More Dawkins idiocy...

[leibowde84]

There is no 'one mistake' except messing with other people's business and trying to make foreigners do your bidding.

I get your point, but this is a global society now. Isolationism, which seems to be what ISIS is after, is not a possibility, and we have an obligation to stand by our allies.

 

[Osal]

That is only based on the actions of past leaders though, isn't it? I mean, we also had Japanese internment camps and refused Jewish refugees during WW2, but those responsible are long gone. What are we doing now that loses our moral ground?

Well, the problem is we're doing nothing to regain the moral high ground. We, basically, simply maintain the status quo. That status quo is to impose our unwelcome value system on others, deal unfairly and act carelessly. We add to that an unbelieveable amount of hubris. We think what we do is right, even though it's demonstrably wrong. WE lord it over a land whose borders were established by foriegners with no concern for the wants or needs of the inhabitants and when they start to show a little self-determination, we send in the B52s. This is happening today.

 

[icehorse]

Those are nothing to do with my points.

Starting with Mossadegh, everything has been a response to a previous problem. Trying to fix the previous f*ck up.

Disagree?

There is some truth to your stance, but it's oversimplified, and I think in this case the devil is in the details. Think Hussein would have been a cuddly guy if we'd never intervened in the first place (pre-Kurdisn genocide)? That seems naive to me. Think Hussein's regime was going to head in positive direction had we not blundered into the Iraq war? Also naive.

So, for example, I'd speculate that if Bernie Sanders had been president instead of Bush, he'd have helped to create a far more nuanced, regionally-aware, culturally-aware, Muslim-led coalition to depose Hussein. In any case, there is no doubt in my mind that *someone* had to get rid of Hussein. And there is also no doubt that - if done thoughtfully - it could have been a boon to the region.

 

[icehorse]

Well, the problem is we're doing nothing to regain the moral high ground. We, basically, simply maintain the status quo. That status quo is to impose our unwelcome value system on others, deal unfairly and act carelessly. We add to that an unbelieveable amount of hubris. We think what we do is right, even though it's demonstrably wrong. WE lord it over a land whose borders were established by foriegners with no concern for the wants or needs of the inhabitants and when they start to show a little self-determination, we send in the B52s. This is happening today.

Osal,

It seems that you're either advocating for isolationism, or else you're spinning out false dilemmas?

 

[Osal]

Osal,

It seems that you're either advocating for isolationism, or else you're spinning out false dilemmas?

Niether.

It could be that you're erecting straw men.

The point is not to isolate but to acknowledge that we have no moral leg to stand on in our judgement of ISIS, and that we have to real business in the region.

I'd go further to say, that if the nations in the region have no interest in dealing with ISIS, then we have no business there at all.

 

[Augustus]

There is some truth to your stance, but it's oversimplified, and I think in this case the devil is in the details. Think Hussein would have been a cuddly guy if we'd never intervened in the first place (pre-Kurdisn genocide)? That seems naive to me. Think Hussein's regime was going to head in positive direction had we not blundered into the Iraq war? Also naive.

It's not about whether he would have been a sweet little bunny, but his perceived importance to US interests may have made him think he could get away with taking Kuwait. Alternatively, the cost of the Iran-Iraq war could have been a driving factor, or the desire to strengthen his position re Iran.

The key issue though was the Iranian revolution and its consequent effects on the region, especially in damaging Sunni-Shiite relations and providing a driver for Sunni Islamism.

Saudi certainly ramped up its spending on spreading its sectarian bile after this and we know the results of that, along with the Afghan War.

Almost all US action over the past 50 years have produced negative unexpected consequences that have been probably the major cause of contemporary Islamism. And it started with a coup against a secular Iranian leftist.

What is naive is making the same mistake over and over again yet expecting things to work out differently next time.

So, for example, I'd speculate that if Bernie Sanders had been president instead of Bush, he'd have helped to create a far more nuanced, regionally-aware, culturally-aware, Muslim-led coalition to depose Hussein. In any case, there is no doubt in my mind that *someone* had to get rid of Hussein. And there is also no doubt that - if done thoughtfully - it could have been a boon to the region.

It would have been a disaster whoever did it. The execution of the war was rank incompetence, but you were never going to get a stable democracy. That was pie in the sky utopian thinking.

You can't magic up a democracy through good intentions.

 

[icehorse]

Niether.

It could be that you're erecting straw men.

The point is not to isolate but to acknowledge that we have no moral leg to stand on in our judgement of ISIS, and that we have to real business in the region.

I'd go further to say, that if the nations in the region have no interest in dealing with ISIS, then we have no business there at all.

AFAIC I have a moral leg to stand on. I don't represent the US gov., I represent myself. I can say without reservation that culture and morals of ISIS are inferior to the cultures and morals of almost everyone else on the planet.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, are you saying that there is no way to evaluate better and worse morals?

To take your stance further, are you saying that when the west makes a breakthrough (e.g. in medicine), we have no moral leg to stand on to share that breakthrough?

 

[icehorse]

It's not about whether he would have been a sweet little bunny, but his perceived importance to US interests may have made him think he could get away with taking Kuwait. Alternatively, the cost of the Iran-Iraq war could have been a driving factor, or the desire to strengthen his position re Iran.

The key issue though was the Iranian revolution and its consequent effects on the region, especially in damaging Sunni-Shiite relations and providing a driver for Sunni Islamism.

Saudi certainly ramped up its spending on spreading its sectarian bile after this and we know the results of that, along with the Afghan War.

Almost all US action over the past 50 years have produced negative unexpected consequences that have been probably the major cause of contemporary Islamism. And it started with a coup against a secular Iranian leftist.

What is naive is making the same mistake over and over again yet expecting things to work out differently next time.

It would have been a disaster whoever did it. The execution of the war was rank incompetence, but you were never going to get a stable democracy. That was pie in the sky utopian thinking.

You can't magic up a democracy through good intentions.

Remember, I've never claimed that the West's interventions in the ME have been well executed. We're on the same page in that regard. But again, I'd say it's naive to think that the ME was in great shape before whatever starting point you choose to pick. Wahhabism has been a negative influence long before any of the events you list. The Muslim Brotherhood is also older than these events.

 

[Town Heretic]

Earlier today, arch-buffoon Richard Dawkins tweeted these...

While he can make any number of cogent points, in general, listening to Dawkins for a credible, informed critique of religion is on par with asking a Hindu for barbecue recipes. Read The God Delusion if you're interested in witnessing bia overcoming a fascile intellect.

 

[Osal]

While he can make any number of cogent points, in general, listening to Dawkins for a credible, informed critique of religion is on par with asking a Hindu for barbecue recipes. Read The God Delusion if you're interested in witnessing bia overcoming a fascile intellect.

Bia?

 

[Town Heretic]

Bia?

I don't mind bias, provided it's framed in rationality. His comment about moderates in relation to extremists frames the depth of his.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Read The God Delusion if you're interested in witnessing bia overcoming a fascile intellect.

I thought it was a good book and should be read to children in schools.

 

[Augustus]

But again, I'd say it's naive to think that the ME was in great shape before whatever starting point you choose to pick. Wahhabism has been a negative influence long before any of the events you list. The Muslim Brotherhood is also older than these events.

It's not that US interventions have been the absolute cause of everything, just that they tend to make a bad situation worse.

Remember, I've never claimed that the West's interventions in the ME have been well executed.

Do you think that the problem was not the interventions, but the execution of the interventions?

If so, knowing the track record, why would you advocate any more?

If a large proportion will be costly failures that damage your economy and make things worse, why not do nothing?

One of the problems we have today is that people see a bad situation and think that we must "do something".

It's like the person who gets a cold and goes to the doctor and demands antibiotics, just because they think they have to "do something". The antibiotics both cost money and would have only negative effects, the best possible response is to do nothing and wait for the cold to pass. Maybe you take a few precautions to make sure it doesn't get any worse, but you can't make it go away no matter how much you would like to be able to.

Sometimes you just have to accept there is nothing you can do. To think everything is your problem to fix is hubristic, especially given the evidence of the effects of doing something.

It's ironic that 60 years ago the US was overthrowing secular democratic regimes in Iran, and know they would kill for one. Then recently they had a war to install a democracy in Iraq, now they are a major backer of a military dictator who overthrew a democratic regime in Egypt.

Politicians don't know what they want, can't predict the effects of their actions and are driven by domestic political demands. That's why they are doomed to repeated failures even if there is the odd success in amongst them. The execution will almost always be flawed and the effects unpredictable, this needs to be foremost in the mids of those who advocate such actions.

 

[Augustus]

While he can make any number of cogent points, in general, listening to Dawkins for a credible, informed critique of religion is on par with asking a Hindu for barbecue recipes. Read The God Delusion if you're interested in witnessing bia overcoming a fascile intellect.

His view is basically "religion is not objectively true; some religious people do bad things in the name of religion; thus, religion is bad and needs to be eliminated."

He is really an atheist Anglican though, and doesn't understand that removing religion wouldn't make everybody just like him.

It annoys me a bit that people think just because he is a famous scientist and is always talking about science and reason, that his views on religion must be scientific and rational as well rather than being a mediocre polemic.

On everything apart from the 'objective existence' of God, his view tend to be pretty irrational and very resistant to opposing evidence.

 

[icehorse]

His view is basically "religion is not objectively true; some religious people do bad things in the name of religion; thus, religion is bad and needs to be eliminated."

He is really an atheist Anglican though, and doesn't understand that removing religion wouldn't make everybody just like him.

It annoys me a bit that people think just because he is a famous scientist and is always talking about science and reason, that his views on religion must be scientific and rational as well rather than being a mediocre polemic.

On everything apart from the 'objective existence' of God, his view tend to be pretty irrational and very resistant to opposing evidence.

I would bet you $1000 that if we could get Dawkins to respond to this post he would NOT agree that you've fairly represented his view.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

If your point about past ME interventions is that they've been horribly designed and have had horrible results, I agree.

But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should just give up. One example would be the Kurds. I for one think it would be immoral for us to abandon them.

 

[Town Heretic]

I thought it was a good book and should be read to children in schools.

I think a good knock-knock book would be a better and more consistent giggle...maybe if they added pictures. Anyway, I hear the hardcore religious right is pushing back with a different book, "Tommy Has Two Moms (and they both hate God)".

It's a pop-up and, not to spoil the ending, but you'll need a metaphorical bucket of sand.

 

[Augustus]

I would bet you $1000 that if we could get Dawkins to respond to this post he would NOT agree that you've fairly represented his view.

I agree. But just because he is not very receptive to evidence.

Have you ever seen him quote scholarly articles on religion and its effects on people and society btw?

Hey Augustus,

If your point about past ME interventions is that they've been horribly designed and have had horrible results, I agree.

But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should just give up. One example would be the Kurds. I for one think it would be immoral for us to abandon them.

So we should shoot down the Turkish jets that are bombing them?

 

[Osal]

I would bet you $1000 that if we could get Dawkins to respond to this post he would NOT agree that you've fairly represented his view.

Of course. Any representation of his view that cast him in a negative light would definitely be met with repudiation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree. But just because he is not very receptive to evidence.

Have you ever seen him quote scholarly articles on religion and its effects on people and society btw?

What?? He's all about evidence.