QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 00.29)

I'm not asking you to be polite, although some common courtesies would be rather nice now that you mention it. So far, you seem to have expressed that you don't see the need to fully grasp a situation before drawing conclusions. I'm telling you that that allows for poorly made opinions.

Either tell me what I'm failing to grasp, or quit suggestion that there's something I'm not grasping.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 00.29)

Then I suppose many prominent people throughout history were not rational or well informed. You're conditioned to think that democracy is good, just like for thousands of years, people were conditioned to believe they should submit to absolute powers like the monarchy or the church. Hell, I agree that democracy is awesome as shit. That's not even the point. The point is that you ignore the fundamental fact that people are often times products of their society. I /do/ think we should encourage China to change. But in order to do so, we have to understand and acknowledge their cultural context and tailor change to that context.

Many prominent people throughout history personally benefited from the system of aristocratic privilege and had little interest in changing it. While the lesser classes often didn't have the power (or the ability to organize to exercise their power) to change things nor the widespread education/books for the suggestion to arise and spread that they should. The printing press in Europe allowed for that to change. I've read a number of studies as to why similar intellectual revolution did not occur in China, most of them conclude that the Chinese language was a main culprit. The thousands of characters making the effective transmission of new ideas via print much more difficult, limiting the scope of the printing press's potential even though it was invented in China centuries earlier.

Further, I do not ignore the fact that people are often a product of their society, I just do not allow that to be used as an excuse. Abuse is abuse. Oppression, oppression. When either becomes significantly extensive and severe, loud condemnation and criticism is warranted. I'm also fine with culturally tailored change so long as its actual, substantive change and improvement. It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of us, but it does need to provide for basic human rights, civil liberties, and elected representative government. Anything less is not 'tailoring to the context', its allowing the context to excuse and justify oppression. Culture should not be allowed to neuter progress.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 00.29)

Didn't I mention that they probably don't want to talk to westerners about their true opinions of their government? You are already coming at them with your pre-existing opinions and attitudes already skewed towards a specific direction (away from theirs) and then you expect them to put down their nationalism to cater to your curiosity? Real life and real people don't work that way. I know it's hard to imagine this situation from the other point-of-view when you're from the "first world" country and they're from a country, which until the past couple of decades, didn't even have modern toilets in most homes.

In real life people do get defensive in the face of outside criticism, but informed, critical people acknowledge valid criticism and are open to honest discussion of it. There are alot of ignorant chest-thumpers in the US who will ignore all valid points and respond to any outside chastisement with hostility. But there are no shortage of well informed Americans who are even harsher critics and will acknowledge and intelligently discuss outside criticism when it arrives. Does China not have these sorts? The Chinese reaction you describe strikes me as excessive and unnecessary.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 00.29)

So you've made sweeping insults and now you're telling people they shouldn't feel offended. Right. Anyway, your analogy would be more accurate if you switched De Gaulle for Napoleon, etc. or you'd be missing the important parts of my argument.

Sweeping insults? Spare me.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 00.29)

I'm not telling you to stop. I'm telling you the reality of the situation. The reality that your disapproval, due to your high and mighty demeanor, will be ignored by those you profess to help. You provide empty criticism that's basically meaningless. It's like saying, "Man, it sucks to live in many African countries. Their tribal warfare should be put to an end and corruption should be stricken from their governments." No shit.

For the last time, I do have a competent grasp on the reality of the situation. There is nothing you've told me that I didn't already know.

Also, since when has criticism been empty and meaningless? Especially when its warranted, valid and justified? When a social undesirable gets his organs harvested (questionable accusation, but imprisonment without cause isn't) for no reason or a women gets stoned to death for the 'crime' of being raped, should we not express outrage? We're thousands of miles away after all, can't meaningfully affect the situation. Should we just shrug and move on because the locals might resent us pointing out this injustice, this outright barbarism? Are you telling me that the entire mission of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is pointless? Should they stop harping on these things because most people already know about them? Once a situation reaches 'no shit' levels, we all stop and move on to something else?

Fuck that noise. Oppression should be decried on every street corner, no matter where it arises, no matter who it offends. Grievous human rights violations should be shouted down from the damned rooftops. Pressure from governments, NGO's, and individuals should be incessant and relentless. Its not just righteous, its a godamned obligation of civilized peoples everywhere. Most peoples don't take well to outside criticism, but too godamned bad. You're gonna hear it, hear alot of it, and you fucking should.

Cause despite all of this pleasant rhetoric about changing at their own pace, in their own way, outside pressure works. Repressive regimes routinely bow to outside pressure and outrage in individual cases of cause celeb human rights issues. (clemency for various would be stoning victims for example) Regimes throughout the mideast have made promises or passed laws to appease western sensibilities and in response to international pressure. Sometimes they actually even enforce them! Apartheid died in part to near universal (Fuck you Dick Cheney) condemnation. You think the US couldn't force a fair (enough) 2 state solution down Israel's throat if we were completely united and committed towards doing just that? You think China couldn't force North Korea to be less of a bitchy nuisance in the same timespan?

Criticism is not empty. Condemnation not meaningless. We don't stop at the point of no shit, we keep damning and condemning until they get sick of hearing it, then continue even longer and louder until there is actual progress. We stop when the nearest intelligent alien life is saying 'no shit' and 'stop fucking saying that'.

QUOTE (Galactus @ Apr 22 2009, 01.45)

EHK: It's not a myopic world-view. It's one that makes perfect sense, because the people who are oppressing you, personally, aren't the king/national government (they might even be helpful) but local officials. It makes no sense to go after the king himself until the point where he is the only guy left oppressing you.

Local officials may be the most direct oppressor, but they're still just an arm of the beast. And sometimes when things get bad enough, wide enough it makes sense to address the bigger picture. But yeah, in an era of limited education and communication, the thug currently directly my taxes makes sense as the primary villain.

QUOTE (Roose Bolton's Pet Leech @ Apr 22 2009, 04.07)

Well, I don't know about you, but backing a three-way coalition of which the Khmer Rouge was the most prominent member, giving aid to Khmer Rouge refugees in Thailand after 1979, blocking the UN from recognising the post-1979 regime in Phnom Penh, and egging on China to do as much of the dirty work as possible in terms of helping out the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam counts as "supporting the Khmer Rouge" in my book.

Not an ideal situation. Our support was ostensibly and officially intended for the two other parties of the coalition, even though it also had the foreseeable and inevitable effect of helping the Khmer Rouge as well. Noone wanted the Khmer Rouge to come to power, except maybe China. There was hope that if the Vietnamese proxy was defeated, that the other two coalition members could quickly marginalize the Khmer Rouge. We had supported the previous Cambodian government (Nol?) in their war effort against the Khmer Rouge after all. (I do believe Vietnam was supporting the KR at that time, fucked up situation) Too much of it was old school Cold War politics, premised on punishing, draining, and hopefully destabilizing Vietnam and by extension (since they were a key ally in the region) hurting Soviet interests.

As for the UN thing, the Phnom Penh government were Vietnamese puppets, the product of invasion, and we weren't on terribly good terms with them. Of course the UN is supposed to recognize de facto realities and seat governments on that basis and thus this should not have happened. But its hardly the first time the UN has done so primarily at our urging nor was it done out of any love or support for the Khmer Rouge, though it did have that effect.

But when you get right down to it, yeah our efforts had the effect of directly aiding the Khmer Rouge, we knew that it would and did, and did it anyway. Fair enough.

QUOTE (Bill Starbuck @ Apr 22 2009, 07.34)

EHK,

I don't know the system that exists that effectively prevents abuse. I'm not sure I'm acquainted with the system that comes close.

The goal isn't absence of abuse, but a system where the potential for extreme abuse is as limited as possible.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 22 2009, 09.41)

Our efforts in funding the alliance were to bolster the strength of Sihanouk and Son Sann forces. We were absolutely against the Thai effort's to fund the Khmer Rouge because it was counter productive to our strengthening the opposition forces.

Egging on China? What is your evidence for this?

There are articles, but you may as well get it from the horses mouth. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could."

I've looked for other context to expand upon that quote but couldn't find any. However absent some significant context or clarification, the quote itself is pretty damning. Carter's own National Security adviser. Also those other two forces were in a 3 way coalition with the Khmer Rouge by far the dominant military power. Naturally we'd prefer either of those two prevail if any of them did, but our resources absolutely went in part to the Khmer Rouge and we knew it would.

Tracked down the original source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956883-1,00.html

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot," recalled Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Adviser, in 1981. "Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could." The U.S., he added, "winked semipublicly" as the Chinese funneled arms to the Khmer Rouge, using Thailand as a conduit.

QUOTE (TerraPrime @ Apr 22 2009, 10.01)

I think there can be different kinds of corruptions. You can have the bribes, where someone pays (monetary or otherwise) an official to expedite something or to give them a contract. You can have the officials circumventing established laws for their own benefits. You can also have the central government setting up bad policies that harm the citizens.

I think you overstate the level and extent of corruption in the US, especially in comparison to most other countries. There are places where corruption is a matter of course at all levels of government and business. Major US corporations constantly complain about the rather robust and unique anti-bribery laws in the US that apply to them in their dealings with foreign nations. They object that it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that can and do bribe with impunity. They fought to get the allowance of 'grease money' included for somewhat legitimate fear that they'd be unable to do business otherwise. The US is to my knowledge one of the few that has robust and enforced laws of this nature.

Bribery in many nations is not just accepted, its often expected and even necessary. There exists a culture of rampant corruption that simply is not seen to any significant degree in the US. At least not near the same extent and severity. Citizens or tourists might see themselves expected to provide small bribes to every manner of government official to get out of a minor criminal issue, to get access to various services that they're supposed to be entitled to, or to get access to those things in anything approaching a timely manner. Societies from Mexico, other parts of Latin America, various African countries, and yes to some extent China have this in abundance. Your ordinary citizen isn't gonna offer $20 to get out of a speeding ticket and they'd be shocked and appalled if a cop made such a request or demand. It is not SOP at most levels and sectors of business and government in the US.

We do, arguably, have legalized corruption in the form of campaign contributions. But those are heavily regulated, their sources typically identified, and the proceeds generally not pocketed by candidates. We also have a press and watchdog groups (usually more the latter these days) always on the lookout for serious conflicts of interest. The outright, boldfaced political bribe, Blagoyovich style is a rather rare thing. Much more common with low level politicians, but certainly not epidemic.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 22 2009, 10.05)

However, EHK, you've written words that can easily be construed as offensive and meant to cause insult. What frustrates me is that when called out, you neither clarified nor apologized.

I've clarified as much as I'm going to bother to. Its clear enough at this point and anything further is simply redundant. I will not apologize as I have nothing to apologize for. Barbaric could absolutely be construed as insulting. Countries that do not provide democratic government, routinely suppress civil liberties, and grievously violate human rights on a large scale are, at least in those respects, barbaric. So if its an insult that fits...wear it. Or quit doing those fucking things and join the civilized world.

You keep talking about this need to acknowledge cultural differences, where have I refused to do this? You say I need to have understanding, where have I demonstrated that I do not? I've got them both in boatloads. However all the acknowledgment and understanding in the world doesn't make autocracy any less thuggish, suppression of civil liberties any more tolerable, nor human rights violations any less outrageous. I'm absolutely baffled as to what you're expecting. What qualifies as proper understanding? What do I need to do to demonstrate it to your satisfaction? Prettying up the language? Use of more neutered, less provocative terms? Is that the source of your rather repetitive accusations?