[Dean's World] Ali Eteraz: Reply On Racism

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ali Eteraz:
Reply On Racism
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183106814.shtml


   Humanitarianism has two parts. DanielH [1]raises them perceptively.

     Dean, I think we need to differentiate between two separate
     arguments: 1) whether we should have gone in the first place and 2)
     given that we did and are where we are now, what should we do next.
     Now 2) is very important, because this pertains to what is actually
     happening in Iraq now. But 1) is far from a useless discussion.

   Dean's World always skips prong 1. If they do not skip it, the
   justification they give to themselves for it are incredibly
   self-serving. I want to hammer point 1 because I am not willing to
   concede the point.

   The most often invoked justification given by Deaniacs about point 1
   is the following: if we didn't go in there, more and more people would
   have been killed/raped etc.

   Kudos to everyone for being such moral and upright people that they
   want to save all the people in the world being killed by their
   tyrants. Problem is that your morality is a) myopic, and b) is
   impractical and undermines the United States' future.

   a) Myopia. If removing Saddam satisfies your righteousness, why don't
   you also agitate to remove, with force, without recourse to
   international law: the Saudi Regime; the North Korean regime; the
   Iranian regime; a couple of the central Asian regimes; the Sudanese
   regime; the regimes in the Congo; and the Cuban regime. If dead people
   get you so worked up why haven't a single one of you agitated for
   MILITARY INTERVENTION in any of those countries? Is it because you
   think that those countries "aren't as bad" as Saddam was? If any of
   you were consistent, you'd move for an immediate military removal of
   the Saudi Regime, which has now produced OBL, and 16 of the 19 9/11
   bombers, and spreads poisonous Wahhabism in the rest of the world
   (Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Philipines, Thailand); completely
   shattering the folksy hippie Islam that predominated in so many parts
   of the Muslim world until the Saudis came by. Yet none of you agitate
   for military intervention against Saudi Arabia. Instead, you celebrate
   President Buffoon despite his incestuous relationships with Saudi
   Arabia. Man up Deaniacs. Demand military intervention in Saudi Arabia.
   You don't think there are Rape rooms there? If a woman is raped in
   Saudi she gets deported. Shias, Christians, Jews can't barely
   establish centers of worship (in Iraq until the war there were
   thousands of relatively happy, free practicing Christians/Assyrians).
   There isn't a single one of you who can make a rational argument for
   why, given your stance on intervention in Iraq, why Saudi Arabia
   shouldn't also be invaded. Those who can make one such an irrational
   argument, unfortunately can only do so on the basis of ignoring point
   b.

   b) Global humanitarianism is impractical and detrimental to the future
   of the United States. Someone please look up how much of our education
   funds we slashed in order to fund this war. Those of you who went to
   public schools, as I did, would be pissed. I think something like 2%
   of our GDP goes to education. What's the total we've spent on the war
   so far? A trillion? Let's say we go invade Saudi Arabia or Iran. Can
   we afford to spend another 2 to 5 trillion? I really doubt it. In the
   context of the fact that New York is fast losing (has already lost)
   its economic status in the world, such that 18 of the top 20 IPO's now
   occurred in London and Hong Kong; and that the US is no longer
   producing any scientists or engineers compared to India and China, how
   many trillions can we spend in war without starting to lag behind? I
   want the US to be the dominant international force (presence) for the
   rest of existence. This will not happen if we go exhausting ourselves
   in every Somalia, every Iraq, every Darfur, every Iran, every
   Pakistan, every Afghanistan. What the hell are we? The world's
   servants? Eventually the time will come when our all volunteer
   military would no longer be able to sustain this kind of exhaustive
   "humanitarianism." Then we'd have to initiate the draft, further
   taking our capable minds away from their jobs and research and
   throwing them around the world. I am not interested in the United
   States becoming the world's janitor just so a bunch of you can feel
   good about saving some people who are getting raped. I've seen people
   shot before my eyes in Philly and in Pakistan. People get shot. People
   live under tyrannies. In 1947 four of my great aunts were forced to
   jump into wells (where they died) to save themselves from rape. Women
   get raped. My dear friend's uncle spent three months orally and anally
   serving the Bangladeshi army so they would not kill him in 1971. Men
   end up slaves to survive.

   You guys think I am being racist for suggesting that we watch our own
   back first. I say you are being racist for suggesting that the world's
   oppressed don't have it in themselves to overthrow their tyrants, and
   to be free. With respect to Iraq, had the Clinton sanctions regime not
   kicked in, who knows what might have happened. I have seen (and been)
   one of "those people" whom you are so hell-bent on saving. No thanks
   for your charity. It is an affront to the dignity of a man aspiring
   for freedom and opportunity to be so pitied. I am surprised that a
   bunch of you purported libertarians don't understand that.

   If the oppressed third worlder wants to come to you for help, he will
   do so, and it certainly won't be in the form of an invitation to
   invade his country. It'll be in the form of request for debt relief
   (which Deaniacs hypocritically oppose); it'll be in the form of asking
   for more lenient immigration laws (which Deaniacs hypocritically
   oppose); it'll be in the form of asking for you to ask Bush to end the
   obscene subsidies that our farmers get which crush the world's farmers
   (which I'm sure Deaniacs would also oppose); it'll be in the form of
   him asking us to make it so that international loans do not come with
   the absurd attachment that US goods must be given preferential
   treatment (you get my point).

   You guys support none of the *other* policies that indicate to me that
   you really give a rat's ass about the advancement of the rest of the
   world. You want America to be on top *and* you want everyone else not
   to suffer. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. The world is a jungle.
   Those that kick the most ass stay on top. If you want to start helping
   the rest of the world, realize that you are undermining America.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183078158.shtml#119419