posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 09:29 PM
I guess it's time for the Truman Doctrine to come into affect yet again... It is rather peculiar how American political organizations have a
proclivity for producing military doctrines, which assure that their actions are in the best interest of the world, and further insure them against
any mistake they could possibly make (all actions, whether mistaken or not, are in the name of freedom after all).
The Monroe Doctrine was equally as irresponsible. But I guess nation building was the cool thing to do back then. Deterministic democracies could find
any justification they needed for whatever imperial ambitions they had historically pursued. They were after all spreading their ideas of liberty,
which were completely morally incontestable and the promise of freedom from oppressive agents (only some members of the subjugated societies actually
benefited by this pursuit; more people would be better off with less liberty under existing social structures).
The idea goes that if a nation is eudaemonic-inspired then it surely must be morally right in all its actions! Then again, in some parts of the world
eudaemonic agents aren't the best replicators for cultural success in evolutionary terms. I'm thinking Islam is an example where human populations
and their cultures are reproductively more successful pursuing a lack of happiness as opposed to a standard of nation building concentrated on
improving the quality of life, promoting liberty and pursuing happiness.
The world has to find other means of reversing these societies, if that is actually their intention. As of now, the only strategies we have pursued
involved the subjugation of certain unfavorable elements of those societies, by removing their leadership, invading them militarily, diminishing their
economic and governmental abilities, and strategically upsetting regional power balances. If our only course of action is through war or occupation
then these non eudaemonic-inspired societies will inevitably regress into a monster, which perpetually breeds terrorism, racial hatred, and ultimately
The only way, in my opinion, to reverse these systems is through the peace process, however, that can't EVER be established unless they are allowed
to play out their own wars for national sovereignty. For all of the history of the Middle East in contact with the West, starting with the British in
the 19th century, we have made the mistake of ousting political and social institutions, which are not aligned with our own, through the use of
military or assassins. We have been killing unfavorable rulers in the Middle East with assassins ever since many of those countries have gained
independence, as the facade that was the U.N. Mandate system could no longer be sustained without suspicion on behalf of the local populations that it
was all a trap to subjugate the economic resources of those countries.
The peace process can only arise when national sovereignty is clearly defined by all countries in those regions based on existing millenia of historic
ideology. If it is determined by the Middle East (I'm not excluding Israel here) that Israel must be dismantled (obviously Israel wouldn't vote
against itself) then the world should simply accept. I doubt the elimination of Israel would ever be necessary. We can't force the Middle East to
accept certain nations' existence. Most of all, we can't just accept that a non-changing, non-dynamic Israeli power structure and national border
can be maintained. It's an illusion. It should be shifted in compliance with Palestinian desires as well as those of other countries in the region.
The only reason they want to destroy Israel is that they don't believe it's legitimate. Middle Easterners throw around threats like it's nothing.
It's part of their culture. If Israeli legitimacy is defined, and Palestinians gain some type of autonomy, then threats of nuking Israel will
disappear altogether. They're empty threats, that's it. We can't possibly understand them. They speak another language, their semantic systems are
totally different than ours.
I can't outrage more over the BBC, with their attitude that Israel is unchangeable and immutable and that Palestine must go immediately into peace
discussions with out at first addressing that huge chunk of land directly interfering with their own national self determination and desire for
political and economic autonomy.
[edit on 8-1-2009 by cognoscente]