> It is arrogant to assume a single countries path is correct vs a much older civilisation, given that single country has not stood the same test of time.
Once again, the point flew over your head. This has nothing to do with correctness, it has to do with maintaining America's global hegemony.
And Arab "civilization" is a tenuous concept. Many modern Arab countries didn't exist until less than a century ago. Given the horrific exploitation the Arab peoples suffered at the hands of Europeans, I'd say that their countries haven't withstood the test of time very well.
> Only that a meaningful debate could only be made with you, were you open to learning the full history and reasons behind the current problems. After reading your comments so far it is apparent you aren't open to learning these things.
The only thing that's apparent is that you're completely misunderstanding the purpose of my initial comment. It wasn't intended as a normative dismissal of Arab or Muslim culture, it was intended to be a suggested improvement of America's geopolitical current strategy.
The point is that America's global hegemony shouldn't be maintained.
Quite apart from the jackass immorality of it, maintaining hegemony implies indebting America to the point of economic collapse while generating more and more enemies.
The objective instead should be to maintain the quality of life of American citizens.
And there are all kinds of countries, from Japan to Switzerland to Norway to Slovenia, none of which attempt world domination, where citizens can live fine.
(Oh yeah, and as a result of not attempting world domination they also tend not to get attacked by terrorists.)
Many across the spectrum, from Dennis Kucinich to Stephen Walt to Ron Paul, have explained this better than I can here; if you are interested in the geopolitics I suggest you look them up.
Your points about history are equally preposterous. Just because modern middle eastern states are young it does not mean that middle eastern civilisation is young. By that logic, China and Greece are both younger than the USA.
> The point is that America's global hegemony shouldn't be maintained.
That's purely a matter of opinion, so there's no point in arguing about it. As a non-American, it's pretty obvious why/that you don't want America to be dominant. As an American, it's pretty obvious why I do.
> Quite apart from the jackass immorality of it, maintaining hegemony implies indebting America to the point of economic collapse while generating more and more enemies.
I don't think that's true at all. You don't need to spend billions of dollars on costly wars in order to keep yourself in control. You just have to render other people irrelevant, which is exactly what would happen to the Arabs if the world's dependence on crude oil were to vanish.
> The objective instead should be to maintain the quality of life of American citizens.
Which America's global power contributes to.
> And there are all kinds of countries, from Japan to Switzerland to Norway to Slovenia, none of which attempt world domination, where citizens can live fine.
And they pay the price for it - literally. Energy costs are much higher in Japan, for example. If I were living in Japan, I wouldn't be able to cool my entire house during the summer (or heat it during the winter). I've experienced it in Tokyo myself, and it's a significant degradation of quality of life.
> Many across the spectrum, from Dennis Kucinich to Stephen Walt to Ron Paul, have explained this better than I can here; if you are interested in the geopolitics I suggest you look them up.
I know exactly what they've expressed, and I agree with a lot of it. You're still missing my point, which is that you can achieve global hegemony and domination much more effectively through technological innovation that you can through military might.
> Your points about history are equally preposterous. Just because modern middle eastern states are young it does not mean that middle eastern civilisation is young. By that logic, China and Greece are both younger than the USA.
Once again, the age of the "civilization" is entirely irrelevant to modern geopolitical concerns. The age of the state, on the other hand, can at times demonstrate political stability/power.
You would not render the middle east irrelevant by erasing the dependence on crude oil.
I personally think you could in fact be doing the middle east the biggest favour if you could make the global oil price drop to zero. At least to the people, if not the current rulers.
That's not what maintaining Hegemony means. Hegemony means Kicking other people around.
Did you mean something else, like Energy Independence?
Or perhaps Being a world leader in science and technology?
And that's not the thrust of what you were referring to in your original post. You were talking about the INS screening people who look like me and not letting us into America.
Why that's a bad idea is a whole different can of worms, but basically Nazism is not an efficient security policy.
You have to put in place a whole lot of Nazism to get small gains in security.
Once again, the point flew over your head. This has nothing to do with correctness, it has to do with maintaining America's global hegemony.
And Arab "civilization" is a tenuous concept. Many modern Arab countries didn't exist until less than a century ago. Given the horrific exploitation the Arab peoples suffered at the hands of Europeans, I'd say that their countries haven't withstood the test of time very well.
> Only that a meaningful debate could only be made with you, were you open to learning the full history and reasons behind the current problems. After reading your comments so far it is apparent you aren't open to learning these things.
The only thing that's apparent is that you're completely misunderstanding the purpose of my initial comment. It wasn't intended as a normative dismissal of Arab or Muslim culture, it was intended to be a suggested improvement of America's geopolitical current strategy.