Depends on your definition of civilized.

Having been born and raised in the middle east (Egypt), I can assure you that by many definitions of 'civilized' we fare really well compared to the US.

True, there isn't separation of religion and state, and that leads to much 'uncivilized' behavior, and a wacky sense of law.

On the other hands, we don't have nearly the same rates of murder, rape, theft that we have here in the States. And we don't put one out of every 300 people in prison.

Our elderly mostly die surrounded by family and friends in their homes, and very very very few people sleep on the streets.

Our health care system is much poorer, and much more primitive than the US system, but nobody gets turned away because of 'pre-existing' conditions or lack of funds.

In most of the Country, if you stop someone and ask for directions, they'll invite you to their home for a meal and be serious about it. Even though they make less than a .50 cents a day.

So yeah, maybe broaden your idea of what 'civilized' looks like and you won't need to isolate so much.

p.s. We cook a yummy Egyptian dinner once a month for friends, ping me and come over next Monday for civilized discourse over foul and falafel

I suspect if you were a Copt you'd have a much different perspective.

I suspect if you were black in America you'd have a much different perspective. Or Mexican.

There are marginalized, abused groups everywhere. The West fares no better, though it does make it look cleaner (e.g., rampant discrimination is codified by law instead of remaining unwritten).

I seriously doubt blacks and Hispanics in America have to worry about being blown up as they leave their places of worship. Violence and malice towards Copts in Egypt is on an entirely different plane than racism experienced by minorities in the West. These moral equivalences grow tired.

I'll concede the point re: on a different plane.

That said, I still believe the claim that the Middle East is "uncivilized" (with the implication that the West is), is awfully arrogant - as if the NATO powers haven't all done far worse, just not as visibly, and far from home.

Reading some of the posts in this thread you'd swear that the mark of a civilized people is how well they can hide their acts of brutal violence, as opposed to simply how much brutal violence they commit.

I am a Copt

Yeah, I had some questions about civilization in Egypt. Is Egypt assassinating thousands of people worldwide with anti-tank missiles fired from unmanned aircraft, on a daily basis?

Because if not, then yes I'd say you compare quite well to the U.S.

Civilized =/= morally good. It's not what you do, it's how you do it.

That's a bit unfair.

You have to give them a chance, they only just got democracy - it takes a while to build up a military-industrial complex.

> "I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist."

If that kind of violence makes you doubt the civility of a people, you might want to add every other country in the world onto your list of "uncivilized places", and yes, including the USA.

> "My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy"."

The same "rule of law" that permits the USA to assassinate one of its own citizens without due process, only executive order? The same "rule of law" that permits it to covertly fund and equip rebel forces in democratic countries simply because their leadership dare oppose US national interests? (Chile is the most salient example of this, but far from the only one)

It seems your definition of "civilization" is less concerned with how much unjust blood is spilled, but rather how visible and public said blood is. This seems like a poor definition.

You have that backwards, it should be: "I'm an isolationist, which is why I think the Middle East is uncivilized."

Also, politicians pandering to various religious communities happens all the time in America. Let's not pretend it is different because the people are brown and the word "God" is pronounced differently.

Shame on you.

My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy". I can't think of a country in the Middle East remotely qualifying -- maybe Israel.

Trying to equate "religious pandering" in the US to the various REAL theocracies and military juntas that inhabit the Mideast is "shame"ful.

That's the whole point - "your" definition. There are billions of people in the world, any many of them disagree with your definition. Pretending your definition is the only definition is the height of egotism, and I wish that we as a people, could understand that and have sympathy and constructive conversations about the future.

Implying the OP is racist doesn't seem that constructive.

OP is ignorant and unsympathetic, which leads to racist behavior even without racist motives.

Are you seriously arguing that "many" people are against the "rule of law" and some form of government "approaching a democracy"?

If so, why all the dead or deposed dictators?

The Middle East and the West all have "rules of law", here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Both were written some time ago. Both have been modified, "interpreted" or just plain ignored. People are people no matter where you go. Power ebbs and flows to different people and groups over time. You are currently born into the group with the most power. This does not make you more correct, better than, or more civilized than others. It just makes you lucky.

So Ancient Rome, France during the Renaissance, and feudal Japan weren't civilized?

I don't think he gave them any other option. Seriously, after all the bad stuff he did when he was in power, after drumming up war when things got tough - did anyone really expect any other outcome?

I'm pretty sure he was determined to fight to the bitter end. Which he did.

I believe that Libyans are by and large a civilized, reasonable people (just like Iranians, Iraqis etc) but if anyone in the West thinks that the rebel army is made up of regular, work-a-day Libyan lawyers, doctors, teachers and other civilians... then the media did a great job at spinning this one.

I have watched the Libyan and Tunisian revolutions. I can confirm that the Tunisian one was led by a particular part of the population (mainly the poor and forgotten). In the Libyan revolution, I saw all kind of people from different background, social and economical levels. Libyans are friendly, and generally quite generous and kind. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised that a good part of the rebel army is made of regular citizens.

So who are they then? Are they supported by those people in the country?

What you described is pretty much how a standard armed revolution goes, not sure what it has to do with the "civility" of the region as a whole.

I agree in principle, though I think the concept of sovereignty at all is bullshit.

But to play devils advocate, we put down dogs who bite people don't we? Yeah yeah, human life is precious, but sometimes we need to be a little pragmatic.

In the particular situation you are referring to you are correct, but I don't think that is a generalizable concept.