Liberal Hypocrisy at its finest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Blueskye2 said:

*shrug* I'm not a political scientist, but my gut feel on this, is that isolating regimes and countries doesn't work. See North Korea, which uses isolationism to further misinform and oppress its citizens.

Isolationism is only part of North Korea oppresses it's citizens. Have you read "Nothing to Envy" by Barbra Demick?

[Blueskye2]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Isolationism is only part of North Korea oppresses it's citizens. Have you read "Nothing to Envy" by Barbra Demick?

I have not, but I do watch a lot of documentaries. Have you seen Kimjongilia?

I agree that isolationism is only a part, but it demonstrates how regimes use it to further their power over those they rule. It helps to enable human rights violations on a pretty massive scale.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

*shrug* I'm not a political scientist, but my gut feel on this, is that isolating regimes and countries doesn't work. See North Korea, which uses isolationism to further misinform and oppress its citizens.

We're not isolating regimes.  They are isolating themselves.  This is the issue. 

The problem with North Korea is not that they are isolated.  The problem with North Korea is the regime forces their citizens to isolate themselves and China empowers them. 

The problem with the Berlin Wall is not that it is used to prevent the West from entering the East.  It is that it is used to prevent the East from entering the West.  You don't break down the Berlin Wall by telling the leaders of East Germany, yes, we will go to the East and conform to your oppressive laws so you don't have to go to the West.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I agree that isolationism is only a part, but it demonstrates how regimes use it to further their power over those they rule. It helps to enable human rights violations on a pretty massive scale.

Oh we agree on that. Their human rights record is without question the worst in the world. Tragic and heartbreaking what those citizens have to deal with. 

I haven't seen the movie. I also enjoy documentaries though. 

[Blueskye2]

Just now, anatess2 said:

We're not isolating regimes.  They are isolating themselves.  This is the issue. 

The problem with North Korea is not that they are isolated.  The problem with North Korea is the regime forces their citizens to isolate themselves.  The problem with the Berlin Wall is not that it is used to prevent the West from entering the East.  It is that it is used to prevent the East from entering the West.  You don't break down the Berlin Wall by telling the leaders of East Germany, yes, we will go to the East so you don't have to go to the West.

I think we should not act to enable isolationism. 

[anatess2]

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

I think we should not act to enable isolationism. 

And we should not act to enable oppression.

[Blueskye2]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And we should not act to enable oppression.

Indeed. That is why I say, I'm not a political scientist. There is a balance, that has multiple factors, that are not uniform for all regimes or issues. Wayyyy outside of my skill set!

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

*shrug* I'm not a political scientist, but my gut feel on this, is that isolating regimes and countries doesn't work. See North Korea, which uses isolationism to further misinform and oppress its citizens.

Who said anything about Isolating?  They still travel. They still visit other countries.  They have the internet.  They have books from around the world.  They still participate in tournaments around the world.  Why are you so quick to place the label "isolationist" to this discussion?

[Blueskye2]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Who said anything about Isolating?  They still travel. They still visit other countries.  They have the internet.  They have books from around the world.  They still participate in tournaments around the world.  Why are you so quick to place the label "isolationist" to this discussion?

Free, to a point where they are not. As you pointed out, in Iran, things are tightly controlled. The internet is not open, people are arrested and imprisoned for what they post on the internet. Books are censored (banned). Opposition is suppressed. Tournaments are restricted for women, based on not being able to wear particular sportwear. 

Iran are isolationist to a point where it serves the level of oppression they hope to maintain. Which, as Anatess has pointed out, there is leverage, and it is because they are isolationists only to a point. It is that point that can be worked. The risk is that the point moves toward further isolationism. With Iran, I think they have demonstrated that they are willing to tighten down (see 1979), while simultaneously, they demonstrate they want the benefits of interacting with the West.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Free, to a point where they are not. As you pointed out, in Iran, things are tightly controlled. The internet is not open, people are arrested and imprisoned for what they post on the internet. Books are censored (banned). Opposition is suppressed. Tournaments are restricted for women, based on not being able to wear particular sportwear. 

Iran are isolationist to a point where it serves the level of oppression they hope to maintain. Which, as Anatess has pointed out, there is leverage, and it is because they are isolationists only to a point. It is that point that can be worked. The risk is that the point moves toward further isolationism. With Iran, I think they have demonstrated that they are willing to tighten down (see 1979), while simultaneously, they demonstrate they want the benefits of interacting with the West.

A lot of people from that area of the world want "modernization" without "westernization". They want more modern medical care and technology-but want us to keep what they think is immoral behavior (women who don't wear burkas, pesky free speech laws, etc)  

[Blueskye2]

Just now, MormonGator said:

A lot of people from that area of the world want "modernization" without "westernization". They want more modern medical care and technology-but want us to keep what they think is immoral behavior (women who don't wear burkas, pesky free speech laws, etc)  

Yes, to the OP and women rights, they want modernization that benefits men. Not the westernization that benefits women.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Yes, to the OP and women rights, they want modernization that benefits men. Not the westernization that benefits women.

We agree totally. I'm very nervous about growing religious fundamentalism because it troubles my generally liberal social views. Sadly, a lot of fundamentalist religions aren't very open to gay marriage or abortion rights-much less other rights of women. 

[Blueskye2]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree totally. I'm very nervous about growing religious fundamentalism because it troubles my generally liberal social views. Sadly, a lot of fundamentalist religions aren't very open to gay marriage or abortion rights-much less other rights of women. 

*shrug* Both are done deals. Neither is going backward. I'm all for ongoing dialogue and support protestors on both ends of the scale, because it is their right to protest and speak out. Personally, they are non-issues for me when I vote, because honestly, Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned and no one is going to strip people of their right to marry, now that they are married. It's like the ACA, lots of people want it to go away but the reality is, that isn't going to happen. Rework, modify, strengthen, weaken, is the battle now.

As a side note, I was in DC on 911, at the Capitol steps. It was a surreal day, where my family and I got parked in a park, next to the Capitol. There was a Muslim woman there, with her son, telling everyone who would listen that the US will always be under attack by Islamic states (as in countries, not IS), as long as abortion is legal in the US. I snuck a pic of her and sent it to the FBI via their website. I'm not joking!

I am personally, pro-life, because I think it is the logical thing to be (another discussion for another day). But certainly, I'm not militant. I'm not a protesting, marching, kind of person. Never have marched in my life. But I'd march for the right of a woman to choose, if it were packaged as religious law to not, i.e. Sharia or a Christian likeness of Sharia. I'm all for separation of religion and state, along with the rights of individuals to vote according to their conscience. 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Yes, to the OP and women rights, they want modernization that benefits men. Not the westernization that benefits women.

This is not quite accurate.

The Ottoman Empire was a progressive society.  Yes, hijabs/burqas were worn - but this is not something they do because they are forced to, it is something they do because they want to as they take pride in their religious convictions (in the same manner that we wear garments).  But as progressive as they are - they have entirely different traditions than the West and even different traditions than the Far East.  In the Far East, women ride in the back of the car and never drove themselves because they are revered.  Just like in the Mid East.  The women want this.  The West did not interfere with this culture as much as they did the Mid East.

The problem happened in WWI when the West imposed their traditions on the East as they overthrew the Ottomans out of power.  The resentment the Ottomans had for the West caused them to mistrust anything from the West, especially their culture and traditions.  This happened in the Far East as well when Japan lost the war.  But instead of the West imposing their culture on Japan, Japan closed themselves - isolated themselves totally, including economically - from the West.  They rebuilt themselves from within through intense social introspection so that they came out of it ridding themselves of their harmful traditions but keeping their inherent culture taking some good things from the West to add to it.  This never happened in the Middle East.  WWII and the formation of Israel just made them mistrust the West more as the West fumbled a lot of their promises to the Ottomans.  Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs - as has been the foreign policy of the US since WWII -  just made things worse.  The US ousting the Iranian Prime Minister then throwing support to the dictatorial Shah for his progressiveness just caused the Iranians to revolt and throw their support to the clerics and finally coming to a head in 1979 causing Iran to swiftly whiplash from a progressive society to an ultra-traditional society of the Middle Ages.  The Iranian people has been suffering ever since.

How to bring the Iranians back to proper cultural balance?  Try to convince the clerics that they can go back to secular leadership without losing their religious culture.  Women will choose to wear hijabs because they have pride in their religious convictions, not because they are forced to.  Look at the Mormons and their garments... Easy to say.  Tough to do.  But supporting the people that are trying to make that happen instead of the people that are preventing it from happening is a good step in the right direction.

 

[Blueskye2]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not quite accurate.

The Ottoman Empire was a progressive society.  Yes, hijabs/burqas were worn - but this is not something they do because they are forced to, it is something they do because they want to as they take pride in their religious convictions (in the same manner that we wear garments).  But as progressive as they are - they have entirely different traditions than the West and even different traditions than the Far East.  In the Far East, women ride in the back of the car and never drove themselves because they are revered.  Just like in the Mid East.  The women want this.  The West did not interfere with this culture as much as they did the Mid East.

The problem happened in WWI when the West imposed their traditions on the East as they overthrew the Ottomans out of power.  The resentment the Ottomans had for the West caused them to mistrust anything from the West, especially their culture and traditions.  This happened in the Far East as well when Japan lost the war.  But instead of the West imposing their culture on Japan, Japan closed themselves - isolated themselves totally, including economically - from the West.  They rebuilt themselves from within through intense social introspection so that they came out of it ridding themselves of their harmful traditions but keeping their inherent culture taking some good things from the West to add to it.  This never happened in the Middle East.  WWII and the formation of Israel just made them mistrust the West more as the West fumbled a lot of their promises to the Ottomans.  Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs - as has been the foreign policy of the US since WWII -  just made things worse.  The US ousting the Iranian Prime Minister then throwing support to the dictatorial Shah for his progressiveness just caused the Iranians to revolt and throw their support to the clerics and finally coming to a head in 1979 causing Iran to swiftly whiplash from a progressive society to an ultra-traditional society of the Middle Ages.  The Iranian people has been suffering ever since.

How to bring the Iranians back to proper cultural balance?  Try to convince the clerics that they can go back to secular leadership without losing their religious culture.  Women will choose to wear hijabs because they have pride in their religious convictions, not because they are forced to.  Look at the Mormons and their garments... Easy to say.  Tough to do.  But supporting the people that are trying to make that happen instead of the people that are preventing it from happening is a good step in the right direction.

 

Some women would cover themselves in pride, others may not want to, as many Muslim women in the East do not cover their heads. Western ideal is that women should have the choice. This is what the oppressive religious government in Iran is against. The freedom to choose. Rather, they want to dictate what a woman wears or doesn't wear.

There is currently a movement in Saudi Arabia, of women who want to drive. Shocking! I know.

Not all Muslim women are the same.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Some women would wear cover themselves in pride, others may not want to, as many Muslim women in the East do not cover their heads. Western ideal is that women should have the choice. This is what the oppressive religious government in Iran is against. The freedom to choose. Rather, they want to dictate what a woman wears or doesn't wear.

Yes.  That's not part of Iranian culture.  That only happened back in 1979 when the clerics took power.  Remember, Iran is not an Arab country.  Therefore, the Iranian people are victims of such power.  As a Western culture, we can either side with the Iranian people or side with the clerics.  But yes, if it was Saudi Arabia that's a different story.  Saudi Arabia has always had Sharia Law all throughout their history.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

@Blueskye2, I have a feeling you're going to like this exchange between Rubio and Tillerson.  This is what I was talking about regarding the Ottoman Empire.  Back in the 1800's, the Ottomans were heading in the same progressive direction as the British.  WWI threw that progress back into swift reversal.  In this exchange, it is apparent that Rubio does not understand this concept of progress having to be made by the Saudis instead of forced on the Saudis.  Rubio represents the foreign policy of the west so far.  Tillerson's perspective is a new perspective for US foreign policy.  This is why I am an avid fan of Tillerson as Sec of State.  But this is Saudi Arabia.  Iran is a different story although it came about through the same US foreign policy. 

 

 

[Blueskye2]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

@Blueskye2, I have a feeling you're going to like this exchange between Rubio and Tillerson.  This is what I was talking about regarding the Ottoman Empire.  Back in the 1800's, the Ottomans were heading in the same progressive direction as the British.  WWI threw that progress back into swift reversal.  In this exchange, it is apparent that Rubio does not understand this concept of progress having to be made by the Saudis instead of forced on the Saudis.  Rubio represents the foreign policy of the west so far.  Tillerson's perspective is a new perspective for US foreign policy.  This is why I am an avid fan of Tillerson as Sec of State.  But this is Saudi Arabia.  Iran is a different story although it came about through the same US foreign policy. 

 

 

haha, I'll watch it later. Have to get some work done. But Marco Rubio...he makes me laugh just reading his name. 

I'm still waiting to see what the Trump foreign policy actually is. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

haha, I'll watch it later. Have to get some work done. But Marco Rubio...he makes me laugh just reading his name. 

I'm still waiting to see what the Trump foreign policy actually is. 

4 minutes and a few seconds watching the video will give you flavor of what the Trump foreign policy is shaping out to be which is no different so far than the foreign policy that he has laid out in the campaign.  I had a thread I started somewhere on mormonhub discussing it from last year.  This entire interview is actually 10 minutes and some change long - they had a powwow over the Philippines too.

[Blueskye2]

On 2/23/2017 at 1:09 PM, anatess2 said:

4 minutes and a few seconds watching the video will give you flavor of what the Trump foreign policy is shaping out to be which is no different so far than the foreign policy that he has laid out in the campaign.  I had a thread I started somewhere on mormonhub discussing it from last year.  This entire interview is actually 10 minutes and some change long - they had a powwow over the Philippines too.

Watch ed, it's less than 3 minutes long. Anyway, it was a politician answering questions by not answering the questions. Says nothing.

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Watch ed, it's less than 3 minutes long. Anyway, it was a politician answering questions by not answering the questions. Says nothing.

Really?  That's what you got out of it?  By the way, Tillerson has never held political office by the time of this interview.  He started his political career a few weeks after this interview when the Senate confirmed him to Secretary of State.

In those 3 minutes, he was very succinct in his position that it is not to the best interest of Saudi Arabia nor the US to be classifying them human rights violators just because they have a different culture that have been in place for centuries.  Rather, it is better to look at how they are progressing towards adoption of human rights that equal the west and work towards aiding them in that progress.

It's hard for me to understand how you missed that.

[Blueskye2]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  That's what you got out of it?  By the way, Tillerson has never held political office by the time of this interview.  He started his political career a few weeks after this interview when the Senate confirmed him to Secretary of State.

In those 3 minutes, he was very succinct in his position that it is not to the best interest of Saudi Arabia nor the US to be classifying them human rights violators just because they have a different culture that have been in place for centuries.  Rather, it is better to look at how they are progressing towards adoption of human rights that equal the west and work towards aiding them in that progress.

It's hard for me to understand how you missed that.

Rubio asked if Saudi Arabia was committing human rights violations. Tillerson did not answer that question, yes or no, not once. He answered some other unknown question that wasn't asked.

Hard for me to understand how you miss diversion and aversion. I also think it naive to believe that Tillerson was not playing politics at his confirmation hearing.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

23 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Watch ed, it's less than 3 minutes long. Anyway, it was a politician answering questions by not answering the questions. Says nothing.

In his defense, it wasnt a particularly helpful question.  How can SecState create a working relationship with the Saudis after having started his time in the public eye by labeling them a human rights violator?

Rubio is either a naif, was more concerned with scoring a soundbyte that would play well back home, or was making a deliberate attempt to forestall any Saudi-American rapprochement during the Trump administration.

[Mike]

Quote

 @anatess2 : Tillerson's perspective is a new perspective for US foreign policy. 

How is this perspective new? It sounds a lot like the way the US has traditionally approached countries with human rights violations (or anti-democratic regimes, drug lords, etc.) because said countries had something else the US wanted more than respect for human rights (or democracy, rule of law). Whether it's right, wrong, pragmatic, short-sighted, etc., isn't my point. My point is merely that it isn't new. 

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In those 3 minutes, he was very succinct in his position that it is not to the best interest of Saudi Arabia nor the US to be classifying them human rights violators just because they have a different culture that have been in place for centuries.

This seems a blatantly obvious statement -- at least to anyone who isn't a leftist, I suppose.

Leftists understand that their worldview is The One True View, and that those who do not accept it are ignorant. No, not merely ignorant; such people are evil, and must be silenced or destroyed. Saudi Arabia has an ancient culture that divides men's and women's worlds into different spheres of social activity and views their respective roles through ancient, non-Western eyes? Fine, then. Saudi Arabia must be destroyed. We must have no dealings with such monsters.

I keep hoping that Trump and his administration will prove to be the grown-ups in charge that our country has so sorely missed for the last eight years. Maybe they will be.