Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The excuse of the day

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    The excuse of the day

    This is a very interesting column. It is interesting how many of the arguments he refers to below have been made on PD. Thoughts?


    Terrorists' excuse du jour
    By Jonah Goldberg
    Friday, September 29, 2006

    Of course the war in Iraq has made us less safe, and I didn't need the National Intelligence Estimate to tell me so. Who could possibly deny that Iraq has become, in the words of the NIE, a "cause celebre" for jihadists? One need only read the newspaper to conclude that Iraq is spawning more terrorists. (Indeed, one fears that all the NIE authors did was clip from the newspapers.)

    If you've ever stood up to a bully, you know how this works. Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term. Any hunter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when you've cornered an animal, and any cop will tell you that standing up to muggers puts you in danger. American colonists were less safe for standing up to King George III, and the United States was certainly safer in the short term when we stood on the sidelines while Germany was conquering Europe. Heck, we would have been safer in the short run if we'd responded to Pearl Harbor by telling the Japanese they could have the Pacific to themselves.

    After 9/11, there were voices on the left warning that an attack on Afghanistan would only perpetuate the dreaded "cycle of violence." Today, Democrats tout their support of that "good" war as proof they aren't soft on terrorism. Fair enough, I suppose. But guess what? That war made us less safe too - if the measure of such things is "creating more terrorists." A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9 percent supported U.S. actions. That goes for famously moderate Turkey, where opposition to the U.S. ran three to one, and in Pakistan, where a mere one in 20 respondents took the American side. In other words, before Iraq became the cause celebre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn't have toppled the Taliban?

    Going back further, it's conventional wisdom that we helped "create" Osama bin Laden, or his Taliban and mujahedin comrades, when we supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. So we shouldn't have done that either?

    Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that the mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn't have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein's statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the pope's comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

    Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it's a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you've basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.

    For me, the truly dismaying news this week didn't come from the NIE but from the German media. A German opera house announced that it would cancel its staging of Mozart's "Idomeneo" because Berlin police concluded that staging the opera - which includes a scene in which Jesus, Buddha, Poseidon and Muhammad are beheaded - would pose an "incalculable security risk" from jihadists. Germany, recall, proudly opposed the Iraq war - but still narrowly missed a Spain-style terrorist attack on its rail system this summer.

    A leading Muslim spokesman in Germany explained that he was all for free speech, as long as it didn't offend Muslims. The Germans' all-too-typical appeasement of terrorism no doubt makes them "safer" and "creates" fewer terrorists.

    And all it cost them - for now - is Mozart.
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...excuse_du_jour
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The excuse of the day

    Mozart has an opera where they behead Jesus? The Idomeneo I have seen is all about Sea Monsters, thwarted love, and the God Neptune. But ok.

    I guess the point of this article is that the only reason that Crazy Muslims are so Bad is that they decided to be that way. No other causes or reasons can be contemplated. That certainly simplifies one's foreign policy options.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The excuse of the day

      Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
      I guess the point of this article is that the only reason that Crazy Muslims are so Bad is that they decided to be that way. No other causes or reasons can be contemplated. That certainly simplifies one's foreign policy options.
      Hmm. You make a fair point, 3Ball, but I think you are so intent on trying to undermine his argument that you go too far. Maybe you are correct that some Muslims are offended over (fairly recent -- say, the past 5 years worth) American policies concerning our response to terrorism. But the Muslim world's outraged indignation over our recent policies does not explain or excuse their similar acts of violence and terrorism that pre-dated -- by several decades -- America's responses. In that sense, Goldberg is correct that Muslim outrage is simply their excuse du jour.

      When (or if) you argue, as others on the Left have, that we are responsible for creating more terrorists by our recent actions, how then do you explain the growth of terrorists long preceding any of those actions?

      There is no doubt the war in Iraq is being used as a recruiting tool for jihadists. So what? There will always be "something" that is being used as a recruiting tool. Something was being used as a recruiting tool for jihadists long before the recent American actions, and we should not ignore or try to understand what that something is. It isn't being simplistic to ask that question, nor is it being wise to pretend that only recent (controversial) American actions are to blame.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The excuse of the day

        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
        Mozart has an opera where they behead Jesus? The Idomeneo I have seen is all about Sea Monsters, thwarted love, and the God Neptune. But ok.
        .
        The staging of an opera can take different shapes in regards to how they interpret the opera itself.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The excuse of the day

          And if we leave the middle east and wash our hands of it, the jihadists will claim victory and then use THAT as a recruitment tool.

          We only defeat them by showing we have the resolve to defeat them.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The excuse of the day

            Good point and good questions Bat Boy. I think that assuming that people by and large have the same goals. What was the Kennedy line? Something like, "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." It takes an incredible amount of fear and suffering to send ones children to die, whether as a car bomber, a soldier, or anything else.

            To me, there are several reasons that middle easterners have resorted to violence over decades since WWII (before that I know much less about).

            1.) Religion. In my mind, this one turns out to be less of a root cause. It's true that the Koran does have many very violent pronouncements, and Islam has been used as a motivating, organizing force for violence. But an honest look at history tells us that this need not be the case. Most religions have, over time, been use as both a powerful organizing force for order and benevolence AND for violence and hatred. This is true of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and so on. Maybe not Jainism, but generally yes. But there is no doubt in my mind that there CAN be peaceful, succesful Muslim societies. There certainly have been in the past (Northern Africa was a far more advanced place than Europe for centuries). Yes, Islam has played a part in fomenting radicalism, but I think that the root problems are deeper.

            2.) Israel. Middle Easterners are pissed about Israel, there's no question about it. Here's the only analogy I can think of: Europe and China got together and carved out a new nation in the middle of the United States that included Philadelphia and a huge chunk of the middle of this country in order for there to be a homeland for Native Americans to right the wrongs of their American oppressors. Then, millions of Chinese also came there because they are closely related. Then, Europe and China pumped in trillions of dollars into their economy such that this new nation was militarily superior to the rest of the US. We would be pissed also.

            Now, this is a poor analogy, but I think the point is that, yes, maybe the Jews needed a homeland and this is what the world decided on, but you can see why that nerve is raw. And the plight of the Palestinians is real and gruesome. Until this problem (admittedly very difficult) can be solved, peace in the middle east would be tough to come by. This is a problem that the West helped to create, so I think we need to do everything we can to help solve this issue. I'm not saying that "America is evil because we support Israel." I'm fine with supporting Israel, and I think it's wonderful to have a succesful functioning democracy in the region, but until we very realistically help the Palestinians, there will be violence and misery. This is always true when you have a large population in perpetual suffering.

            3.) Colonialism. This word makes me cringe. Some folks resort to it to explain any problem in the 3rd world. But the reality is that the colonial heritage AND our current colonialist ambitions have caused us huge headaches in the region. What do I mean by colonialism? I mean the use of force to control other folk's governments, usually in order to exploit their resources and usually with the complicity of local leaders. Without going into a 500 year history, let's just start with where we are. The middle east should be rich. They have the most valuable natural resource in the world right now. But most of their populations live in poverty until oppresive dictatorships. Dictatorships that we support militarily and economically. Now, does this meant that US is bad and I blaim us for everything? Not at all. It would be great if a local George Washington rose up to free the people from oppression. But that's hard to do when the oppression is rich, powerful, and deeply entrenched.

            For decades, what middle easterners have most wanted, is self determination. I personaly think that this is reasonable, and we should stop overthrowing their governments, helping to crush uprisings, and propping up dictators in places like Saudie Arabia. The problems is that we can't. We can't because we need their oil. If the middle east erupted into an orgy of democratic revolution, it would be an economic disaster. Iraq was reliably supplying us with oil, and now that the flow has dramatically slowed, the price has shot up (small-scale variations aside). Can you imagine what would happen if this happened in Saudie Arabia? There would be food riots across the world.

            It's a terrible cycle. We need the dictators to supply the West (and the far east) with a steady supply of oil to maintain the world economy. But the people of the middle east desparately hate their dictators and violently resent our support and especially our military interventions. Overwhelmingly they wanted our troops out of Saudie Arabia, and now the Iraqis overwhelmingly want our troops out of there. It is just a very basic human desire for your nation to control its own destiny, to face its own problems, and not to have to submit to foreigners, even if they are acting "in your best interests." Colonial powers always say they want to help their colonies, whether it was Britain in India or USSR in Lithowania. But occupying powers are always resented and ultimately resisted.

            Here's the best step out of this: stop importing oil from the middle east. If we have to build a kajillion windmills, get back to building nuclear reactors, whatever. I met a girl yesterday that drives a 14-year old electric car that runs on 10 golf cart batteries. Fine, whatever it takes. Only then can we honestly, unhypocritically support true democracy in the middle east. Not a system where we support them just so long as we get our oil. One part of the solution to getting peace in the middle east: stop attacking them.

            A word on the idea of "blaim America first". No, not here. There is plenty of blaim to go around for the current situation from everybody. Europe legacy of colonialism, Arab willingness to resort to violence rather than non-violent resistance Chinese and Japanese amoralism on the world stage, and yes, American pragmatic support of dictators. I prefer to talk more about America because we can ONLY CONTROL WHAT WE DO. We simply can't control other countries' decisions. When we try, we only make things worse. America should be a model of succes and prosperity. We should act more nobly than anyone. That's when we succeed best.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The excuse of the day

              Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
              Good point and good questions Bat Boy. I think that assuming that people by and large have the same goals. What was the Kennedy line? Something like, "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." It takes an incredible amount of fear and suffering to send ones children to die, whether as a car bomber, a soldier, or anything else.

              To me, there are several reasons that middle easterners have resorted to violence over decades since WWII (before that I know much less about).

              1.) Religion. In my mind, this one turns out to be less of a root cause. It's true that the Koran does have many very violent pronouncements, and Islam has been used as a motivating, organizing force for violence. But an honest look at history tells us that this need not be the case. Most religions have, over time, been use as both a powerful organizing force for order and benevolence AND for violence and hatred. This is true of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and so on. Maybe not Jainism, but generally yes. But there is no doubt in my mind that there CAN be peaceful, succesful Muslim societies. There certainly have been in the past (Northern Africa was a far more advanced place than Europe for centuries). Yes, Islam has played a part in fomenting radicalism, but I think that the root problems are deeper.

              2.) Israel. Middle Easterners are pissed about Israel, there's no question about it. Here's the only analogy I can think of: Europe and China got together and carved out a new nation in the middle of the United States that included Philadelphia and a huge chunk of the middle of this country in order for there to be a homeland for Native Americans to right the wrongs of their American oppressors. Then, millions of Chinese also came there because they are closely related. Then, Europe and China pumped in trillions of dollars into their economy such that this new nation was militarily superior to the rest of the US. We would be pissed also.

              Now, this is a poor analogy, but I think the point is that, yes, maybe the Jews needed a homeland and this is what the world decided on, but you can see why that nerve is raw. And the plight of the Palestinians is real and gruesome. Until this problem (admittedly very difficult) can be solved, peace in the middle east would be tough to come by. This is a problem that the West helped to create, so I think we need to do everything we can to help solve this issue. I'm not saying that "America is evil because we support Israel." I'm fine with supporting Israel, and I think it's wonderful to have a succesful functioning democracy in the region, but until we very realistically help the Palestinians, there will be violence and misery. This is always true when you have a large population in perpetual suffering.

              3.) Colonialism. This word makes me cringe. Some folks resort to it to explain any problem in the 3rd world. But the reality is that the colonial heritage AND our current colonialist ambitions have caused us huge headaches in the region. What do I mean by colonialism? I mean the use of force to control other folk's governments, usually in order to exploit their resources and usually with the complicity of local leaders. Without going into a 500 year history, let's just start with where we are. The middle east should be rich. They have the most valuable natural resource in the world right now. But most of their populations live in poverty until oppresive dictatorships. Dictatorships that we support militarily and economically. Now, does this meant that US is bad and I blaim us for everything? Not at all. It would be great if a local George Washington rose up to free the people from oppression. But that's hard to do when the oppression is rich, powerful, and deeply entrenched.

              For decades, what middle easterners have most wanted, is self determination. I personaly think that this is reasonable, and we should stop overthrowing their governments, helping to crush uprisings, and propping up dictators in places like Saudie Arabia. The problems is that we can't. We can't because we need their oil. If the middle east erupted into an orgy of democratic revolution, it would be an economic disaster. Iraq was reliably supplying us with oil, and now that the flow has dramatically slowed, the price has shot up (small-scale variations aside). Can you imagine what would happen if this happened in Saudie Arabia? There would be food riots across the world.

              It's a terrible cycle. We need the dictators to supply the West (and the far east) with a steady supply of oil to maintain the world economy. But the people of the middle east desparately hate their dictators and violently resent our support and especially our military interventions. Overwhelmingly they wanted our troops out of Saudie Arabia, and now the Iraqis overwhelmingly want our troops out of there. It is just a very basic human desire for your nation to control its own destiny, to face its own problems, and not to have to submit to foreigners, even if they are acting "in your best interests." Colonial powers always say they want to help their colonies, whether it was Britain in India or USSR in Lithowania. But occupying powers are always resented and ultimately resisted.

              Here's the best step out of this: stop importing oil from the middle east. If we have to build a kajillion windmills, get back to building nuclear reactors, whatever. I met a girl yesterday that drives a 14-year old electric car that runs on 10 golf cart batteries. Fine, whatever it takes. Only then can we honestly, unhypocritically support true democracy in the middle east. Not a system where we support them just so long as we get our oil. One part of the solution to getting peace in the middle east: stop attacking them.

              A word on the idea of "blaim America first". No, not here. There is plenty of blaim to go around for the current situation from everybody. Europe legacy of colonialism, Arab willingness to resort to violence rather than non-violent resistance Chinese and Japanese amoralism on the world stage, and yes, American pragmatic support of dictators. I prefer to talk more about America because we can ONLY CONTROL WHAT WE DO. We simply can't control other countries' decisions. When we try, we only make things worse. America should be a model of succes and prosperity. We should act more nobly than anyone. That's when we succeed best.
              Very thoughtful post 3Ball. Lots of us here are noticing that about you -- you take on tough issues and argue them with civility. Here are a few thoughts in response:

              1. On Religion (and a little on Colonialism): There seems to be a tendency to lump all religions in together, and thereby dismiss all as bad or at least having negative tendencies. Thus, Christianity and Judaism have their own histories of war and violence, and therefore we of those faiths should not be too proud in our criticisms of or opposition to Islam.

              Of course, it is true that religious movements have spawned or been involved in violence and war, as any reader of the Old Testament or histories of the Crusades will acknowledge. But those histories do not put us on the same plane as Islamicists, I would argue. Much of the Old Testament recounts the establishment of Israel to God's Chosen, the Jews. Now, certainly there are many who do not believe in or accept the ancient texts as a basis of authority for Israel's claim to Israel, just because those texts are old, or because they do not believe the content of the texts, but there is no question as a matter of history that those texts and the events they describe (esp. in Genesis and Exodus) lay claim to ownership of Israel by Israel.

              The claim of displacement from Israel by the Palestinians must be understood in that light, as well as the establishment of Islam thousands of years after the events described in the Old Testament. When Muhammad founded Islam in the 7th century, Israel had owned and controlled the region for several thousand years, in express fulfillment of Biblical prophesy and God's own will.

              The growth of Islam occurred at the point of the sword -- Jews and Christians in the Middle East were given two choices, then as in many parts of the world even today: convert to Islam or die by beheading. It was only after several hundred years of this phenomenon that then-nations of Europe (and the Roman Catholic Church) launched the Crusades -- to reclaim the lands that were being overrun by violent Muslims. The modern day claims to land (occupied by Israel) by Palestinians must be understood -- at least in the minds of Jews and Christians -- against this religious heritage and history which, yes, indeed, did involve much war, violence and killing in "the name of religion." I submit that distinctions do matter, and fighting a war in defense of God's People and to reclaim land given them by God, or, more correctly stated, to reclaim the Christian realm of Jerusalem and other Middle East sites, is not the same thing as fighting a war for imperial or colonial expansion. In other words, just because some wars have been fought "in God's name" does not mean they were wrong or not justified. Nor does it make the Islamists far more extensive history with expansive, aggressive (call them imperial or colonial) wars just hunky dorey.

              You say you have "no doubt" that Islam can be a peaceful religion. I challenge you to prove that point. To do so, you must ignore the entire history of that religion, from its very founding. That religion's very founding and first several hundred years' existence were driven "at the point of a sword," and anecdotal information about peaceful, modern co-existence of small communities of somewhat secular Muslims (say, in Turkey or parts of London) are rebutted by other anecdotes about exactly what happens in those same neighborhoods when numerical majorities are approached (see Paris's burning suburbs, or Denmark's burning effigies, or the general phenomena described in the book Londonistan), and demands that constitutional governments and parliaments replace their several centuries-old standards with sharia law and all its delights -- stonings, infidel killing, dhimmitude, etc. The only peaceful periods in the world's entire history regarding Muslim countries have been when they have taken control and they have had no meaningful opposition.

              2. On Israel: You say "maybe the Jews needed a homeland and this is what the world decided on, but you can see why that nerve is raw. And the plight of the Palestinians is real and gruesome." You must understand, as discussed a little bit above, the question of whether Jews "need" a homeland is not so inconsequential or casual as your formulation puts it, at least in the minds of Jews and Christians. See the discussion above -- many people's entire faiths are built on a tenets that include the fact that Jews are God's Chosen. We believe God gave this land and this location to Israel, and not to the Palestinians. The Bible, in ancient texts that long preceded the founding of the religion the Palestinians claim as their own, says so explicitly. This isn't to us a pedestrian argument about whether they "need" their own homeland, this is a part of our religion, nothing less.

              I do not dispute that the plight of Palestinians is real and gruesome, but, while we're on the subject of the mistreated, is their plight actually worse than that of Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Jews who are being slaughtered throughout the world - see Darfur, or see Indonesia? The difference is that throughout most of the world, those being mistreated in far worse fashion than the Palestinians are not trying to extinguish from the face of the earth all Muslims, as Palestinians fervently wish with regard to the Jews, and would be fine with peacable co-existence. I also believe that the notoriously anti-semitic UN, along with other Muslim nations, do nothing on their own to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians, and prefer that they remain agitated against Israel.

              Consider this fact, taken from a recent Charles Krauthammer article: "There are 13 million Jews in the world, one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population. Yet 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, a staggering hundredfold surplus of renown and genius." Less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the entire world's population, and a source of genius and productivity and invention and progress, a source that alleviates human suffering and yet a population that far, far outnumbers them cannot tolerate their existence on this earth. In defending itself from enemies in the Muslim world which surround it, and which attack it with suicide bombers and rocket attacks, which cannot bear that Israel exists in their midst, Israel is characterized as the cause of suffering because it has the temerity to defend itself. To try to stay alive. To try to keep its people safe from murderers. And yet others, like you in your fastidious concern for the plight of Israel's mortal enemy (well, one of its mortal enemies, anyway) the Palestinians, regard Israel as the bad actor.

              3. On Colonialism: I must say, I could not disagree with you more. Your definintion ("the use of force to control other folk's governments, usually in order to exploit their resources and usually with the complicity of local leaders") is not one I would associate with "colonialism." Instead, it is an antiquated term, referring to a period in world history beginning several hundred years ago (and ending at least in the last century) in which largely European countries engaged in a race of global land and resource grabs. Although used today as a perjoritive, it had many, perhaps mainly, benign aspects, such as introducing law and order and civilization to many uncivilized, previously barbaric realms. Yes, it also led to plundering resources, mainly diamonds, minerals, spices, etc., but it also established trade routes and immeasurably increased the quality of life of those colonized. Some historians have even suggested that what the world could use right now is something like a return to colonialism, because of its benign contributions to stability and civilization.

              That phenomenon you recite -- describing the West's involvement in Middle Eastern affairs as colonialism -- is not remotely what we have going on today.

              You say, "without going into a 500 year history, let's just start with where we are. The middle east should be rich. They have the most valuable natural resource in the world right now." True, but that "valuable natural resource" -- oil, is one that the Middle East had not a damn thing to do with developing, or with making valuable to the rest of the world and to world markets. The creation of value came exclusively from the West, which invented internal combustion engines and internal building heating, which in turn created (and only about a century ago, not 500 years ago) the source of this valuable commodity. And, importantly, the West did not steal this resource, they paid for it and continue to pay for it, to the tribes and descendents of tribes of shepherds whose goats and sheep happened to be grazing atop the oil reserves at the moment in history its value became recognized.

              You seem to regard the economic unfairness of the petroleum industry as the "fault" of the West, because the tribes that benefitted have never seen fit to distribute the fruits of their good fortune to its people on a fair basis. Certainly, as you put it, some in the Middle East are oppressed by the rich, powerful, entrenched interests, but that does not make the West primarily, or even very, responsible. The single biggest beneficiary of the oil industry over the past century has probably been the tribe known as the House of Saud, which even got a country named after it (Saudi Arabia). (BTW, can you imagine naming any other country, or state, after a family today? "I live in Greater 3Ballville".) But although it has benefitted enormously, with untold numbers of family/tribe members who are billionaires, the lesser residents are poor and mistreated -- why are Americans or the West responsible for this inequity? What shall we do -- engage in a little imperialism or colonialism and overthrow the House of Saud and impose a little democracy? I know you don't engage in Blame America First as some do, but why is the West blamed at all for the embarrassment of riches it bestowed on several Middle Eastern countries who cannot then distribute and actually build a balanced, thriving commercial and cultured nation, and do so in a fair manner? That, after all, is the abiding question underlying much of the whole Muslim question -- despite a history of scientific achievement (albeit brief, and nothing significant for nearly a thousand years) -- Muslims seem to have a massive inferiority complex because of their meager contributions beyond building palaces for the ultra rich Saudi families or the ultra cruel Hussein regimes.

              There is injustice in the world, lots of it in the Middle East. The West is not the cause of most of the injustice, and our exchanging commerce in a commodity that at least sends some value to that region in no way resembles colonialism.

              Again, good questions, 3Ball, but we disagree about the premises of many of these problems.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The excuse of the day

                Thanks for your well-aruged points here, BatBoy. I just want to make a few short additional comments.

                I don't think it's accurate to portray Islam as a warmongering religion and contrast it to Christianity. How many years out of the last thousand has a Christian nation not been at war. It's not that I condemn Christianity, it's just that I think it's hypocritical to say "Oh those Muslims are violent extremists" while ignoring the wars fought by their neighbors. It's not that Islam doesn't have violence built into its core, it's just that it doesn't any more so than Christianity or most other religions.

                As to using the Bible as justification for Israel claiming land inconveniently settled by Arabs, would you be willing to give back most of North and South America to the descendents of Native Americans? What if their religion pointed out that it was their birthright from the Great Spirit? Would you be happy if you were forced to at the barrel of a gun?

                I don't think that ugly plight of the Palestinians is worse than, say, Darfur. It's just that it would be much easier to rectify. If the United States made it clear that we would no longer support Israel unless they pulled back to internationally recognized borders and ceased attacking civilians, they would do so. I am certainly amazed at the unbelievable successes achieved by the Jewish people across the world, often in the face of unbelievable antisemitism (both Muslim and Christian). It doesn't mean I have to support atrocities.

                I don't agree that the legacy of colonialism was largely benign. It's legacy as I see it was terror, genocide, and death. I literally can't think of one country that has benefited (at least benefitted the indigenous population) by being put to the yoke.

                If you really look at it, you know that the riches of the middle east are staying there to benefit the people. Overwhelmingly, they are flowing to the west with enough left over to pacify local collaborators such as the Saudi Royal family. Most middle easterners live in penury compared to the wealth that flows through their pipelines daily. We didn't steal it. We only support the dictatorial regimes who do.

                By the way, I can think of countries named after people and families such as Bolivia and Columbia. Even the capital of our country is Washington.

                The United States always claims to be spreading democracy, whatever military actions we take. I truly hope that we can fulfill that goal. Right now we claim that we are trying to spread democracy in Iraq. What does democracy mean? Well, it doesn't just mean holding elections. After all, the Soviet Union had elections, and so did Iraq under Hussein. They weren't credible because the will of the people was never really expressed in those elections. So is the will of the people being expressed now? What do the people of Iraq want? They want us gone. Indeed, 60% of them want us to stop occupying their country so badly that they support the insurgents trying to pry us out with force. Are we willing to follow the will of the people of a sovereign country? No, not so far. This president has pledged not to leave even if THIS supposed democracy no longer supports the occupation, much less the people of Iraq. I think a big shot of real democracy both here and abroad would have an incredible civilizing effect, and I certainly hope we get one this November.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The excuse of the day

                  Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                  When (or if) you argue, as others on the Left have, that we are responsible for creating more terrorists by our recent actions, how then do you explain the growth of terrorists long preceding any of those actions?
                  You are doing what conservatives do well: manipulating the argument of those on the "left" to deflect criticism of the results of policy advocated and initiated by the current administration.

                  The debate from the left about the wisdom of occupying Iraq and what to do about Iraq is a lot deeper than just questioning the numerical growth of terrorist groups that have thrived since our entry into Iraq.

                  By the way, it's time the President seeks a bi-partisan consensus about where we go from here in Iraq.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The excuse of the day

                    Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                    You are doing what conservatives do well: manipulating the argument of those on the "left" to deflect criticism of the results of policy advocated and initiated by the current administration.

                    The debate from the left about the wisdom of occupying Iraq and what to do about Iraq is a lot deeper than just questioning the numerical growth of terrorist groups that have thrived since our entry into Iraq.

                    By the way, it's time the President seeks a bi-partisan consensus about where we go from here in Iraq.
                    Why?

                    IMO, were President Bush has failed in his second term is he allowed others to speak for him.

                    He only comes out like every few months to try & rally the troops & his home support. His biggest mistake was not being in the front leading the charge from day 1 of his second term.

                    He has allowed others to paint the picture of Iraq however they want to, he has not done enough to paint his picture or to show where he wants it to go.

                    The President doesn't need what won't exist, bi-partisan consensu, he needs to lead.

                    The man has shown time after time after time that when he gets out in front of a subject people will follow him. But to me it's kind of like he won his second election & the game was over. It just began, IMO.

                    I know that some of you will not like a single word of what I just wrote & will disagree with me because you either a. didn't want to go to Iraq to begin with or b. you hate President Bush & no matter what he says or does nothing will be right.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X