Comments on: French Feminists: President’s Speech A “Slap In The Face” To Islamic Women

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:51:54 +0000

Disregard my last post–wrong article.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:47:14 +0000

Spartacus, you are missing my point. I stated upfront we painfully examine our own mistakes. Its the nature of an open democracy and politically pluralist society. What Im saying is the belief in American exceptionalism is related directly to the belief in political pluralism on the international stage which means we aim to settle disputes peacefully since we agree upon common values. And by American exceptionalism, I define this as this country having a unique place in history since were the first modern democracy, and that the values we hold dear (freedom, self-determination, rule of law, etc) have endured through the test of time. And as I pointed out in my last post, weve shed blood to protect those values not only for ourselves, but others as well. It does not mean we think we hold the absolute truths to everything. But pluralism is different than multi-culturalism (the belief no one culture is better than anyone else since all cultures have problems. Therefore, all values must be held up as equal). For pluralism to take root, you must lay down a few ground rules to make co-existence possible because civilized nations at least agree that co-existence and tolerance is preferable over war and conquest. Yes, there will be disagreements, but its understood other nations will generally pursue their interests peacefully by negotiating in good faith. You wont avoid all violent clashes, but you strive to reduce the intensity and number of them. In multi-culturalisms case, you ultimately undercut peaceful co-existence because you cannot defend that tolerance (i.e., religious freedom) is better than intolerance (i.e., converting people to religion forcefully) since you’ve already given up the moral high ground by stating all cultural values are equal. This is happening in Europe now–their embrace of multi-culturalism has warped the very nature of democracy (i.e., sharia law in Great Britain). If you do not believe in American exceptionalism, you then do not think we should promote religious freedom or democracy thru even peaceful means. A multi-culturalist (i.e., moral relativist) would say because women have not always been free in America, we have no place to tell other nations how to treat their women. While women in this country have fought for equal opportunity and equal pay, this is NOT the same as fighting against honor killings or female genital mutilation. To try and compare these two situations and say it is the same condition is absolutely absurd. One is clearly morally preferable to the other in my view. I view multi-culturalism/moral relativism as anti-reason, and ultimately nihilistic.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:10:22 +0000

danbmil99: The U.S. didn't help overthrow the Mossadegh regime because we wanted to impose our own values on the populace. It was to avenge Mossadegh's nationalization of the British oil companies, and return control of the oil to an Anglo-American cartel.

Also, the Brits, seeking to entice the U.S. into staging a coup, lied to the U.S. that Mossadegh's Iran was going to become a Soviet satellite (which was false). But at a time when the Korean War was just winding down, the idea that Iran would go communist if the U.S. didn't step in proved politically popular.

The reason for overthrowing Chile was to prevent another Marxist regime in South America.

We can disagree with the geopolitical thinking that went into these decisions. But it absolutely nothing to do with "bringing Western-style democracy" to those countries. In fact, the U.S. was quite content to have authoritarian regimes running them (the Shah and Pinochet respectively), as long as they were pro-U.S.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:32:24 +0000

“If we want Afghanistan to have full equality between men and women, then let’s design a roadmap to do that in slow, easy to take steps, say over a period of 50 years.”So, I guess that means no gay marriage over there for a while? (or maybe it’s like Iran, with no homosexual ‘problem’!)

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:29:04 +0000

sinz: Let me be clear. I have no problem with America stating that our principles and way of life are great. I believe that, and frankly I believe most of our so-called enemies actually believe it too, at some level.

What is abhorrent and unworkable, as you point out, is to try to force our better way down people's throats with guns, bombs, and occupation. The history of mankind has shown this to be an exceedingly risky and difficult proposition, even if it is at times morally defensible. It is almost always seen as aggression by the recipient of such gunboat diplomacy. It has the unwanted effect of pushing those who might want change to have to 'defend their homeland' or be called traitors. It empowers the same forces of totalitarianism we wish to overcome -- they can justifiably claim martial law, and paint themselves as reasonable leaders responding to foreign interlopers.

You seem to know history, because as you point out imperialism only ever 'worked' (if you are of the opinion that it was justified and worthwhile) when the occupier was willing to go the whole 9 yards, and see the project through to completion. Even then, it seems to me that a good proportion of what would have to be called failed states in the world are places where imperialism was tried, sometimes for more than a century. In the end, the will of a people to be recognized as sovereign seems so strong that it just can't be broken, at least not in a single lifetime.

And so there we are, and this gives context to Obama's 'apology' for things like the 1950's interference in Iran. (I wonder what he'll say if he gets to Chile?)

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:34:29 +0000

dragonlady sez: "I think it's perfectly compatible with US interests to press that women at least not be treated like sub-humans, for example, in Afghanistan, where little girls get acid thrown in their faces for attending school."

So do I.
But as conservatives, you and I should believe in gradual and orderly progress, not radical progress. Stopping women from being physically abused is OK. Pushing to remake Afghanistan into a Western democracy is questionable.

Bush crowed over how women have achieved equality with men in Afghanistan. For example, women in the government now debate freely with men in the government. But that really irritates traditionalist tribesmen, who still believe that a woman's place is in the home.

Even many men in America, one of the most advanced societies on earth, still believed that a woman's place was in the home as recently as a few decades ago. To try to remake Afghanistan (the most backward society on earth) as feminists would like every country to be is pushing too far, too fast, and too hard.

If we want Afghanistan to have full equality between men and women, then let's design a roadmap to do that in slow, easy to take steps, say over a period of 50 years.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:27:37 +0000

danbmil99 sez: "What they really wanted to do was to shift the allegiance of members of another tribe to *our* tribe. That's why it seems so abhorrent and aggressive"

No, that in itself shouldn't repel you.

I want America to believe in its own principles of freedom and open markets, and to proclaim to the world that those ideas are more moral and work better than tyranny and command economies. We always did. Radio Free Europe did. Reagan did. JFK did. Even FDR did some of that, with his Atlantic Charter.

Shifting allegiances by persuasion and example is something everybody across the political spectrum should agree with, with the exception of extremists who just don't think America deserves any friends.

But attempting to impose democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq by military force is unworkable--unless, as the British Empire did, we're prepared to stay there till the extremists die of old age or something.

We originally invaded Afghanistan to destroy the top leadership of al-Qaeda. We weren't entirely successful. But Bush made the decision to stay in Afghanistan to civilize the country, on the theory that terrorism doesn't flourish in democratic nations. I would like to ask Bush if all the Islamic terrorist bombing plots in Britain (some successful, some not), now numbering in the *hundreds* according to MI-6, refutes his theory. Or the horrific terrorist attacks in India, that go back many years.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:44:44 +0000

midcon: "The Bush Administration's problem was one of arrogance to think that they would "liberate" the world from their tribal and barbaric practices. The shining light upon the hill would elevate them to true civilization."

What's ironic here is that Bush and the neocon's concept of American exceptionalism is a prime example of exactly the kind of tribalism you are complaining about. What they really wanted to do was to shift the allegiance of members of another tribe to *our* tribe. That's why it seems so abhorrent and aggressive to so many outside the bubble of American neo-conservative rhetoric.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:02:16 +0000

ottovbvs, I don’t think you really understand American conservative women. Unlike the leftist feminists, we do not buy into the multicultural view that what happens to women in other societies is somehow equal to how women live freely in ours. Far from calling these women femi-Nazis, we simply do not believe in female genital mutilation, honor killings, that woman are forced not to go to school, or have no rights if her husband chooses to divorce her. I’m not asking for these societies to become Jeffersonian democracies. But I think it’s perfectly compatible with US interests to press that women at least not be treated like sub-humans, for example, in Afghanistan, where little girls get acid thrown in their faces for attending school.

By: Jan

Jan — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:48 +0000

“To say that one wears the veil voluntarily does not efface the humiliation that it signifies for all women.”And your point is that the social pressure makes the ‘voluntarily’ questionable. I feel the same way about abortion.