- This topic has 10 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
While there are a variety of anti-Western Civilization types, who do you think is to be feared the most? ?
Complacency.? ?Their seems to be an ideology that if we leave them alone, they'll go away or stop on their own.? Perhaps just as equally, lack of knowledge of who the enemies of Western Civilization really are and what their goal is for destroying us.
George W. Bush, hands down. He invaded a sovereign country (Iraq) under false pretenses. He deliberately avoided any legitimate attempt at using the existing system for settling international disputes. Once he conquered his enemy, something that was never in question, he failed to install anything approaching a stable government, and in fact had no plan for doing so. In the process he severely damaged an international coalition that had been formed to fight the threat, international terrorism, that the coalition had been formed to combat. He also created a perfect training ground for a whole new generation of terrorists as well has providing a perfect recruiting tool – the crusaders yet again destroyed an Arab government, something they have been doing since the First Crusade. He is an incompetent leader and and incompetent leader of the world's only superpower is, by default, the greatest threat to peace.
Well, I think that if we step back and think about the potential for peace in that area twenty years down the road, George W. Bush will be considered in a different light. Obviously, history's chapter on Iraq has not yet been written. If Iraq is able to maintain a sustainable, secure, and peaceful governmental body, Iraq could very well become an oasis for democracy in the Middle East. Any instability in Iraq currently is due directly to those who want to undermine the new government – namely, the insurgents. I think that without insurgents planning attacks, there would be peace in Iraq.
Obviously, history's chapter on Iraq has not yet been written.? If Iraq is able to maintain a sustainable, secure, and peaceful governmental body, Iraq could very well become an oasis for democracy in the Middle East.? Any instability in Iraq currently is due directly to those who want to undermine the new government - namely, the insurgents.? I think that without insurgents planning attacks, there would be peace in Iraq.
I am not going to get into Bush bashing, not that I'm a fan, but when has there ever really been peace in the middle east, Bush or no Bush?
I am not going to get into Bush bashing, not that I'm a fan, but when has there ever really been peace in the middle east, Bush or no Bush?
That's a good question. Then again, as far as I know, there hasn't been a democracy in the Middle East for some time (perhaps ever). I believe the closest is Turkey, which is almost considered part of Europe. I don't think that democracy is absolutely necessary for peace, but I do think that it tends to safeguard liberties and makes the nation more accountable within the international community. Look at Iran - it's not accountable to the international community because it has isolated itself from the world stage.
The heart of the problem is that you cannot impose a form of government on any nation and expect long-term stability. Don't forget that this country had inherited a 700 year history of movement towards democracy from England going back to the Magna Carta, so for us the move to representative democracy was the next logical step. The Middle East has never had anything remotely resembling democracy. So, while we can help move them along the road to democracy we cannot force them to become democratic. We must be willing to accept the fact that stability in the Middle East might best be accomplished, for now, with some form of theocratic government. Just remember that stability is a necessary prerequisite for growth and progress because, without it, people will be too busy trying to survive to worry about what particular form of government is going to keep them and their children alive. As for Iran, don't forget that Iran was on its way to developing a more democratic form of government when the U.S. helped the Shah eliminate the elected head of government – because he was a socialist – and install himself as supreme ruler and it was his misrule that eventually resulted in the revolt and establishment of the current band of lunatics that are in charge. Don't forget that it was U.S. backing of the mujahaddin – precursors of the Taliban – who overthrew the government of Afghanistan because it was socialist and allied with the Soviet Union that eventually resulted in that group of lunatics that provided shelter to el Queda. Don't forget that it was U.S. support of a military coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvadore Allende in Chile that gave us the 20+ year abomination of the Pinochet regime. The moral of the story is that interfering in the internal workings of another country can too often have unintended consequences that may end up biting you in your proverbial ass. So while Bush's motives may have been pure, which I personally don't believe, his actions were misguided to the point of stupidity and evidence, yet again, of America's ongoing short-sightedness.
The heart of the problem is that you cannot impose a form of government on any nation and expect long-term stability.?
True, all you do is breed contempt, like we are seeing now. An occupying force is never welcomed and someone who comes and says "do it our way, our way is the right way', we'll be opposed. Turn the tables, what if this country were invaded and occupied? What would you think of a foriegn government teling you to change completely how you do things and how you veiw things?
I'm going to throw in a question that is in line with this ongoing discussion. Historically speaking, what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that seem to never change, and what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that actually can change? We see the Islamic influence in the Middle East/North Africa that has existed for perhaps 1300 years, and in some form or another conflicts between historically Muslim and Christian countries have kept on going. On the other hand, I can point to the U.S. South which had a culture revolve around slavery and/or opposition to Yankee control or influence in Southern affairs. Despite the depth of the engrained way of life down south, all eventually changed after the Civil War. True, the situation required government involvement on a number of occasions (notably the Civil Rights laws) but today we see a fairly well-integrated society which is in stark contrast to society and the mentality of 150 years ago.
I'm going to throw in a question that is in line with this ongoing discussion.? Historically speaking, what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that seem to never change, and what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that actually can change??
When you say qualities, do you mean good and bad(Bad qualities?), or just the good?
I mean “characteristics” – the neutral kind. What I'm getting at is an answer as to why there has basically been a divide between Christian and Muslim nations for hundreds and hundreds of years, but other engrained notions – such as racism or viewing blacks as “chattel” – has been able to be overcome. I imagine that if we were to transport back in time to South Carolina 1848, we'd think that there would be no way such a society could ever become integrated. Perhaps if we were to transport to present day Iran, we might think that there's no way a Christian could ever become the leader of this nation. However, we already know that the first of these scenarios has shown that the seemingly impossible has become a reality. Why is that?
While our country is no longer legally racist and many of the signs of overt racism have been relegated to history, there are still many vestiges of our past hanging around. A slightly more than cursory examination of our poverty statistics will demonstrate that. Look at who controls all the reins of power, both government and business – almost exclusively white males. Yes, there are a lot of minorities and women in these positions but nowhere near reflective of their actual participation in society. Look at the recent furor over immigration. Do you think that it would be feared at anywhere near the level it is if the people coming across our southern border were white English-speaking Christians? And it wasn't that long ago that racism was rampant and legal. I remember classified ads that were divided into “white” and “colored” sections, I remember “colored” drinking fountains, and I'm not yet 60 (close but no cigar).. So the U.S, is a long way away from being the pure example of brotherhood that we like to imagine ourselves. As for why the hatred between Muslim and Christian has gone on for 1300 years, it just might be related to the fact that the Christian world spent 300 years trying to destroy the Muslim world for religious reasons, took a 300 year hiatus so that it could conquer the Western Hemisphere and the Orient, then occupied most of the Muslim world in the 1800's and stayed there until the middle of the 1900's and has consistently meddled in their internal affairs since then. Don't forget that the Christian world, after standing by while the Nazis murdered 6,000,000 Jews, then took the survivors and transplanted them – not to the European continent which is where most of the victims of the Holocaust originated – but in former Arab Muslim land that the British had conquered. And we have continued to meddle in their internal affairs right up to our conquest of Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change. So I think that the Western Christian society and governments bear much of the blame for the current wave of Islamic fundamentalism. And we're not going to stop it by letting our Israeli surrogates kill Lebanese civilians just because they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, if anything that only makes things worse. The Christian West has to make a sincere, sustained effort to find diplomatic solutions to our differences with the Arab world. Yes, we have to defend ourselves against their lunatic element just like we have to defend ourselves against the lunatic elements of both the right and the left at home, but if we don't find a political solution to our problems with the Islamic world we are eventually going to get into a situation of who can kill who the fastest.
You know, when one reads some of these posts carefully one might come to the conclusion that religion of all kinds is and has been a threat to peace.
historywonk wrote:Look at who controls all the reins of power, both government and business – almost exclusively white males. Yes, there are a lot of minorities and women in these positions but nowhere near reflective of their actual participation in society. I think a big reason for this disparity besides the obvious of slavery, was the fact that white males have had generations to network among themselves and pass their connections on to their children such as George H.W. Bush did with George Bush and Jeb. Of course George H.W. Bush's father Prescott was influential as well. The Kennedy family would be another example of father passing down his influence to his son etc...It may take a few more generations for blacks to develop the same kinds of legacies. We are only now seeing the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordon, and Tiger Woods. Perhaps those who follow after these important examples will add to what should be a growing legacy for the African-American community. At least progress is being made. 😉I feel fairly safe in asserting that more people have been murdered in the name of God/Allah/Yeoweh/Whatever than all political movements combined, and by a fairly wide margin. ?I guess the concept of “I can be a vicious murdering SOB and still spend eternity living in the lap of luxury with 72 virgins” or whatever goodies your particular flavor of supreme being promises, has a certain cachet. ?Probably the same allure as going on a “reality” show and winning by being a back-stabbing lieing cheating miserable bayard in the hopes of landing an agent and a contract. ?I personally don't get either but maybe I'm just weird.
