September 12, 2002
10:10 AM   Subscribe

"You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for others. That is what the Western world -- not only the Americans, the Western world -- has to realize. Because they (the have-nots) are human beings too. There are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 [or] 30 years from now... I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the poor world. And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien reflects on September 11th, and not all Canadians agree with him.
posted by tranquileye (65 comments total)
 
Why do so many idiots think that Chretien is defending the actions of terrorists? It's pretty clear that he isn't.
posted by Fabulon7 at 10:23 AM on September 12, 2002


"And I said that day...'When you're (as) powerful (as) you are, you guys, it's the time to be nice'."

Any more explanatory prepositions you want to throw in there?
posted by goethean at 10:49 AM on September 12, 2002


look, he's right. the so-called 'war on terrorism' is not going to be won through the means ole Bush wants to use.

Bomb/kill/attack countries, towns, cities, finding and killing 'terrorists', and what do you get?

The newly dead have sons, brothers, fathers, cousins and friends, to whom you've only confirmed your arrogance, giving you another, future generation of terrorists, who have even LESS to loose than the originals.

The 'war on terrorism' may make the next 5-10 years 'safe', good luck in 15-20...
posted by jkaczor at 10:50 AM on September 12, 2002


Fabulon7: "If she hadn't been wearing that provocatively short skirt, she wouldn't have been raped."

Is that defending the rapist? Not in so many words, but it edges close enough to make most people very uncomfortable.

The other problem is that like many others, including many here on MeFi, Chretien seems to be projecting his own gripes with Americans onto al Qaeda, rather than understanding what al Qaeda really wants.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:51 AM on September 12, 2002


Slithy_Tove, I probably agree with you in spirit, but I don't think the rape analogy holds. Using that scenario, the US is guilty of nothing else than being a convenient target. Take it for what you will, but Chretien is clearly saying the US (and Western) actions have been harmful to the rest of the world. So while I agree that he projecting his own worries about the West onto the actions of the terrorists, the analogy you give does not fit his words.
posted by cell divide at 10:54 AM on September 12, 2002


"We're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits."

No matter what we do, there will always be those who hate us just because we are richer. The smart ones will emulate us, and become (relatively) richer themselves, while the self-destructive ones will whine and blow up civilians and otherwise remain poor and backward. The only long-term way to win this "war" is to somehow teach the people of the world that freedom and democracy are in their best interest. If this war is won, it will be through the spread of western media and western culture, not through force. In the short term, of course, force is necessary.
posted by callmejay at 10:57 AM on September 12, 2002


Silthy: To continue that awful analogy, this is more like the victim expaining the rape, because he's not just talking about the USA, he's talking about Canada too, and Europe. "If I don't want to be raped, I had better stop wearing these short skirts," is closer to what's going on here, and if you want to say, "I don't think that's true, Mr. Prime Minister," that's fine, but to say "You're defending rape, sir." is baseless and wrong and shows a blinding lack of comprehension.
posted by Fabulon7 at 10:59 AM on September 12, 2002


I think that it's admirable that Chretien went out on a limb and criticized not only America, but Canada and the entire Western world as well.

I think he's right: we are arrogant and we don't know what effect that has on those who aren't as fortunate.

Slithy_tove, nowhere in that article did he say that Al-Qaeda was justified in what they have done, he's just saying that he understands the possible reasons why it was done. You can't deny that arrogance is one, though by no means the only way of describing the West.

As they say, it takes two to tango...the West is not blameless.
posted by ashbury at 11:02 AM on September 12, 2002


Regardless of what Al Qaeda or any other extremist movement anywhere in the world wants, Chretien has a valid point. I have been extremely disapointed in the lack of a voice in world politics making this point. The corporate controlled US government is a bully. The recent ultra-violence in our schools is a perfect example of what happens when the "in" group bully the "out" group and the "out" group gets pissed and gets weapons - I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS SORT OF REACTION - I'm merely saying, that it happens. The current government strategy to cure the whole problem is even more bullying... when does this end? How can it end in this scenario until one group dominates the world... Oh wait, never mind.
posted by dorcas at 11:05 AM on September 12, 2002


Why do so many idiots think that Chretien is defending the actions of terrorists? It's pretty clear that he isn't.
you answered your own question, they're idiots. always the loudest and first in line to give their opinion, especially for online "add your voice" features.

Any more explanatory prepositions you want to throw in there?
heh, yah. well, english isn't his first language.

"If she hadn't been wearing that provocatively short skirt, she wouldn't have been raped."
"if he hadn't kept poking that dog with a stick, it wouldn't have bit him" is more like it.
posted by t r a c y at 11:06 AM on September 12, 2002


If this war is won, it will be through the spread of western media and western culture, not through force. In the short term, of course, force is necessary.
Are you arguing that the world will be a better place when everyone accepts McDonald's and AOL-Time-Warner and SUVs and the endless pursuit of more money and unswerving individualism? Are you saying that we are justified to kill people until they accept those things?
posted by Fabulon7 at 11:06 AM on September 12, 2002


Apologies for the grammar--edited, meant to hit preview again, hit post instead. Oops.
posted by Fabulon7 at 11:07 AM on September 12, 2002


No matter what we do, there will always be those who hate us just because we are richer.

That is true, but I would argue that this segment of the population is negligble. The people who have actually been affected by Western support for anti-democratic dictators, despots, and thugs, Western arms dealing, Western mis-use of natural resources, and Western meddling in other countries' affairs for their own profits will always be greater. It is one thing to realize that much of the world is ignorant; it is quite another to chose ignorance of your own country's actions and brushing aside those with legitimate complaints as 'jealous'.

Of course, I don't include any terrorist in any of this. I don't know what their motivations are, exactly, and unlike Chretien, I don't care. They lost their right to engage me in debate when they murdered innocent people. However intelligent people can separate the actions of terrorists from the opinions of reasonable people with legitimate complaints that ought to be addressed.
posted by cell divide at 11:09 AM on September 12, 2002


Are you arguing that the world will be a better place when everyone accepts McDonald's and AOL-Time-Warner and SUVs and the endless pursuit of more money and unswerving individualism?
Actually, yes. The values which have worked in America should work elsewhere, no? Obviously, SUVs are probably not going to be environmentally (or possibly economically) feasible in the long term. And as for everybody accepting McDonald's and AOL, it's actually just the opposite. Go to a supermarket in the US and you have like 50 different choices of breakfast cereal, for example. Repeat this experiment in a dictatorship.

Are you saying that we are justified to kill people until they accept those things?
No. Just until they stop trying to kill us.
posted by callmejay at 11:11 AM on September 12, 2002


Cretien voiced what many feel. He was simply saying that our actions as nations have consequences.

How could someone argue otherwise?

Cretien has become especially ballsy lately due to his announcement that he will resign in 2004 (if his party lets him stay that long).
posted by canucklehead at 11:13 AM on September 12, 2002


cell divide: don't even get started with who started murdering innocent people first...

Are they going to stop trying to kill us before we stop trying to kill them for trying to kill us...? (continue spiraling around tree until you turn into butter)
posted by dorcas at 11:18 AM on September 12, 2002


Go to a supermarket in the US and you have like 50 different choices of breakfast cereal, for example. Repeat this experiment in a dictatorship.
This is the hallmark of a great society?
No. Just until they stop trying to kill us.
But they'll stop killing us when we stop killing them, but we can't stop killing them until they agree to stop killing us, but they want to kill us because we're killing them, but we have to kill them before they kill us...
posted by Fabulon7 at 11:19 AM on September 12, 2002


But they'll stop killing us when we stop killing them...

Actually, I have no indication that that is the case. You are saying that Al Qaida attacked us because we were killing them?
posted by callmejay at 11:24 AM on September 12, 2002


"Loving our neighbor as ourselves requires that the remaining imperfections in our democracy be corrected. Mainly, we have to make sure that all of our people, not just the privileged who can use their financial resources to satisfy their desires, be fully represented... Working towards a more safe and sound and sensible world demands the leadership of the United States. Our challenge is not just geopolitics, but moral responsibility... should there not be both economic and moral limitations on the gaps created by the market-driven reward system?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William McDonough reflects on September 11th :) on infectious greed!
posted by kliuless at 11:25 AM on September 12, 2002


in case the participants here haven't seen it yet, this recent post made by zachsmind is a good read after this one.
posted by t r a c y at 11:29 AM on September 12, 2002


Cretien and company's premise is false.

In the first place, we do trade and do give aid to those less fortunate than ourselves; and its quite arguable that giving any more aid wouldn't do any more good anyway (look at the undemocratic toilet which Egypt continues to be).

And while the richer countries are rich and may be morally obligated to give aid, that doesn't mean the poorer ones are blameless for being poor: is it my/our fault that the people of Sudan are dirt poor, or that there are no Islamic, non-petroleum economies which are not in the Third or Fifth World? And is it my/our fault that Iraq has a Saddam Hussein, or that the money my mom pays for gas to fill her car has, via the Saudis, created Osama? If I/we're to blame for creating monsters, we're certainly not more at fault than the Saudis or Iraqis.

As for going to war in the way in which Cretien objects (whatever that is), it can be argued that if our dollars made the "mess" which is Saddam or the Saudis, it's our duty to clean up the mess. Moreover, at least until Saddam has ICBMs, it would seem that going to war is a form of charity: The Iraqi people will benefit more than we will. So, taking our Saddam should be considered a form of foreign aid. Or, perhaps, humanitarian aid.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:34 AM on September 12, 2002


i'd love to see chretien keep getting more and more outspoken as his last term draws to a close... i think we need more leaders who will say things others are afraid to.

i also really like that Collonette likened some in the U.S. to an aggressive hockey player. leave it to canadian politicians to draw the hockey analogy.

this is also quite interesting: three recent polls show that canadians indeed have a very different outlook on the events of 9-11.
posted by henriettachicken at 11:37 AM on September 12, 2002


What a shame that Chretien isn't more articulate - the point (I assume) that he's trying to make is more clearly and gracefully stated in Robert Wright's series, "A Real War on Terrorism".

The 7th part of the series discusses the "globalization of resentment" and advises that America balance its power with humility. This is not to say that America or the West is to blame for inspiring resentment, only that we must "comport [our]selves with careful attention to [our] inherent resentability".

Thanks to blueshammer for the original FPP about this series on Sept 5th.. a fascinating read.
posted by C0Sm0 at 11:40 AM on September 12, 2002


it would seem that going to war is a form of charity: The Iraqi people will benefit more than we will: . So, taking our Saddam should be considered a form of foreign aid. Or, perhaps, humanitarian aid.

Wow. if there was ever the time for the phrase "War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Yadayadayada" to be used as a rebuttal, it would be now.

But I'm not going to do it.
posted by grum@work at 12:23 PM on September 12, 2002


Grum:

Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy. It's called a liberating army.

You know, it's not like any of these terrorist countries have indigenous technologies or weapons. The only thing they have is oil, which has allowed them to buy Western technology. Its not like going to war would violate a Prime Directive. They did that long ago. Without downloading the civilization subroutine.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:31 PM on September 12, 2002


From the poll Henrietta links: "The Star poll found that 44 per cent of Canadians disapprove of Canada joining America's war on Iraq. Eighteen per cent are undecided. Only 38 per cent favour it."

I love that wording. "Only" 38 percent are in favour. Makes it sound like a third place finish behind the 18% undecided. Although it's clear we Canadians are ambivalent about Gulf War 2, once you factor in a margin of error (not stated that I could see), a majority of Canadians could be in favour of the attack.

And just to be clear, I think the real Canadian feeling is "show us the proof and we'll back you 100%". That's the message Chretien delivered to Bush in the Detroit meetings recently. We just want to be sure the reason for attacking Iraq isn't simply to let W erase the taint of his father's failure in GW1. Considering prevailing winds, any fallout over the US will poison Canada, so we have just as much interest in avoiding a nuclear attack.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:33 PM on September 12, 2002


Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy.

How vast a majority? And how happy -- as happy as say, the vast majority of residents of Newark? Source? (I'm not merely being bitchy, I'm more interested in finding out more about the leftovers of the regime turnover in Afghanistan).

Less curiously, I'm interested in what defines "a terrorist country." And for that matter, "civilization," but I'll let that go, as a resident of a country that approves of the death penalty (the U.S.).
posted by RJ Reynolds at 12:38 PM on September 12, 2002


Funny how everyone seems to know better than the terrorists themselves why they want to kill westerners. For myself, I'll take them at their (own) word, and believe that they want us dead because we're not 'good' fundamentalist muslims.
Thinking that you know better than they do themselves is the real patronizing bigotry here.
posted by HTuttle at 12:46 PM on September 12, 2002


I think the real Canadian feeling is "show us the proof and we'll back you 100%
I think you are mistaken. That is definitely the feeling of some Canadians, but the feeling of some others is to avoid getting involved in stealing another oil field for the United States. There is a pretty big chunk of the Canadian public that regards the whole "liberate the people" argument as a total sham.

Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy.
Who says the vast majority weren't happy before? Who says they are happy now? What does that mean? Why are they so happy now? And the rest of what RJ said.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:52 PM on September 12, 2002


I keep hearing this 'they hate us because we are rich' argument. 'They hate us because we are powerful.' So, uh, how did we get so rich and powerful? By using our monetary and military policies to keep many countries unstable, undemocratic and nearly unlivable for most people. We reap profits from S. America and Africa without a second thought about the effect on the people who live there. This is what has bred resentment. I'm in no way saying that the US got what it deserved and I do feel terrorists are criminals, but we have helped create an environment where terrorism flourishes. We need to not just attack 3rd world countries, but actually help them become modern and stable. (The IMF is in no way helping anyone but the US).

Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy.
Are they? It seems like all the papers did lovely stories about men shaving their beards and women getting make overs and I've heard little since. Afghanistan is still a bombed out shithole of tribal tensions and extreme poverty. The Taliban is gone, yes, but the Warlords are back and Shira law is still in effect.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:53 PM on September 12, 2002


Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy.

Where did you get this interesting statistic? Can you show me where you got this information, or are you supposing this to be true?
posted by ashbury at 12:58 PM on September 12, 2002


I am always amazed by the comments on this board. I suspect that's why I come here.

Somone actually asked "Who says the vast majority weren't happy before?"

Granted, there is no polling data to support the whacky idea that people are happier now that the Taliban is no longer in power.

However, I think there is considerable, well-substantiated evidence that women and children in the country were treated like waste. I seem to remember liberal, feminists decrying the treatment of women and children in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Does someone want to make the argument that they were not treated abhorrently? I'll certainly listen. If not, assuming somewhat standard age/sex demographics, they probably constitute a vast majority.

I would go as far as to say that most men are probably happy to see the Taliban out as well, considering they could be killed for sporting the "wrong" facial hair. That may be but one example, but it's pretty hard to imagine a man saying, "yeah, I'm pretty happy here, except for the fact that I could be killed for trimming my beard too short."

That anyone wants (and I use that word for a reason) to argue that people were happy (or less-unhappy) under the Taliban is nothing short of astonishing.

Yeah, I know ... all of those videos of people singing and dancing in the streets, the new schools and hospitals that the US has built, the substantial sums of money we have poured into rebuilding (or perhaps just "building" would be more appropriate) infrastructure are all Pentagon propaganda.
posted by probablysteve at 1:52 PM on September 12, 2002


Funny how everyone seems to know better than the terrorists themselves why they want to kill westerners. For myself, I'll take them at their (own) word, and believe that they want us dead because we're not 'good' fundamentalist muslims.

Um, no. Actually Osama was pretty specific about why he declared jihad on the US.

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

Obviously his actions and statements since 1997 are open to interpretation (ie: if he is mad at the US government for it's actions, why target civilians?), but I don't believe he's ever stated that he's wants us dead because we're not good fundamentalist muslims. Otherwise, why bother attacking the US? There are bigger non-muslim targets in the world. And I haven't seen any planes crashing into Shanghai. Or do you think only western non-fundamentalist muslims inspire his rage?
posted by Mooskey at 2:05 PM on September 12, 2002


Chretien's office has now released a statement repudiating the media's interpretation of his remarks.
posted by Owen Boswarva at 2:52 PM on September 12, 2002


let's split a semantic hair here and say that we're confusing 'happy' with 'better off.'

are the Afghans better off without the Taliban? sure. Is the average Afghan man, woman or child happier now that they don't have to worry about the extremist interpretations of Sharia and instead have to worry about the capricious fractricidal tribalism of local warlords, or the trigger-happiness of circling American gunships? I don't know.

oh, and regarding the substantial sums of money, before we all start patting ourselves on the back, let's look at some real figures for a sec.

estimated cost for rebuilding Afghanistan over 5 years:$9 billion

foreign aid pledged by the US so far: $290 million
foreign aid pledged by Japan: $250 million
foreign aid pledged by Germany: $362 million
(source)

US contribution as a percentage of 2001 US budget: .01%
Japanese contribution as a percentage of 2001 Japanese budget: .05%
German contribution as a percentage of 2001 German budget: .03%
(source for budget figures)

yeah, it sort of is propaganda, especially when the news talks about the US engaging in a leadership role when, at best, it's a no. 2 or no. 3 donor. The aid is good and isn't to be discouraged, but let's not get carried away with the back patting, here.

With regards to all of the arguments that "there will always be someone who hates us because we're richer than they are." And I say, yes, that's true. But my question is, why haven't we seen more examples of this behavior in the First World? Certainly, the distribution of wealth in the United States and Europe is far from equal, but you don't see disenfranchised blue collar workers blowing up banks and stock exchanges. I'd argue that jealousy alone is not a sufficient motive for terrorism. It feeds on tribalism, dire economic circumstances, and disenfranchisement. There isn't much that the West can do about tribalism, aside from promoting trade and education, which it is doing and is a good thing. Dire economic circumstances are not at all aided by current global trade policies and disenfranchisement will be reduced if democracies flourish, which the West has definitely had a spotty record in supporting, and should amend.
posted by bl1nk at 3:02 PM on September 12, 2002


blink: what you fail to point out is that trade with Afghanistan, however small by West-West numbers, will still dwarf aid figures.

Moreover, you lose all credibility for suggesting that, on any terms US Military occupation or US "liberation" is not superior to the Taliban. Which year of college are you in?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:24 PM on September 12, 2002


"The only long-term way to win this "war" is to somehow teach the people of the world that freedom and democracy are in their best interest. If this war is won, it will be through the spread of western media and western culture, not through force. In the short term, of course, force is necessary."

And you doubt that people might have legitimate reasons for thinking that you (in this instance) are arrogant.

Exactly why is it that you are so certain that you (the US / West) are right and everyone else is wrong. I would much rather be happy, spiritually fulfilled and contributing to a sustainable future than having a big car (unfortunately just happy with a big car ;<))
posted by daveg at 3:32 PM on September 12, 2002


The US only has around 7,000 people on the ground in Afghanistan. We didn't occupy it, the Northern Alliance did. We didn't really even liberate it, we just bombed the hell out of it. Then, we bombed it some more. In fact I think we are still bombing certain villages of interest. The Taliban were horrible, but we removed them from power as an afterthought. I seem to remember that we bombed Afghanistan in retaliation of the Taliban's protection of bin Laden. We never intended to liberate anybody, but this line makes great PR ipso facto. How long have you been retired?
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:40 PM on September 12, 2002


Paris, if you wish to ask me what year of college I'm in, could I also ask you how someone who's been arguing on MeFi for so long could make a couple of arguments with linking sources? The last report I saw from the World Bank (written admittedly in 2001 while the Taliban were still in control) shows that trade brought in roughly US$300 million, which hardly "dwarfs" the aid offered.

And personally, I do hope that America's intervention in Afghanistan does result in a better life for the Afghans, but there's fair evidence that suggests that this isn't the case yet. The American military force that exists in Afghanistan is mostly concentrated in Kabul, with the rest of the nation falling under the hands of warlords, and only since the attempted assassination of Karzai are there plans to expand this force to secure the rest of the nation. Exchanging repressive regimes for anarchy isn't exactly an improvement in the general condition -- regardless of the nobility of the liberators or the intentions they carry with them.
posted by bl1nk at 4:35 PM on September 12, 2002


The "they hate us because we're wealthy" argument is bullshit. No one hates America solely because of its wealth. Indeed, I'd wager that no one hates America's wealth to the point of taking violent action against America, period.

The people who hate America (Canada, Europe) hate it because America keeps fucking people over. The USA is an aggressor nation. It is, as far as I recall, the only nation which has started a war outside its national boundaries within the past decade or so.

If America were to withdraw its military forces from the mid-East, it would no longer be attacked by the mid-East. The extremist muslims want the mid-East to remain controlled by and for the muslim people. They want to keep the American ideals of crass commercialism and pervasive faith-destroying secularism out of their nations.

It's a deadly sort of American arrogance that assumes the entire world wants to be American. Keep your bloody boys with guns inside your own damn borders, and let the rest of us have the sort of nations we want for ourselves!

Become mediators and peacekeepers. Quit being bullies.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:36 PM on September 12, 2002


In recent months I ( and many other Canadians ) had written off Chretien as a sad old out-of-touch hack who was just trying to hang on to power to the bitter end. In his inimitable perversion of the English language however, he has expressed a sentiment that has been studiously avoided by most other western leaders and the mainstream media. This is the kind of reasonable, honest but difficult debate we need to encourage in these hysterical times.
posted by islander at 4:42 PM on September 12, 2002


Moreover, you lose all credibility for suggesting that, on any terms US Military occupation or US "liberation" is not superior to the Taliban. Which year of college are you in?

And the 'snide personal attacks in place of argument' figure reaches triple figures, I believe. You said 'the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy', and several people called bullshit on you. You're now asserting—without evidence, incidentally—that 'US military occupation... is superior to the Taliban' which is something quite different. (We could also ask you to explain what you mean by 'US military occupation', since outside of Kabul, Afghanistan isn't looking all that liberated.)

So, how do you know that the vast majority of Afghanis[sic] are happy?

You're desparately trying to escape from your own groundless assertion. And yet you're still digging yourself a hole. Who needs to cast 'college' aspersions about intellectual maturity when such bullshit stinks the place out?
posted by riviera at 5:02 PM on September 12, 2002


I am no fan of Chretien, but I am proud to be Canadian, with a leader, lame duck or no, who is willing at least occasionally to speak truth as he sees it, inconvenient as it may be.

No matter what we do, there will always be those who hate us just because we are richer.

Golly, you swallowed Shrub's 'they hate freedom' mumbling and chortling wholesale, didn't you? Those who would attack America do it for a multitude of reasons, no doubt, but primary among them is that they also want to be rich, and the policies of America both governmental and corporate assure that they will never be. Nor will their children, as far as they can see. The only option left to try and break out of poverty is attacking not the beautiful American Mirage on the horizon that they love so, of course not. They resent their oppressors, and their oppressors are perceived, rightly or not, to be American governments and corporations. These, they target.

It's not rocket science. Nor is it difficult to see that the Bush Administration is willfully and foolishly pursuing policies which will increase resentment worldwide and result in more American deaths. Feel free to bang the drums though, if you enjoy the smell of blood.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 PM on September 12, 2002


I sense that my second paragraph is a bit murky : to clarify, I think that many who resent America are consumed with both envy and a twisted sort of love for it, and a desire to lift themselves and their children out of the rubble. They do not hate freedom, they hate those who would deny them their own freedoms, those who would ignore corporate crimes and support dictators and tyrants because it's politically convenient.

Who left Saddam in power 10 years ago?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:10 PM on September 12, 2002


The argument that "they hate us because we're rich" is so wide of the (typical Canadian leftist) mark that, if it weren't so ignorant, would almost be comedy.

Last time I checked, "they" are the rich ones. I'm not a millionaire, but I know a terrorist who is.
posted by hama7 at 6:36 PM on September 12, 2002


hama7: the vast majority of "them" are dirt poor. The "rich ones" only hate us because the have to be liked by their poor ones, and because our way of being threatens the end of their wealth.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:38 PM on September 12, 2002


ParisParamus: Sounds complicated. Most of the "them" that are dirt poor aren't attacking anybody though. The terrorists that I know about are reasonably wealthy, well-educated Saudi Arabians and Egyptians. The upper class.

How is that status threatened? As long as there's oil and construction, there will be wealthy people.
posted by hama7 at 6:45 PM on September 12, 2002


I'm thinking more about places like Pakistan. And China (no Islam, but lots of contempt for "us"). And Egypt.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:28 PM on September 12, 2002


five fresh fish: The USA is an aggressor nation. It is, as far as I recall, the only nation which has started a war outside its national boundaries within the past decade or so.

...and what war would that be?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:41 PM on September 12, 2002


ParisParamus: Well the Chinese government may not be all that chummy, but I think a lot of Chinese are too busy memorizing U.S. immigration laws to waste time "hating us" for our money and their lack of it. Pakistan and Egypt are too mired in Islam (and heroin addiction), but the prospective immigrants are climbing the walls there too to get to the west.

I'm thinking that people like Chretien are the ones who hate themselves for being rich and successful. This is typical liberal white guilt, as far as I can see. His anemic comment that "the poor get relatively poorer all the time and the rich are getting richer all the time", not only is patently and blatantly false, but pretty much gave the whole thing away.

What's his solution? Socialist redistribution of wealth, that's what. And that's not a soultion, that's an addle-headed leftist idea whose time has come and gone.
posted by hama7 at 9:35 PM on September 12, 2002


hama7, and others, when you say that something is "patently" and "blatantly" false, could you please give your sources? Until I can see for myself that these are "patent" and "blatant", they aren't, at least not to me.

Sheesh.
posted by ashbury at 9:57 PM on September 12, 2002


I live in South Korea. A mere generation ago it was a third world, impoverished country. For Japan, it was slightly longer ago. Because of their association with the west, and the U.S. in particular, they have two of the strongest economies in the world.

Come on ashbury, you didn't just hear about this did you? You could always put forth a little effort to refute my statement, but that would just take too much, well, effort, wouldn't it.
posted by hama7 at 10:11 PM on September 12, 2002


Just wondering - it seems to be accepted as a given that "arrogance=bad" and "humility=good". Hate to be too politically incorrect ... but ... why?

It is arrogance - not humility - that will take the big risks, build the factories and farms and businesses that will actually enable the poor to escape poverty. The "west" does not stop nations from becoming wealthy - it invites them to. This horseshit about the "west" being dependent upon developing world poverty to "support" its lifestyle makes no sense whatsoever. Some nations in every region of the world are wealthy, and others are destitute. And the chief determinant ... the thing that makes Iraqi and Afghani life desolate and UAE life relatively much better, that makes North Korea life significantly bleaker than South Korean life is not "the west" - but the political and economic leaders and laws that govern those nations. Would Mssr. Chretien have started a business in a nation governed by the Taliban? Shit no! In fact virtually no one did.

There is almost nothing as evil as brutal men that run severely repressive dictatorships blaming the "west" for their troubles. Freedom and prosperity are linked. The creativity required for a thriving economy and an end to poverty cannot co-exist with an environment of fear and intellectual supression. The only thing that may approach this level of evil - even though it is not intentional - is people like Chretien that affirm the scapegoating the Hussains of the world do.

It is arrogance - not humility - within the populations living in poverty under dictators that will have the balls to kick them out ... possibly assisted by arrogant - not humble - "wealthy western" nations.

The Prime Minister ought to understand a couple of points - if they can penetrate the fog of his piousness:

1. The "west" has no interest in keeping the poor of the world on their knees - and in most places where the poor are beaten down and on their knees, the direct cause is the regimes running the countries themselves (though these regimes have all learned that scapegoating the west works ... helps them blame someone else for the destitution they've created). The west will not help the world's poor by getting on its knees with them - but by assisting them to stand up.

2. Value has to be created before the good Prime minister can re-distribute it towards his noble ends. And it is arrogance - not humility - that will create enough excess wealth to make it possible to even think about helping anyone else.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:48 PM on September 12, 2002


Freedom and prosperity are linked.

MidasMulligan: On the whole, I agree. But isn't the idea that "freedom and prosperity are linked" a particularly western concept?

Two examples: Unlike places with a relatively high level of foreign investment (like Singapore), Japan and South Korea have pretty much created entire economies on export to the "west" or really: the United States, virtually without any foreign investment, in the form of foreign companies, goods, or services until within the past three years. Even now, the domestic markets are severely restricted toward foreign products.

The west will not help the world's poor by getting on its knees with them - but by assisting them to stand up.

Couldn't agree more, but what I found most stupefying about Chretien is his sheer audacity in failing to mention the billions upon billions in foreign humanitarian aid that goes to impoverished countries, even impoverished totalitarian regimes. This is the polar opposite of opression! Opression's arch enemy.

With the situation as it is, the rich countries have a responsibility to stay as rich as they are, and get even richer, so they can continue to shell out to those impoverished countries who need the help. Once those countries do reach a basic level of prosperity, the richer countries get a new trading partner, and everybody wins.
posted by hama7 at 11:31 PM on September 12, 2002


North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:42 AM on September 13, 2002


"the poor get relatively poorer all the time and the rich are getting richer all the time", not only is patently and blatantly false, but pretty much gave the whole thing away.
What about this isn't true? From 1977 to 1999 the incomes of the top 1% of americans has risen by 84.8%, the top 10% only gained 44.6%. The bottom 20% of Americans saw their incomes drop 12.5% (economic policy institute). That's just in America. One can easily be sure that this pattern is repeated in less "democratic" countries. The IMF has been wiping out 3rd world economies for years, for the benefit of the US and our allies. Internationally I fear the letters IMF and US are hopelessly conjoined. They want to fuck us over because we've been fucking them over. The scary part of terrorism is that one can't stop it, only reduce it's frequency - if some half-wit wants to blow up a bus, he will. If we want, as the US, to reduce the frequency of terrorism, perhaps we should quit terrorizing other nations and cultures. The US has long used terrorism to bring about it's goals. I'm not being morally relative, I'm being realistic.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:16 AM on September 13, 2002


I'm not being morally relative, I'm being realistic

Well actually, you're being morally relative. Loaning countries money via the IMF is hardly the moral equivalent of blowing up a bus full of innocent people. The IMF loaned South Korea billions in 1997 because South Korea had effectively bankrupted itself. No IMF=no South Korea as we know it.

The US has long used terrorism to bring about it's goals

By providing humanitarian aid (to the tune of billions of U.S. dollars) to totalitarian dictatorships like the one in North Korea? Well maybe I can see your point there, because precious little of the aid intended for starving civilians ever actually gets to its intented recipients

The IMF has been wiping out 3rd world economies for years

To what end? Why would the U.S. need to "wipe out" third word economies? Do you understand the definition of "third world"? They really do not require "wiping out".

And last but not least: The US has long used terrorism to bring about it's goals

Patent and blatant nonsense. I wish you'd check your facts before making such an inscrutably bizarre pronouncement, verging on self-parody. In fact, a response is really not necessary for such an egregious error of moral tomfoolery.
posted by hama7 at 4:19 AM on September 13, 2002


Use words for illumination, not obfuscation. Otherwise, you suck, mouth wide open, mind closed.

Profligate deployment of adjectives doesn't make you sound smart, it makes makes you sound desperate.

Just a wee heads-up.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 AM on September 13, 2002


Come on ashbury, you didn't just hear about this did you? You could always put forth a little effort to refute my statement, but that would just take too much, well, effort, wouldn't it. --hama7

Hey. Hey now. I'm asking you for your sources and I'm still not seeing any. I believe that when somebody asks for sources it's up to you to provide them. Providing that information would be the proper thing to do in a discussion, wouldn't it? You can state your case until you're blue in the face but until those sources show up they are all words that mean nothing to me.

As far as effort is concerned, you don't know if I've done my research or not, do you? What you see is what I give you, not the entirety of my knowledge.

I'm waiting...
posted by ashbury at 5:55 AM on September 13, 2002


hama, you raise a good point about the bootstrapping of South Korea and Japan, but you also have to realize that the protectionist methods that both of those nations have used to develop their economies have now been legislated away by the terms of globalized trade. Japan and South Korea protected their domestic industries with massive tariffs, which allowed neophyte firms like Sony and Samsung to grow into the powerhouses that they are today. In contrast, today's developing nations are forced to drop tariffs due to World Bank and IMF policies, leading to the devastation of local industries in the face of cheap imports from Europe and the US. Jamaica's one example. Similarily modern intellectual property laws, like TRIPS make it more difficult for countries to follow Japan's previous example of technological innovation -- which was largely based on licensing foreign technology and then dispersing it throughout the economy with relatively weak patent protection. The current intellectual property environment with TRIPs makes this impossible with high licensing costs and strict minimums for patents.

I agree with your point that "the West", or rather the majority of people in industrialized nations, have no specific desire to keep poor nations poor. However, the citizens of Europe and the US have had little to no influence on the laws and entities that govern the global economy. These rules are dictated by corporations, who do have a vested interest in maintaining a level of economic disadvantage in the Third World, because that translates to low-cost production and captive markets. Everybody appreciates the advance of Japan, but nobody wants to be head of General Motors in the 80s, facing down the frightening invasion of lean and agile competitors from the Orient. Likewise, I'm sure Samsung would love to sell cheap and useful electronics to the populations of Africa, but I'm also sure that they'll be damned if they're going to show an African entrepreneur how to build a better computer.
posted by bl1nk at 6:50 AM on September 13, 2002


It is arrogance - not humility - that will take the big risks

I've always heard it said that the difference between arrogance and confidence is that arrogance means you think you're the shit, and you're not; whereas confidence means you think you're the shit -- and you are.

By this definition it's not arrogance to say you know better than anyone else if you actually do. However, it clearly still pisses people off...
posted by kindall at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2002


Actually, the vast majority of Afghanis are now happy.

Ah Paris, the voice of Afghanistan. From where do you draw this glad conclusion? I've heard plenty of interviews where many Afghanis do say they are happier with fewer restrictions. I've also heard plenty say that the disorder and uncertainty is considerably more stressful. My guess would be that the political atmosphere there is anything but stable, and with that instability comes violence, as we've seen of late.
posted by holycola at 9:36 AM on September 14, 2002


The instability and violence is part of the reason the Taliban gained control in the first place: the punishment for most any crime was death, so there wasn't a whole lot of crime going on. People felt a helluva lot safer.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:55 AM on September 14, 2002


Does anybody have a transcript of Chretien's speech? My room mate was complaining about Chretien's comments and I stepped up to defend him as I agree with what he said. I've read some bits and pieces of the speech but would like to peruse the entire thing.

Anyone have a link?

Thanks
posted by synecdoche at 12:08 AM on September 15, 2002


Good point synecdoche. With all this talk, no one included Chrétien's own words. Note that this was a documentary about Sept 11, not a speech, and this portion of the Chrétien interview was a small part of it. (link here)

Peter Mansbridge: 'By the end of the day, what were you thinking about in terms of how the world had changed?'

Prime Minister Chrétien: 'But I've said that it is a division in the world that is building up. And I knew that it was the inspiration of it. For me, I think that the rest of the world is a bit too selfish, and that there is a lot of resentment.

I felt it when I dealt with the African file for the Summit of the G8. You know, the poor, relatively, get poorer all the time. And the rich are getting richer all the time. You know, now we see the abuse of the system with problems in the United States at this moment with the corporate world, you know. When you think that, you know, you have to let go somebody in the Cabinet because perhaps relatively very minor things...of guidelines. And there was billions of dollars that were basically stolen from the shareholders.

And we have to you know solving the problems when you read history. Everybody don't know when to stop. There is a moment, you know, when you have to stop. There is a moment when you have very powerful (inaudible).

I said that in New York one day. I said, you know talking, it was Wall Street, and it was a crowd of capitalists, of course, and they were complaining because we have a normal relation with Cuba, and this and that, and, you know, we cannot do everything we want. And I said...if I recall, it was probably these words: "When you're powerful like you are, you guys, is the time to be nice."

And it is one of the problems. You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more.'


sigh... yes, he really does talk like dat.
posted by mediaddict at 3:06 PM on September 25, 2002


« Older Finger Weights   |   Ship searched for nuclear material Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments