The Left's False Narrative

This is an article by Victor Davis Hanson

Our Wars Over the War
“The fault is not in our stars.”


"Ever since September 11, there has been an alternative narrative about this war embraced by the Left. In this mythology, the attack on September 11 had in some vague way something to do with American culpability.


Either we were unfairly tilting toward Israel, or had been unkind to Muslims. Perhaps, as Sen. Patty Murray intoned, we needed to match the good works of bin Laden to capture the hearts and minds of Muslim peoples.

The fable continues that the United States itself was united after the attack even during its preparations to retaliate in Afghanistan. But then George Bush took his eye off the ball. He let bin Laden escape, and worst of all, unilaterally and preemptively, went into secular Iraq — an unnecessary war for oil, hegemony, Israel, or Halliburton, something in Ted Kennedy’s words “cooked up in Texas.”

In any case, there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, and thus terrorists only arrived in Iraq after we did.

That tale goes on. The Iraqi fiasco is now a hopeless quagmire. The terrorists are paying us back for it in places like London and Madrid.

Still worse, here at home we have lost many of our civil liberties to the Patriot Act and forsaken our values at Guantanamo Bay under the pretext of war. Nancy Pelosi could not understand the continued detentions in Guantanamo since the war in Afghanistan is in her eyes completely finished.

In this fable, we are not safer as a nation. George Bush’s policies have increased the terror threat as we saw recently in the London bombing. We have now been at war longer than World War II. We still have no plan to defeat our enemies, and thus must set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated militarily nor can democracy be “implanted by force.” So it is time to return to seeing the terrorist killing as a criminal justice matter — a tolerable nuisance addressed by writs and indictments, while we give more money to the Middle East and begin paying attention to the “root causes” of terror.

That is the dominant narrative of the Western Left and at times it finds its way into mainstream Democratic-party thinking. Yet every element of it is false.

Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade.

Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.

Iraqi intelligence was involved with the first World Trade Center bombing, and its operatives met on occasion with those who were involved in al Qaeda operations. Every terrorist from Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal to Abdul Yasin and Abu al-Zarqawi found Baghdad the most hospitable place in the Middle East, which explains why a plan to assassinate George Bush Sr. was hatched from such a miasma.

Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants are poor, but like the Hamas suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, or the murderer of Daniel Pearl they are usually middle class and educated — and are more likely to hate the West, it seems, the more they wanted to be part of it. The profile of the London bombers, when known, will prove the same.

The poor in South America or Africa are not murdering civilians in North America or Europe. The jihadists are not bombing Chinese for either their godless secularism or suppression of Muslim minorities. Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.

There was only unity in this country between September 11 and October 6, when a large minority of Americans felt our victim status gave us for a golden moment the high ground. We forget now the furor over hitting back in Afghanistan — a quagmire in the words of New York Times columnists R. W. Apple and Maureen Dowd; a “terrorist campaign” against Muslims according to Representative Cynthia McKinney; “a silent genocide” in Noam Chomsky’s ranting.

Two thirds of al Qaeda’s command is now captured or dead; bases in Afghanistan are lost. Saddam’s intelligence will not be lending expertise to anyone and the Baghdad government won’t welcome in terrorist masterminds.

In fact, thousands of brave Iraqi Muslims are now in a shooting war with wahhabi jihadists who, despite their carnage, are dying in droves as they flock to the Iraq.

A constitution is in place in Iraq; reform is spreading to Lebanon, the Gulf, and Egypt; and autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan are apprehensive over a strange new American democratic zeal. Petroleum was returned to control of the Iraqi people, and the price has skyrocketed to the chagrin of American corporations.

There has been no repeat of September 11 so far. Killing jihadists abroad while arresting their sympathizers here at home has made it hard to replicate another 9/11-like attack.

The Patriot Act was far less intrusive than what Abraham Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), Woodrow Wilson (cf. the Espionage and Sedition Acts), or Franklin Roosevelt (forced internment) resorted to during past wars. So far America has suffered in Iraq .006 percent of the combat dead it lost in World War II, while not facing a conventional enemy against which it might turn its traditional technological and logistical advantages.

Unlike Gulf War I and the decade-long Iraqi cold war of embargos, stand-off bombing, and no-fly-zones, the United States has a comprehensive strategy both in the war against terror and to end a decade and a half of Iraqi strife: Kill terrorists abroad, depose theocratic and autocratic regimes that have either warred with the United States or harbored terrorists, and promote democracy to take away grievances that can be manipulated and turned against us.

Why does this false narrative, then, persist — other than that it had a certain political utility in the 2002 and 2004 elections?

In a word, this version of events brings spiritual calm for millions of troubled though affluent and blessed Westerners. There are three sacraments to their postmodern thinking, besides the primordial fear that so often leads to appeasement.

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.

These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.

So it is not true to say that Western civilization is at war against Dark Age Islamism. Properly speaking, only about half of the West is involved, the shrinking segment that still sees human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.

This is nothing new.

The spectacular inroads of the Ottomans in the16th century to the gates of Vienna and the shores of the Adriatic were not explainable according to Istanbul’s vibrant economy, impressive universities, or widespread scientific dynamism and literacy, or even a technologically superior and richly equipped military. Instead, a beleaguered Europe was trisected by squabbling Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians — as a wealthy northwest, with Atlantic seaports, ignored the besieged Mediterranean and Balkans and turned its attention to getting rich in the New World.

So too we are divided over two antithetical views of the evolving West — Europe at odds with America, red and blue states in intellectual and spiritual divergence, the tragic view resisting the creeping therapeutic mindset.

These interior splits largely explain why creepy killers from the Dark Ages, parasitic on the West from their weapons to communications, are still plaguing us four years after their initial surprise attack.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.""

that is a friggin' beaut'

Yes what can you add to that. The most brilliant discourse ive seen on the matter. Those three things are really whats wrong with liberal these days.

Quote:

---

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

---

We see the libs argue these points here everyday.

Having read one of Hanson's military "history of warfare" books, I'm not impressed by him. From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing. It has that stench of colonial racial superiority. I hate reading obviously biased work with an agenda other than the subject at hand. I also found some disturbing factual errors in it.

Having a bit of fun with Hanson's dribble I submit the following for amusement:

The Right's first shackle is intellectual dishonesty.

Its second shackle is intolerance. Treating the war on terror as a religious crusade is a mistake of the 1st order.

Its third shackle is believing nobody to the Left of Dubya could fight a war, or do it better. History proves otherwise. And when the history of the present is written, people are going to be looking back saying "WTF?"

Its fourth shackle is mistaking its view for moral/religious righteousness--i.e. never being able to admit a mistake.

Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.

Yep, the left is awful...

Can you send me some more Chinese candy....... ~;)

Quote:

---

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

---

I agree with the conservatives on this one.

Quote:

---

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

---

Rivers of blood dont make peace. Sure war can be neccesary, but it is never favorable.

Quote:

---

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

---

Just cause something is differnt than the west doesn't mean it has to be bad either. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Having read one of Hanson's military "history of warfare" books, I'm not impressed by him. From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing.

---

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

Obivously, the West can handle these things very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

---

You can pretty much throw objectivity out the window with that statement...

Its probably not worth getting into, but I'll point out that little of this really jelled until the last 200 years or so. VDH tries to take it forward from ancient Greece (we'll just ignore the intervening several millenia.) He conveniently ignores Assyria, which had a way of warfare that was revolutionary. And of course, there are other cultures that had elements of aspects you mention earlier (especially science) most didn't survive and we know next to nothing about many, many cultures that are long departed. A culture could have had all of these, and still be gone and we would never know. Greece had all of them, but was subdued first by a brilliant general...then by a republic...

VDH's book looks more like an excuse for his beliefs, rather than carrying the reader through a well balanced evaluation that leads to the author's conclusions. And the funny thing is that before reading the book, I would have agreed with VDH. But after reading the book I had an uneasy feeling about it because of the author's tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

---

And we betrayed it all; we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele, use chemical weapons massively in WWI to kill ourselves in our patriotic fervour, and applied our ingenious productive mind to find the best way to slaughter millions of people during WWII. Auschwitz.

We, civilisations, know now that we are mortals.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You can pretty much throw objectivity out the window with that statement...

Its probably not worth getting into, but I'll point out that little of this really jelled until the last 200 years or so. VDH tries to take it forward from ancient Greece (we'll just ignore the intervening several millenia.) He conveniently ignores Assyria, which had a way of warfare that was revolutionary. And of course, there are other cultures that had elements of aspects you mention earlier (especially science) most didn't survive and we know next to nothing about many, many cultures that are long departed. A culture could have had all of these, and still be gone and we would never know. Greece had all of them, but was subdued first by a brilliant general...then by a republic...

VDH's book looks more like an excuse for his beliefs, rather than carrying the reader through a well balanced evaluation that leads the author's conclusions. And the funny thing is that before reading the book, I would have agreed with VDH. But after reading the book I had an uneasy feeling about it because of the author's tone.

---

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.
Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.
Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

The above examples regardless of chronological ordering remain Western constructs.

A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

And we betrayed it all; we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele, use chemical weapons massively in WWI to kill ourselves in our patriotic fervour, and applied our ingenious productive mind to find the best way to slaughter millions of people during WWII. Auschwitz.

We, civilisations, know now that we are mortals.

Louis,

---

Slavery, empire building and genocide are not unique to the West unfortunately.

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.


But back on topic... Even if we are not the only ones, at least others are not parading, pretending they are superior and lecturing people how great they are... are they?

If we're doing this just like anyone else, which is arguable, how are we superior, despite our higher morale status?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.

---

Given industry is a product of the West this statement would seem self-evident. But given the spread of industrial technology to non-Western peoples has seen their own use of mass slaughter i.e. China and Cambodia: this doesn't seem to be a particularly unique experience.

Quote:

---

But back on topic... Even if we are not the only ones, at least others are not parading, pretending they are superior and lecturing people how great they are... are they?

If we're doing this just like anyone else, which is arguable, how are we superior, despite our higher morale status?

Louis,

---

Every culture Asian culture I have spend time in seems to argue: it is superior to all others. This usually follows cultural/racial lines. The difference in assertions is, as I have cited: democracy, civil liberties and science are real goods that vastly improve the quality of life of any influenced by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Every culture Asian culture I have spend time in seems to argue: it is superior to all others. This usually follows cultural/racial lines. The difference in assertions is, as I have cited: democracy, civil liberties and science are real goods that vastly improve the quality of life of any influenced by them.

---

Singapore argues that the "Asian way" of ruling countries are superior... ~D
And it's sometimes hard to claim otherwise with Singapore....

This is not the place to argue about the uniqueness of WWII final solution. That's for another topic.




As already mentioned we did not live up to those achievements.

Our claim of superiority is undermined by our history of monstrosity.

Let's admit (and forget ancient Greek) that democracy is a Western value: we had a long history of NOT SHARING IT with our slaves and puppet states around the world. We still don't share it; we pay lip service to the concept in other countries. We've been for years: "it would be great if democracy is everyhwere, we look forward spreading it, yadi, yada....".
When looking at actual achievement over the last 200 years, there is nothing to be proud of.

Science? We put it into greedy hands, or in violent ones... Ah... The chemicals in Ypres...


I got no doubt of the inner good of spreading democracy, I am very happy that our understanding of the world is improving and I see those are great achievements.

But when it comes to try to get our fellow human brothers to adopt those, and given our bloody history of screwing them around while pretending we were superior, I do believe a little more humility, and a more down to earth approach would give you greater good will than arrogant lecturing.
The few last times we were in Iraq, we did nothing to promote democracy: the brit did not in between WW (despite Lawrence pledge), and we did not again after the previous Gulf War.

If I were an Iraqi intellectual reading this... I'd grow cynical.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I got no doubt of the inner good of spreading democracy, I am very happy that our understanding of the world is improving and I see those are great achievements.

Louis,

---

You have made my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You have made my point.

---

LOL !

Louis,

Down with the left!

All they ever want to do is hurt, pillage and destroy!

Stupid lefties always trying to help the less fortunate. Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Woohoo, Bias propaganda that only servs to keep the crappy wheel of Propaganda spinning. Both sides have policies, party members, and supporters to be ashamed of. That article just smacks of self-rightousness.

---

The right being 'self-righteous'?! Never!

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

The right being 'self-righteous'?! Never!

:book:

---

the left should be called "self-lefteous"

Ah. Liberals. You have to love them. They are just so ignorant of the world, yet they persist in attempts to initiate programs that, if they suceed, would lead to the downfall of civilization, the 'Fall of Babylon,' if you will. They have gained a major foothold in formerly conservative Europe, and are begining to spread like cancer throughout the American States. They spread a creed of silent hatred and they worship people like Che Guevera, Bin Laden, and Chaves. In their eyes, these universally recognized villains are nothing more then Freedom fighters. Now, for some debating:

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.

Ah, but you see, it is not always the size of things that counts, it is the impact. No doubt the Holocost had a massive impact on the world, but I doubt it would have happened on the scale it did if the Turks, an eastern culture, didn't massacre well over a million people in the Armenian Genocides. Also, western cultures may have invented genocide, but the east perfected it. Ever hear of the Stalinist Purges? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? What about the Genocides in the Sudan, and in Rwanda? Saddams genocide of the Kurds?
we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele
Turks beat us to it, I'm afraid.

Rivers of blood dont make peace. Sure war can be neccesary, but it is never favorable.

Au contraire, war often will lead to peace. The Napoleonic Wars secured peace in Europe for literally 99 years. There hasn't been another major war on the American continent since the United States civil war. I can go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.

---

Actually, it goes back well before that. Greece is the first democracy in western culture to leave large amounts of written evidence. That's it. If you look at pre-literate tribal cultures, many of them are democratic--and far more democratic than ancient Greece. This idolization of Greek democracy is a product of a Eurocentric historiography itself, and in fact proves precisely the opposite of what VDH is trying to say in his myopic rant.

Quote:

---

Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.

---

If you are referring to discoveries, then the statement is clearly false. If you are referring to the method, there is more substance to the statement.

Quote:

---

Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

---

False. Read the Magna Carta.

Quote:

---

A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

---

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Its those who don't know much about other cultures who generally dismiss them as inferior. Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand.

Anyway, back to Hanson's rant:

Pure crap. This idea that US foreign policy has nothing to do with Muslim anger towards the USA is piffle, and I'm not quite sure why he's spouting it. The US government itself concluded that much of the anger against the USA in the Muslim world can be tied directly to US policies. If you want simplistic explanations, then try this one on for size: 'They' don't hate 'us' because they are evil or hate freedom; 'they' hate 'us' because we support Israel and a horde of dictators across the Muslim world so that we can make bigger profits.

Believe Hanson if you like. I'm sure its comforting to think that your government never does anything wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and that you're just plain better than everyone else on the planet. The Romans thought that too right up to the moment they saw Alaric's Visigoths coming over the seventh hill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Actually, it goes back well before that. Greece is the first democracy in western culture to leave large amounts of written evidence. That's it. If you look at pre-literate tribal cultures, many of them are democratic--and far more democratic than ancient Greece. This idolization of Greek democracy is a product of a Eurocentric historiography itself, and in fact proves precisely the opposite of what VDH is trying to say in his myopic rant.

---

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos. This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.

Quote:

---

If you are referring to discoveries, then the statement is clearly false. If you are referring to the method, there is more substance to the statement.

---

Science is a theoretical position.

Quote:

---

False. Read the Magna Carta.

---

The Magna Carta is typically cited as one of the important steps towards the return of democracy, but referencing it as a civil liberties text seems odd in that it is a royal decree and thus derives its force from royal mandate.

Civil liberties discourse usually places the subject along lines where liberties are beyond the power of the state as their force is extra-governmental.

Quote:

---

Actually, its quite the opposite. Its those who don't know much about other cultures who generally dismiss them as inferior.

---

You haven't spent much time outside the West have you.

Quote:

---

Anyway, back to Hanson's rant:

Pure crap. This idea that US foreign policy has nothing to do with Muslim anger towards the USA is piffle, and I'm not quite sure why he's spouting it. The US government itself concluded that much of the anger against the USA in the Muslim world can be tied directly to US policies. If you want simplistic explanations, then try this one on for size: 'They' don't hate 'us' because they are evil or hate freedom; 'they' hate 'us' because we support Israel and a horde of dictators across the Muslim world so that we can make bigger profits.

Believe Hanson if you like. I'm sure its comforting to think that your government never does anything wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and that you're just plain better than everyone else on the planet. The Romans thought that too right up to the moment they saw Alaric's Visigoths coming over the seventh hill.

---

The above is not an argument. You should try and restrain your anti-Americanism a little more.

You get a half-point for using "piffle".

Very good article.

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

---

What utter crap. The only one I see making that assertion is you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

What utter crap. The only one I see making that assertion is you.

---

I am glad someone else spotted it.

Quote:

---

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

---

Worse than that many liberals here love to mention that soon China will eclpise us as a world power. Its not bad enough they seem to find China as moraly equivalent of the US but actually take glee and in fact we may be replaced and cant wait for that day. Thats plain sick.

Ive read several times people talk about how the US is bad for making a value judgement about democracy over dictatorships in regards to the Iraq war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos.

---

This 'tradition' is the very Eurocentric historiography in question. To defend Hanson by referring to it is circular.

Quote:

---

This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.

---

Ah, I see. So the West is now the arbiter of civilization? Good for it.

Quote:

---

Science is a theoretical position.

---

So is the Western superiority complex.

Quote:

---

The Magna Carta is typically cited as one of the important steps towards the return of democracy, but referencing it as a civil liberties text seems odd in that it is a royal decree and thus derives its force from royal mandate.

---

If you want to rule out all documents enacted by royal decree from your definition of civil liberties, then you're going to have to ignore most of the history of civil liberties.

Quote:

---

Civil liberties discourse usually places the subject along lines where liberties are beyond the power of the state as their force is extra-governmental.

---

Modern civil liberties discourses, perhaps, but I thought you were talking about origins?

You keep making arguments along the lines of 'this is usually done this way' or 'traditionally, this is what has been done'. Well, slavery was a 'tradtional' part of western culture for millenia, and racism is a usual foundation for intolerance. Custom and authority are not arguments.

Quote:

---

You haven't spent much time outside the West have you.

---

Enough to know that intolerance springs from ignorance.

Quote:

---

The above is not an argument. You should try and restrain your anti-Americanism a little more.

---

Actually, it is far more of an argument than anything your post provided, which relied on a circular appeal to Eurocentrist historiography and the ponderous weight of unthinking tradition. I, on the other hand, referred to the US governments own study that showed that the amorphous explanation 'they hate freedom' was simply wrong. Most people like America; its the policies of its government they hate. That and all those invasion thingys.

Here's the link:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...om+study&hl=en

Quote:

---

You get a half-point for using "piffle".

---

Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed. I was originally torn between bilge and dreck, but then piffle suddenly came to me. Call it divine inspiration. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.

---

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

Quote:

---

Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.

---

Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.

Why is modern science oversold? Because people fail to recognize that so many incremental advances in so many areas were needed to finally bring us to this point. We now have the interconnection and media to distribute the learnings, and not to forget them so easily. They are not lost by a single conquest or destruction of a nation or library or regime. Before the scientific communities were smaller, travel and communication were far more limited, literacy was far lower, and the media of recording, retaining, and distributing works was meager.

If you want an idea what happens when a community of the learned is too small, look at Tasmania. From what I understand the original Tasmanians had decent aboriginal technology when they walked across the land bridge. When this land bridge was covered by water their simple technologies to even things like fishing and clothing regressed. Without some interchange with a larger community, things were slowly lost.

Quote:

---

Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

---

So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

Quote:

---

A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

---

You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)

Sorry, check lower.

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

---

You can only have so many characters before the document will not post. THat might be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

---

Certain character combinations get rejected as some sort of HTML code. Watch out for "=" and < or > characters together. It will clip them, but they will still be there when you edit so you can identify the problem piece.

Quoting sections use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (minus the spaces sandwiching what you want in between.)

Sorry, check lower

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

---

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

---

Its actually even worse than that Red. If you look to the real roots (as opposed to seeds) of democratic systems in the West, they lie in the Middle Ages, not in ancient Greece. Yes, we know all about Solon and Pesistratus and Cleisthenes, but the people who constructed the first representative governments in the West did not. Whence did the first parliaments arise? Edward Longshanks had never heard of Solon.

Several more mundane and realistic sources for the parliaments can be found in the high middle Ages. One source was the Church itself. The idea of elective represenation can be found in the Reform movement of the eleventh century, which began to push for free elections of bishops from the local clergy. Since the bishop of Rome was included in all this, this gave us the modern system of election by the cardinals. Another source was the germanic traditions of local assemblies (placita, in Latin) and rule by community consensus. These ideas stretched far back into the pre literate past of the germanic peoples, and probably predate the coming of the Greeks to Greece. The Rhine and Danube did far more for democracy in Western Europe than Plato or Aristotle ever did. The Germanic warriors expected to be treated as free men and to choose their own military leaders. Finally, we can also see the beginings of communal republicanism in the Italian city states of the eleventh century. But were the men of the communes reading Solon? No. Even if they had had access to ancient Greek texts, Plato was no lover of democracy. No, the roots of representative government in the West--the English parliament, the French Estates General, the cortes of the Iberian kingdoms, the communes of Flanders and Lombardy--lie in much different soil.

Assuming the cultural superiority of the Greeks becomes harder and harder to maintain when one realizes the real roots of modern democracy.

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Quote:

---

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

---

Ill have to put this away for the next time some Euro tries to claim cultural superiorty of us uncultivated Americans. ~D How many times have we heard that?

Well, the first thing I can say is that I wish I knew how to quote, but I'll just have to thank Red Harvest for these points as I copy and paste:

"The Right's first shackle is intellectual dishonesty."

In what exactly? I really do wish the White House would admit they were wrong about Iraq, about how it is going to take a long time, but what else do you want them to admit to?


"Its second shackle is intolerance. Treating the war on terror as a religious crusade is a mistake of the 1st order."

Damned skippy! I will not stand by and let some religious nut bags attack my country for whatever specious reasons they have adopted this month. But by the same token, this is not a war against Islam. If it was, wouldn't you think we would have imported some of our own wonderful Jehovah’s Witnesses to convert the Muslims of Iraq? No, the government does not want a puppet state, they want a beacon for the rest of the middle east to rally around. And the war is a crusade, as defined by dictionary.com:

cru•sade
n.
often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.

Yup, this is most definitely a crusade. Time to rid the world of nutbag Muslim extremists. And I will not tolerate their views that the US government is responsible for the way the world it is today. As fashionable as that is, to blame the US, couldn't France or China have helped out the poor, put-out Muslims that were constantly oppressed by the US? Sure. Did they?


"Its third shackle is believing nobody to the Left of Dubya could fight a war, or do it better. History proves otherwise. And when the history of the present is written, people are going to be looking back saying "WTF?""

Oh yes, (democrat) FDR did great fighting the war didn't he? All he did was allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and not tell any of the 3000 dead (in one morning remember, the left is going ape we have lost 1700 in how many months now?) they were going to get a nasty surprise. FDR allowed Stalin to take half of Europe, and that half is still paying for what happened. Did FDR do the right think? I'm in no position to judge. The best thing he did during the war was keep the people on the home front supportive of it, while staying the heck out of Marshall's way. But remember, the media during the war, with a democrat president in office, was not howling over every dead solider the way our media loves to do, to put as horrible light as possible on Bush and the Republican party.

Then of course there is LBJ. He did brilliantly didn't he? I've got no more to say on him.

Lincoln was a Republican wasn't he? And it was the Democrats who wanted to keep slaves...ahh yes..

Then there is Woodrow Wilson, who refused to get involved in a war until his allies had effectively won it for him (wow…so THAT is where France gets it’s current foreign policy form…).

Seems to me HISTORY has proven that the left, which for some reason has been in power during most of our major wars, has avoided getting involved until our interests were threatened. No chance of (like Lincoln and Bush) starting a war for what is right is there? Nope, we are perfectly content in our moral relativism.


“Its fourth shackle is mistaking its view for moral/religious righteousness--i.e. never being able to admit a mistake.”

A. Has the left ever said “Oops we did it again”?
B. You know as well as I do that to admit a mistake is to cut your own foot off in the next election. Speaking of elections, has the Democratic Party ever apologized for Kerry as their choice? Hell, “Anybody but Bush” should have worked great. Was Kerry really the best choice?
C. Yes, I will agree there is too much religious influence in the Republican party. But the good news is, because of that, people know where Republicans STAND, as opposed to Democrats, who do whatever they think will keep them in power longer (i.e. Kerry, Clinton, LBJ, Carter). I say too much only because I disagree with the party on some big issues.

continue to part II

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

But I might have to get someone from Harvard, Yale (you know, the Ivy league schools, the only places where smrt people come from, just ask the Democratic Parties leadership about THAT one) to prove that one for your satisfaction.

What else…ooo…more money in the hands of people means more money flowing through the economy right? Unless the people are too scared to invest because the media keeps telling them the sky is falling (which only happened under Bush, therefore it was Bush’s fault right?).

Oh, and here is another one:

National Tax Income – Democrat policies intended to keep them in favor = less money for body armor and APCs right?

I love how the media tries to blame Bush for that too. No. It is Democrats who want to cut military spending (except when it suits them and they have enough publicity) and pay for other pandering projects. Republicans want to increase military funding, at the expense of the pandering projects. But people like being pandered to (see FDR), so the constant increases in pork-barrel projects just hurt the military. I think that is pretty simple math.

Being an engineer, I might be able to do some math. Care to give me any? Mind, this has to be simple math, like how many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb.


“From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing. It has that stench of colonial racial superiority.”

Ah yes…and racial superiority is only held by white males, who happen to go to church and stay married to their wives right? China is so wonderfully open and friendly! Just ask Tibet. I hear it is lovely in the winter when Chinese tanks go home. Or Japan? Isn’t gaijin an insult there?

I think that covers what I wanted to say about Red’s points.

And why am I reminded of Wasabi’s signature?

Azi

Sorry about the multiple posts, but the computer was having troubles with some math symbols.

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Ive read several times people talk about how the US is bad for making a value judgement about democracy over dictatorships in regards to the Iraq war.

---

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy. Could you please elaborate ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Why is modern science oversold?

---

It has lost it's objectivity. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Singapore's model is interesting.

---

Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy...... ~;)

Quote:

---

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy.

---

I dont either. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Really? I can see a few ways that the "WMD" issue pertains to democracy. The United States, being a Democracy of sorts, relies on a majority rules within congress before you can declare war. Bush cheated the system by lying about WMDs (as the Downing Street Memo shows, he was in fact lying and he knew it), thus undermining democracy.

---

Hijacking two threads in one night.. ~:eek: You'd make the terrorists you sympathize with proud. :thumbsup:

America did not declare war on Iraq, just as it didnt in '96 or '91. The precident of undeclared war was set many decades ago, and for you to use that against President Bush while ignoring the fact that 5 generations of presidents before him used it shows your bias... and it has been noted.

And what exactly was the Downing Street Memo besides one mans opinion? And how is removing a dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy in fact undermining democracy? :inquisitive:

Posted by Pindar

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

This 'tradition' is the very Eurocentric historiography in question. To defend Hanson by referring to it is circular.

---

I don't think this post really responds to what I wrote. I don't understand why you have tradition in scare quotes. If you are trying to argue that democracy was developed independent of the West and was a well placed notion in the intellectual discourse of other Civilizations: it was not so.

This is why for example school texts in Japan or China reference the West when discussing the source of democracy.

Quote:

---

This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.



Ah, I see. So the West is now the arbiter of civilization? Good for it.

---

This reply doesn't seem properly placed either. Concepts have certain base meanings. Democracy is a construct of the Greeks. The word gained its meaning within that milieu. Again referencing the Far East: this is why in Chinese or Japanese the word for democracy is a transplant from the West because no such notion existed prior to contact with the West.

Quote:

---

Science is a theoretical position.

So is the Western superiority complex.

---

What's the point to this comment? Are you wanting to argue that science is not theoretical. Are you wanting to argue the West is not superior? If so, I have given three basic reasons for arguing the West is superior. Civil liberties is one of those examples. Now if you wish to argue that a civilization that has no civil liberties tradition is morally equivalent to the West make your case. Comments like the above will not do.

Quote:

---

If you want to rule out all documents enacted by royal decree from your definition of civil liberties, then you're going to have to ignore most of the history of civil liberties.

---

Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.

Quote:

---

Modern civil liberties discourses, perhaps; but I thought we were talking about origins?

---

See above.

The origin isn't really pertinent to my position as the discussion remains an intra-West affair. This is what is significant..

Quote:

---

You keep making arguments along the lines of 'this is usually done this way' or 'traditionally, this is what has been done'. Well, slavery was a 'traditional part of western culture for millenia, and racism is a usual foundation for intolerance. Custom and authority are not arguments.

---

Yes slavery and racism were part of the West. This is also the case in all other Civilizations. Unfortunately many areas continue to follow oppressive traditions along these lines: India's untouchables for example.

There is no appeal to authority.

Quote:

---

Enough to know that intolerance springs from ignorance.

---

But not enough to know real and critical distinctions exists between peoples, places and cultures.

Quote:

---

Actually, it is far more of an argument than anything your post provided, which relied on a circular appeal to Eurocentrist historiography and the ponderous weight of unthinking tradition. I, on the other hand, referred to the US governments own study that showed that the amorphous explanation 'they hate freedom' was simply wrong. Most people like America; its the policies of its government they hate. That and all those invasion thingys.

---

If we take your prior post as an attempt at a serious position there is a problem: the initial article is focused on the divisions within the Western camp, not cross-Civilization comparisons per say.

Quote:

---

Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed. ~:cheers:

---

Always happy to give credit where it is due. :bow:

Azi Tohak,

There isn't much you have said that I can agree with or that facts support.

Intellectual Dishonesty. It's about being honest with oneself as well as with others.

Explain the term "compassionate conservative." Explain WMD, explain why the budget has been so badly hosed by the party controlling the house/senate and presidency. Explain why the numbers never add up on anything Bush proposes. Explain reprimanding analysts because they give ACCURATE assessments which don't fit the party line. Explain the media bias screams and efforts to suppress the media. Explain politicizing international trade group appointments that were non-political before.

Intolerance

This is a firm plank in the stance of the Right. You can see it whenever abortion comes up, gays, prayer in schools, etc. Intolerance is an unfortunate aspect of the religious right. When people start screaming "liberal" in their best McCarthy-esque tone, you are witnessing intolerance. Even the Air Force Academy is having problems fighting religious intolerance. It is not to our country's credit. Bush has called the Afghan and other fights "crusades" in speeches to Muslims for crying out loud. How damned stupid can he get? It implies a Christian attack against Muslims. A crusade is a religious war, he might as well call it a friggin' jihad. I've heard that in Arabic crusader translates along the lines of "follower of the cross." The fight against terrorism does not and should not be narrowed down to a religious war. It is wider than that, because it is not religious specific. It is terrorism vs. everyone else, regardless of race, creed, or religion.

The wars issue.

Dubya is not being held accountable for his screw ups, and they are huge and of his own making.

FDR did what he could to keep the UK afloat while the US was isolationist. And if you read up on the fight in the Pacific, the local commanders were at fault at Pearl--and especially the Phillipines where the Japanese couldn't believe that the commanders had not done anything to prepare after the attack at Pearl. Unlike Dubya, FDR didn't have the Cole bombing or embassy attacks as a warning before Pearl Harbor. Dubya was disinterested in Al Qaeda until 9/11. He has since failed to get the top targets in Afghanistan and has left it smoldering rather than doing what was needed to get back on its feet. In Iraq he failed to prepare for the post war situation. As a result we have all these post "Mission Accomplished" casualties, and a badly unsettled mess.

As for post war and Stalin, nobody had much choice other than to acceot the Soviets in Eastern Europe or follow up WWII with a protracted fight against the USSR. Truman checked the Soviet plans by dropping the bomb on Japan, sending the right message to the USSR. We had a weapon they couldn't easily contend with, and we weren't afraid to use it.

LBJ? Shall we mention Ike? Didn't he get the ball rolling in Vietnam by helping to create the initial South Vietnamese regime? LBJ, for all his flaws inherited a fight that had no clear path to victory. Short of directly subduing North Vietnam, there was none.

Lincoln? The right wingers here hate him! LOL. He would be a liberal by their definitions. The Republican party changed back with Teddy Roosevelt, it hasn't been the party of Lincoln since then, except in name. Since then the Democrats and Republicans have swapped ends for the most part.

Fourth point You really didn't have anything there to discuss...

Math

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that the GOP and this admin are having real trouble with math. So are the conservative engineers I've worked with. Those engineers can't seem to do the math on energy issues and they are having real trouble projecting trends. I won't go into the creative accounting I've corrected... They are too steeped in dogma with the rosey glasses, and they can't get out of the danged box. Yep, I've fought this fight from within the industry, and their numbers don't add up. Why? Intellectual dishonesty for the most part. They don't want to believe a number, so they ignore it. There is also a tendency to give the "expected answer" rather than what the numbers are telling them. You take some awful heat when you fail to give the answer that the execs want--just like with Dubya's admin. When the GOP said they want to run the country like a business, they weren't kiddin'.

Has Dubya published any plan or budget figures yet that have turned out to be true? He's only a couple trillion short at the moment--and no, he won't get a pass for 9/11. The concern about contingencies for emergencies was dismissed by the GOP while pushing his budget wrecking plans. And what was the answer AFTER 9/11. "That wasn't, enough, let's do more!" Supply side economics were already proven false in the Reagan era. And revenue numbers have not worked any of his forecasted magic.

How about how many troops we will need in Iraq, how much it will cost, casualties, etc? Buy Dubya a friggin' calculator and a few hundred hours of training on how to use it (trust me, it WILL take him that long to believe the numbers coming out of it.)

The GOP economic theories would never work for economic justification on my projects. (And their energy policies/assumptions are a hindrance to good investment in industry but just what the industry wants to hear.)

Ditto for the Social Security accounts proposals...the numbers don't work, and the assumptions are as bad as those used for Dubya's tax cut & spend policy.

You want more fun with numbers? Take an honest look at the proposals for national sales tax vs. income tax. Never mind that it would send the economy into a massive recession, it would also be a large tax increase for much of the scale.

Your rant about China and Tibet Not sure what you are even going on about since my views on China are anything but trusting or forgiving. You have your guns pointed in the wrong direction. ~:handball: However, that doesn't blind me to seeing VDH's book is fairly thinly veiled Eurocentric cheerleading. Like Dubya, he appears to have reached a conclusion, then decided to write an argument (book) to support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy...... ~;)

---

I wouldn't call it feudal, since the workers are doing quite well, and so is business. No serfs ever had it that good. How the govt. operates is a mystery to me although I know political dissent is not well tolerated. The closest I can come up with is Sim City: the Country.

Selamat tidur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

---

Hurin challenged the idea of democracy's origins. Your "duh" is misplaced.


Yes the Athenian experiment failed. The idea of democracy did not disappear however. It survived and revived with the return of Classical knowledge. Though typically rejected as akin to mobocracy the notion persisted. Regardless, the ultimate reformation of democratic norm occurred in the West.

Quote:

---

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

---

This is an appeal to ignorance. The historical record is based on evidence. The evidence of democracy in the West is clear. If there is no evidence of a democratic superstructure with other civilizations one cannot conclude it existed.

Quote:

---

Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.

---

Science is a specific theoretical posture. It is composed of clear principles: physical data, inductive logic, notions of symmetry, verification etc. It can be traced to two specific individuals: Descartes and Bacon. This does not mean people did not learn or study prior to the 17th Century. It does mean that the formal system we call science was not a distinct method.

Quote:

---

So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

---

This is also an appeal to ignorance.

Quote:

---

You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)

---

Singapore was a British Colony. Its distinctive status and infrastructure are a reflection of this history. Capitalism is a Western construct. Lee's rhetoric and the reality are not necessarily the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread ~D

---

Yeah, what's with him anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is an appeal to ignorance.

---

No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.

Quote:

---

RedHarvest: So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

Me: This is an appeal to ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.

---

---

The rise of democracy is not theoretical speculation. There is a well established textual tradition that dates from the 5th Century B.C. dealing with the subject. The same cannot be said of other Civilizations.

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

---

Kill/Capture them faster than they can recruit them!

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose? Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...
If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture ~:)
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?


Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

---

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

Quote:

---

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

---

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

Quote:

---

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

---

Selective Facts - can also be said of many left-wing mythology and information.

Quote:

---

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose?

---

Yes indeed a nice selective bent by the baised author of this article - however again the author wanted to make a point.

Quote:

---

Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...

---

Not really - given that some are soft on Terror in the eyes of the author.

Quote:

---

If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

---

Again not really - it would of made it harder for him to prove, it would require a longer article, it would of required doing a better journalistic job.

Quote:

---

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

---

Yep - and to say anything different would be intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

---

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture ~:)
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?

---

Again not all lefties want the war in Afganstan either. You accuse the author of intectual dishonesty and demonstrate it yourself. A little hypocrisy on your part - or like the auther are you attempting to strike a point?

Quote:

---

Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

---

And in that I would agree with you. Mr Hanson went to far in his opinion - but he is a pundit, just like another individual who is being discussed in a seperate thread.

Quote:

---

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

---

Maybe ourselves - to include everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

---

I'd like to answer that part separately.

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

Our shortcomings, multiple betrayals of those values, our failings as you name them shall at least stop us from lecturing others about it.

I find it a bit "rich" (French expression, not sure it translates well), to tell others what they shall do when we had the power to do it earlier, and screwed up for them.
I mean, if as a French, I was to lecture Algeria for its lack of democracy, chances are Algerians would get a bit upset: we owned the country, were big mouth about democracy and La Grandeur de la République, never gave it to them, and repressed them when they ask for higher representation, then later independance.
Or picture a Brit lecturing an American about taxation and representation ~D

Can you claim superiority for something you're not doing?

Louis,

On the text itself.

Sure, some lefties were against the war in Afghanistan. And many more were for it.
In France, the socialist party supported it. I am not sure there were an official stance about that from the Communist party; they had lot of mixed feeling.
Most of the democrats supported the war in Afghanistan... and a fringe did not.
That hardly fits with the mention by the author that "only about half of the West is involved"

Oddly enough, in the run up to the war against Iraq, when 80%+ of the French were against it, you would have found 2 groups supporting it:
- what we call "liberals": libertarian in the US. Usually pro US on any stance.
- left wing interventionist: willing to remove Saddam for his numerous human right related crimes. Those are very pro ICC, pro UN kind of interventionist and believe that in case of human right grave violation other countries got a duty to intervene. Removing Saddam was OK for them. Blair, when he was not talking about the "imminent threat" of WMD (ah! ah! ah!) sounded much like them.

Mr. Hinson ignored that many on the left are not pacifist, and supported the war against Afghanistan. Many democrats also supported the war against Iraq, and so did other Euro lefties.
When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.
It's helpfull to put up the other facts, the one that Mr Hinson purposely ignored, just to debunk his theory.

Is there a 5% frindge on the left who are die hard pacifist and complete morale relativist? Probably. Is it fair to paint the left like that? Certainly not.

Louis,

I think very few sane people can genuinely believe that the world - both as whole and for the citizens of the involved countries - would have been a better place had the Taliban remained in power in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On that point I think absolutely everyone can agree.

Where the issue lies here, however, is not in the ends, but in the means. It seems highly inappropriate that we should shout the praises of democracy to these recently liberated nations. The underlying principle of democracy is consensus not conflict, words not weapons and the maintainance of human-rights and civil liberties.

Our 'superiority complex' must surely be challenged by the fact that in the War on Terror we have failed in each of these aspects.

The U.N failed because it could not secure a consensus about the war or indeed whether the operation was even legal. The Coalition seemed too eager to commit to military action rather than pursue alternative methods and once in control of Iraq has continued an approach of "don't be a terrorist or we'll kill you." Finally, the treatment of prisoners and detainees is in total violation of their human rights and the legislation planned to combat terror makes terrible in-roads to our civil liberties.

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

Quote:

---

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

---

And I argue that if we dont get tougher and treat this seriously as the war it really is we will not be able to claim such superiority for long. Again you need security first before you can have freedom. Thats why were still in Iraq.

Other than number three I agree. In every war some freedom must be surrendered for the sake of security. Believing anything else is naive and self defeating. The enemy uses our rightouness against us. Yet those on the left say both sides are as rightous then lecture us on how we have to be more rightous and always claim the highground. Next thing out of their mouths is the US tortures people and holds them illeagly. Were worse than the terrorists and the number one threat to peace in the world. IN comparison to acts done by administrations in past wars the Patriot act is pretty tame. I think it needs strengthing. Again the drug laws are much more invasive of our rights than the Patriot act and effects millions of us in fact all of us.

No one is saying that the US is worse than the terrorists. The problem is the fact that often the administration will choose to benchmark any action they take (or indeed government they establish) against the actions of the terrorists (or the previous government).

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.

---

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

In any event, democratic systems of government are not unique to the West. One can see them in anthropological studies of small communities throughout the globe. They probably predominated in the pre-literate cultures of Eurasia. The first democracy to leave large amounts of texts that are easily accessible to Western academics is Greece. If one looks carefully, however, one can see democratic ideals in other cultures. Early Muslims were shocked that the Abbassid caliphs became so authoritarian, for example, because in the early spread of Islam all Muslims were seen as brothers. I can't speak for China or Japan, but drawing from the fact that Greece was the first to leave records of democracy the inference that it created democracy is problematic at best. Most cultural 'innovations' are borrowings rather than inventions.

But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your anwers to that will be revealing.

1000 years ago, the West was the poor cousin to the great world civilizations in China, India, Islam and Byzantium. Was the west still superior then?

Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall. In another 1000 years, will the West still be on top? Perhaps it will be China, or India. Will you still be able to maintain the West's superiority then? Or will we instead be talking about the origins of efficient administration in Confucius and the first Chin emperors in the same way that we now talk about Plato and Athens? Will we be pointing to Mao rather than Pericles? If you can rule that out, then I'll agree wholeheartedly that the west is just plain better than everyone else. If you can't, then try to have a bit more perspective.

Quote:

---

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

---

Trying to insinute that the situtation there is comparable to what it was under Saddam is disengenous at best.

Look its pretty simpe. I look at Nations much like people. If I get in a fight withsomeone ane we agree not to do certain things and this guy starts doing them and causing damage to me Im gonna do the same right back at a him. Being the one holding the morale high ground doesnt do you any good if your dead. You fight fire with fire. Again this is about our very survival. I hear many on the left say there is no war on terror and Bush is making it up. THeres no moral equivalancy. Its us or them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.

---

Same thing with his books on Greek warfare...so doesnt surprise me a bit ~:)


CBR

I think the thread keeps going because this is entertaining.

My point about China was they are just as, if not more racist, than evil whiteys like me. (Bad Azi! Bad! Against affirmative action? You must be racist!) Same for Japan. Those countries prove that the idea of racial superiority is not just a western thing.

I'm just curious about what Kerry or Gore would have done in Bush's position. Increase aid to the Taliban regime to buy off another attack? Give money to Hussein and ask nicely that he be a good boy and quit butchering his people?

And no, I'll not blame the US and UK for the deaths of all the Iraqi children. What happened to those kids was the fault of their parents for not overthrowing Hussein. But you know the fun part about popular rebellions? That is called Civil War. The same thing that would happen if the US, UK and Aussies pulled out now.

Despite what some people believe, Iraq won't magically calm down if the Allies leave. It will be civil war. And if you thought hundreds of thousands of dead was bad before, wait until you have millions dead because of the rival religious and ethnic factions.

Was Bush wrong to attack Iraq? Maybe. Did any Democrats really try to stand up the administration at the time? (I'd talk about the UK too, but I get confused with the party names.) Not a chance. Now the left is trying to castrate Bush by claiming "we knew it all along!" Ah bulls**t. The left lacked the spine to stand up to Bush before the war, and now with the media dominance, has the US confused about what is going on there. Heck, I'm not even sure about what is happening and I try to follow closely.

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them. The rebellion died. But can the US do that? Nope. It is 'inhuman' and 'immoral', and the media would go even more ape than they did over Guantanamo Bay. It would be political suicide because the left has so thoroughly emasculated our society as to believe anything beyond a slap-on-the-wrist is too much punishment. Remember, it is my fault that the mullahs hate me. I would love to see every terrorist tortured to extract info, and then executed, in much the same way as in the Philipines.

Okay, that about exhuasts my vitriol for right now.

Azi

Quote:

---

This country was founded on principles, and certainly the current Republican stock seems rather keen on making sure we all remember how rightous and justified we are as a country. A good step towards making that claim anything other than Hypocrisy would be to stop the constitutional bastardization. Do you think the founding fathers sat there writing it thinking: "Hey, I hope someone makes this totally null and void some day."

---

Better tell that to Linclon and FDR for starts who were far worse in this type of thing. You also havent addressed the fact that the drug laws are far more invasive of out privacy.

Quote:

---

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them.

---

Well that was just a story its not true and Mac wasnt the one it was Pershing. The story was he executed 50 Muslim terrorists by slaughtering two pigs and then dipping the bullets in the blood before shooting them. I also believe the story is a fabrication. I still think we should lube our weapons with pig grease though ~;)

I believe the year was 1913 that this story was supposed to have occured in.

Quote:

---

FDR? What did he do? If you're talking about the New Deal, those weren't nearly as bad as the Patriot Act or Homeland Security,

---

No Im talking about confiscating the property of thousands of Japanese US citizens and interning them for the duration of the war. I hardly think the Patriot act compares to that.

Quote:

---

As for the Drug Laws.. Drugs are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do drugs, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle drugs. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to drug-related causes.

---

Two can play this game


As for the Terrorist Laws.. Terrorists are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do terroists things, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle terrorists. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to terrorist-related causes.
:duel:

Also you pay for and are effected by the war on drugs just about everyday in more ways than you can imagine. Where do you think they got many of the provisions of the Patriot act from. Apparently druggs are more dangerous them terrorists. If theres anything were guilty of making more of by fighting them its drug dealers and organised crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

---

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread. His villification of those who disagree with how things have been conducted is further evidence of his failings as a writer. How can one evaluate history objectively, when revealing an utter lack of objectivity in the present?

I was for invading Iraq and finishing the job that his father left undone, yet I cannot objectively look at what Dubya has done and feel that he has managed the situation with any competence. He ignored good advice about what the campaign would require (and those weren't leftists either.) And the WMD aspect really makes my blood boil. His strategic blunders have been large, and his integrity on the matter is at best highly questionable.

Look at Hanson's claim that "America has suffered in Iraq .006 percent of the combat dead it lost in World War II." World war II had 292,131 combat deaths (vs. 404,399 total.) In Iraq we presently have had 1352 combat deaths (DoD numbers excluding contractors.). That is 0.46%, so Hanson was only off by a factor of 76 or so. There are some problems with the simplification he is attempting too, as the survival rate is much higher now than it was in WWII. So far in Iraq there have been 13,438 wounded with about half being in the "return to duty" category.

Perhaps Hanson should try his hand at fiction?

Quote:

---

Another splendid post!

---

Why dont you just marry him and get it over with ~D We get it you two think alike.

Quote:

---

So? Countless Americans are at risk. Innocent Americans who have done nothing wrong. Far beyond the point where it is acceptable. So what if you're not at risk?

---

Thhe fact that your not at risk is your reason to support unconstitutional drug laws. I say countess innocent americans are far more at risk from terrorism than drugs. The main reason theres a drug problem is the government created it. Your being nothing but a hypocrite here.

Quote:

---

Terrorists are not exactly rampant within America,

---

I say they are. Would you like to wait for the next 911 before you do something about them? Have some consistancy.

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

---

I don't understand the reference to circularity. I have made no circular appeals. Science refers to a set theoretical disposition that involves, as I previously mentioned: physical data, inductive logic, symmetry, verification schema etc. Nothing along these lines developed anywhere else. Democracy refers to popular sovereignty meaning the government reflects the will of the citizenry and derives its power from the same. No other Civilization developed along those lines. Civil liberties refers to an inherent limitation on government force and intrusion power. The initial theoretical impulse for this was found in natural law which gave the individual standing independant of the government. This also was a uniquely western construct. Each position has set criteria that makes no reference to the West, but was developed by the West. There are no tricks, sorry.

Quote:

---

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

---

Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

---

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.

I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.

Quote:

---

By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

---

Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.

Quote:

---

But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your answers to that will be revealing.

---

I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.

Quote:

---

Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall.

---

Yes they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread.

---

You have a very different approach than I. I don't care what a person thinks about other things any more than I do the color of their shoes. I take any argument or essay presented on its own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

---

My guess:

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

I think he would define Leftist as those views that are inspired by socialism and the right would be views inspired by market driven approaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.

---

Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?

Quote:

---

I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.

---

Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.

Quote:

---

Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.

---

And which documents did the constructors of the Bill of Rights have as their models?

Quote:

---

I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.

---

I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

Quote:

---

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

---

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

Quote:

---

Are you implying that Terrorism is more common and more of a threat than the Drug industry here in America?

---

Im not implying anything. Im stating a fact. Terrorism is a much larger and more dangerous threat to our way of life than drugs are.

Quote:

---

I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

---

What an ironic post ~D