[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is in response to a request that usmcccds made in another thread. So, since, according to him, we should be liberating countries from unjust rulers, tyrants, etc., etc., what should be next on the list? Also, what other countries should be on that list and why aren’t we already in those places? Obviously, Iran and North Korea should be on that list, so let’s move past them for now and go to the next country on the list. Which one should it be? Which country is next up for the wonderful chance to get bombed into democracy?[/quote]
Actually, he’s right. If America and the West want to minimize the triple threat of radical Islam, economic migration (legal and illegal) and rogue states, they should be doing their best to liberate the shitholes of the world.
But speaking as someone who grew up in a Muslim nation (albeit not of a Muslim background) both sides are doing it wrong. Short of complete genoicide Mongol-style, bombs doesn’t work - its a very expensive short term fix that has unpredictable consequences. But the liberal lets-all-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya is equally stupid. Its an equally expensive way of making the fundies think you are weak kneed cowards, which only makes them want to kill you more. They are bullies and tyrants - they get off on oppressing the weak and stupid (their populace) so the last thing you want to do is show them that you, too, are weak and stupid. South Korea has been showing the Kims how weak and stupid they are for the last 20 years or so (“Sunshine Policy”). Every time the Kims needed money they just made a threat or fired a missile and voila, they get aid. Guess how well that worked out?
There’s one way America hasn’t yet explored in solving this crisis. IMHO its a no-brainer, cheap and easy solution - the only drawback is it’ll take at least a generation or two, but the cost would be negligible over all those years. The solution is - guns and books.
Take a typical shithole like Pakistan. The nation is pathetically overpopulated, high poverty, run by a corrupt government, has nukes and lots and lots and lots of fundies. On top of that, they also sponsor terrorism against their neighbors India, fund jihadis in Afghanistan and sheltered OBL. Perfect for regime change, right?
The first thing the US government should do is apply diplomatic pressure to acquire a huge tract of land in Pakistan, that should be considered as a diplomatic enclave - US soil. Next, build a school and university there, providing top-class Western education. Professors and teachers should be drawn particularly from those with a liberal, atheistic bent - they may even do it for free/cheap, they’re all bleeding heart about “helping people”, right?
Pakistan should then be “encouraged” (or forced) to send their best and brightest minds to the school, which would be accepting students young (starting from say, age 6). The school would be a strictly “no religion zone”, with no religious dress or classes permitted, and would be full board. Students would only be allowed to visit home for short periods. They would also need to sign bonds that ensure they work in their home nation for at least 10 years - in return for being provided a top education, that’s a sweet deal.
After being immersed in Western culture and provided quality education for over 15 years, these students would then be far smarter and more capable than their local counterparts and, hopefully form a Western-friendly “elite”. Over one or two generations, these elite would eventually take over leadership of the nation and begin ruling with a less tyrannical or fundamentalist approach. A constant pool of graduates from the schools would ensure that the best and brightest of the nation would only be pro-American.
It’s what the British did during the colonial era, and it worked like a charm, particularly in Southeast Asia - where they did it particularly well.[/quote]
I don’t like the idea of forcing education on Pakistan or taking a chunk of land for U.S. soil. I think you’d be pissing off a lot of people in the process of “helping” them. Helping to educate them is a good path imo, yet like Iraq, I think we need to do a better job of playing a supporting role vs. leading the way. The Pakistani and Iraqi people need to grown on their own and figure it out with us as a guide not a mentor, if that makes sense.
I also think the Middle East is a bit tired of western culture and we should be careful not to push it on them. [/quote]
This completely ignores the context of globalization and is not rooted in reality. Are you also not aware of the concept of Soft Power?
“The vast majority of the people in the Middle East oppose neither modernity nor democracy. Nor is it conceivable that a whole country could could wall itself off from modernity, even if the majority wanted to. The Mullahs have not even succeeded in doing that in Iran. All modern nations have embraced, albeit it with varying degrees of complaint and resistance, the free flow of goods, finances and services, and the intermingling of cultures and lifestyles that characterize the modern world. Increasingly, their people watch the same TV shows, listen to the same music, and go to the same movies. Along with this dominant culture, they have accepted, even as they may deplore, the essential characteristics of modern morality and aesthetics.”
Robert Kagan, The Return of History and the end of Dreams.[/quote]
All I said is that I wouldn’t FORCE education on them and I wouldn’t take their land. That has nothing to do with globalization.