretty much better than anyone else's on the planet.
You are actually sad about the loss of subsistence farming? Are you out of your fucking mind? You want to have to grow your own food just to survive? This is something that you are actually going to MISS?
Re:Running Away? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is America hunting the muslim warlords? It must be because they're muslims. The infidels are attacking."
I wonder how many Somalis could be fed from the proceeds of "Blackhawk Down" and for how long?
Re:Misconceptions on "Wahabism" and Arabs (Score:3, Interesting)
And I do not consider my support of Israel to be blind. I have read in depth about the subject and I find your statements to be distortions. Israel does not threaten the world, as does Saddam. Iraq gets cruise missiles and bombs because it is ruled by a dangerous maniac who has demonstrated his willingness to kill innocent people in large numbers. We did not confront him until he invaded Kuwait, in case you do not remember. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia asked for our help, as they feared him (and do so today). BTW, are you aware that Saddam is not truly a muslim, and only recently has claimed to be one because it is convenient to him. The Baathist movement (which rules Syria and Iraq) are secular anti-religious movements.
The Iraqi children accusation is one of the most outrageous lies. Yes, they are dying. No, we are not killing them. Saddam is killing them. Do you know that he has built 40 palaces since the Gulf war. Don't you think that money might help those children? We do not embargo medicines or food, so the fate of those children is directly caused by Saddam and his greed and evil.
As far as Israel goes, they are not innocent. I do not think they should have the settlements, and many Israeli's don't either.
BUT... they do not kill children on purpose. They do not target families at religious ceremonies and blow them up. They do not say one thing in english (condemning terrorism) and the opposite in their native language (as Arafat does). They do not oppress those Muslims who are their own citizens, and they fight the Palestinians only because they are being attacked.
If you were to poll Israeli's, you would find all but a small minority who want nothing other than to live in peace, and are willing to return the West Bank and Gaza to get it. If you look at official PA statements, they want nothing other than to drive the Israeli's into the sea, and are willing to target and intentionally kill women and children in order to do so.
As far as I am concerned. Yasser Arafat is an evil man and always has been. He used terrorism against innocents for decades. He has stolen much of the money that the west (including the US) gave the PA.
However, all of this is mute. I will never convince you of any of this. What will happen is that the despots and dictators of the middle east who allow terrorists will be swept away by our military power. And this is as it should be... well not really. It would be better if you would get rid of them, instead of making excuses for monsters like Saddam. BTW... can you explain why there are no true democracies in all of Araby? Why Iran is suppressing its own citizens who want freedom?
There are certain moral issues that are simple, and others that are very difficult. In my opinion, he who intentionoally targets women and children in warfare is evil. It is wrong. And I include the US and Britain in this in their WW-II bombing campaigns - even though they were in retaliation for similar behavior by Germany.
You can argue about Palestinians all you want, but until the civilized Palestinians are in power, I am not interested. Civilized human beings do not target innocents. Civilized human beings do not send their young out to kill innocents while killing themselves. In fact, most interpretations of Islam condemn suicide for any purpose!