Dave_Schuldt Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24985 This looks like a great site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Shuddup commie traitor (This is kind of like getting a pagetop, right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Save for the phrase "conservative Zionist junta", which I find a mite on the inflammatory side, that's a nice piece of op ed and reflects my own fears about the future of Iraq. If it is not the Iraqi people themselves who put together this new government, it's not going to work. This is just one of the many problems we have created in the world by invading Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Agreed. I was also put off by that phrase. Had me with 'em up to that point. Also, It's something we get ourselves into every time we "impose" our brand of democracy. S. Korea, Vietnam, Iran (remember the Shah?), Haiti, etc. Sooner or later those that we "prefer" to see as leaders become despots themselves. But do we stop hoping and working toward a more democratic planet, or just give up on the rest of them and adopt our WWI attitude of isolationism? Anybody but me remember how happy we were when Iraq invaded Iran after the hostage thing back in '79? Saddam was our friend then... You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend... The times, they are a changin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 allison said: Save for the phrase "conservative Zionist junta", which I find a mite on the inflammatory side, that's a nice piece of op ed and reflects my own fears about the future of Iraq. If it is not the Iraqi people themselves who put together this new government, it's not going to work. This is just one of the many problems we have created in the world by invading Iraq. Damn, now why hasn't anyone taken that possible scenario into account. Freaking politicians just don't plan like we do here at cc. Ya know trouts, since we're gonna arm-chair quarterback Iraq's rebuilding, I think we should have teams. Like I'll be quarterback for the cc.com Raiders, Allison can be quarterback for..............., Off White for..................., jb for........................, and so on and so on. Watcha think? Teams!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Thankfullly, the cc.com nation-building team is on the case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 VB, love your avatar images. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 (edited) Guess what, spray babies! This is not something that is so complicated that the cc.com Brain Trust can't tackle it. Seriously folks, how are we going to keep what looks like about 4 countrires sewn together as one? There has been a lot of talk about "Democracy" and "free." Now I for one have no reason to believe that a Western-style government can hold together in Iraq. Whaddaya think? Oh, and sobo, FWIW, the Bush Administration, the one we are currently under, has an official policy of "no nation building". Remember that bit? So, apparently the Administration is naively assuming that once we finish rebuilding the nation of Iraq, then we will go back to that policy. Edited April 10, 2003 by allison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 I don't know I just don't like having USA fingers in so many pots around the world. We need to get out of there. Pretty soon we'll be reshaping the korean peninsula as well, that is, if seattle isn't turned into a glass parking lot first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 It's highly unlikely that a western style democracy/republic can stay on its feet on its own in an Arab dominated area. Look what happened to the Shah of Iran. We put him in there, the Islamic Revolution took him out. We helped prop up teh Israeli government after 1947, and the only reason it's still tehere is because of *continued* US support. Look at Saudi Arabia. Altho ruled by the Royal Family, it's stable because of continued US support. Arab governments are based on feudal relationships and family dynasties (much like old Japan and China). Always have been, always will be for the foreseeable future, WITHOUT US SUPPORT. So, do we want to be the ones to be stuck there for decades to come? It would appear that our tenure in Iraq has only just begun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Sobo, I'm not certain of my facts, but didn't we install the Shah after Iran elected a government we didn't like? You're right though that its difficult to dictate a political system to someone unless there is a strong internal component behind it. We're not done with interesting times, and I'm not ready to make any predictions. Hope for the best, but expect the worst, that way you're hardly ever disappointed and sometimes pleasantly surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 The Shah was a nutbar with his own torture squads etc. Why do you think they had a revolution anyways? Of course they went from bad to worse...just like the Russians, off the Czar, end up with Stalin, some change! Or get Gorby to dissolve the USSR and you end up with drunk criminal, Yeltsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Yah, just like that route at Tahquitz: From Bad Traverse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 You may be somewhat correct, OW. I'm not certain of the events in Iran prior to 1941, cause we were kinda busy gittin' our collective asses kicked by the Japanese and Hitler was busy with his can of whoopass in Europe. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (the Shah, as we were to come to know him) was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979, except for a brief period in 1953 when Prime Minister Muhammed Mosaddeq overthrew him. Mosaddeq was in turn overthrown with assistance from the U.S. , and the shah was returned to power as a U.S. ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Dru said: Why do you think they had a revolution anyways? They had a revolution because the Shah greatly modernized Iran and established social reforms, many of which angered fundamentalist religious leaders. As a result of his modernizations in teh face of fundamentalist extremism, he became "persona non gratis". In 1979 the religious opposition, lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini, drove the Shah into exile. Khomeini sought the capture of the Shah, and when we admitted him into the United States for medical treatment, Iran's response was the start of the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Don't any of us remember this? Was I the only protester on campus then? Sure, the Shah had his chambers, just as any despot. That's what I said further up the thread in response to allison's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 sobo i remember it quite well. actually not from the exact time. but one of my good friends grandfathers was the highest ranking military offical based in iran at the time. 444 days he was there. he rocks now!!! such a good person! a true insperation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 allison said: ...Oh, and sobo, FWIW, the Bush Administration, the one we are currently under, has an official policy of "no nation building". Remember that bit? So, apparently the Administration is naively assuming that once we finish rebuilding the nation of Iraq, then we will go back to that policy. I can only hope that we start off as productively as we did in Afghanistan, where we "helped find" a leader that was supported by his own countrymen and recognized as a generally "good person". But we all know what happened to Hamid Kharzai, don't we? I personally do not believe that any meddling of ours in government birthing in Iraq will be successful. It is not in teh Arab mindset to accept western democracy. They have over 5000 years of being used to feudalism and dynastic rule. America got lucky when we revolted against Mother England b/c we had someplace else to go and set up shop. That is not the case in Iraq, or Israel, or Palestine. We can all see what the end product will be here. The Iraqis need to step up now and lead themselves. An army of occupation is not what we should become now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 probably a third of the kids I went to school with fled Iran either when the Shah was in the late stages of his reign, or when the ayatollahs took over. both regimes sucked bag to hear them tell it. the shah's "modernizations" were like the Saudi "modernizations" and look how popular USA is there now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Well, sobo, I'm pretty sure that this is what we are looking at. I think we are going to be there for a while. We Americans are pretty good at winning wars, not so good at the endgame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 sobo said: It is not in teh Arab mindset to accept western democracy. Now if you were talking Africa would you say "it is not in the black mindset to accept western democracy" ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Allison: Sadly, I agree with you. I hope we get out soon with everyone left still alive. Dru: Clearly, generalization is not the aim here. The Arabian Peninsula has been ruled by kings and sheiks since time immemorable. Not so in Africa. Many African nations were colonized by the Dutch, English, Italians, French, and others. Those Old World nations have a distinctly different brand of government than what was in place in Africa (tribalism/clan rule) before their arrival. THE AFRICAN ABORIGINALS WERE SUBJUGATED! and Old World government was foisted upon them. That was centuries ago, and they have adapted. We did the same thing with slaves in this country. To say that it is not in the black mindset to accept WD is not a valid point to argue. This presupposes generalizations, begs the race question, and is not relevant to teh Arabian situation by virtue of the traditional form of governance. The Arabian Peninsula has never been subjugated to the point where rampant colonialism has replaced the indigenous forms of government. That's what apartheid was all about. It took teh indigenous peoples out of the loop. They had no decision making power to form a government. Hell, we did teh same thing to teh Amwerican Indian. We made ourselves feel better by giving them back some land and letting them set up tribal governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 sobo said: Allison: Sadly, I agree with you. I hope we get out soon with everyone left still alive. Dru: Clearly, generalization is not the aim here. The Arabian Peninsula has been ruled by kings and sheiks since time immemorable. Not so in Africa. Many African nations were colonized by the Dutch, English, Italians, French, and others. Those Old World nations have a distinctly different brand of government than what was in place in Africa (tribalism/clan rule) before their arrival. THE AFRICAN ABORIGINALS WERE SUBJUGATED! and Old World government was foisted upon them. That was centuries ago, and they have adapted. We did the same thing with slaves in this country. To say that it is not in the black mindset to accept WD is not a valid point to argue. This presupposes generalizations, begs the race question, and is off point. THe Arabian Peninsula has never been subjugated to teh point where rampant colonialism has replaced teh indigenous forms of government. i dont think it has anything to do with colonialism... it has to do with not having a democratic tradition... whether you are ruled by a emir or a tribal chief is not much different... the political boundaries of the Arabian peninsula are not natural anyhow any more than Africa's are... Russia had no tradition of western democracy. they had a Duma for like 3 years before the Revolution. Yet Russian democracy is working OK today... rampant corruption and political conniving just like chicago in the 30's or Florida in the last election If you read "Guns Germs and Steel" (not that I agree fully with it's arguments) you will find some interesting arguments that are not racially stated, unlike "Arabs cannot handle western democracy". Cause the Arabs in the Western nations seem to be doing OK. Which I believe may make you wantto reword your original sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Let's look at it this way... Western democracy is big on separation of church and state. Traditional Arabian governance is based on religious law (in the terms of Islam, its called sharia). Sure, they have kings and sheiks, but there is always a religious component/leader present. Does anybody see the disconnect between the two forms of government here? I just can't see western democracy working in Iraq, or the Arabian theatre for that matter, without it being forcefully imposed on the populace. We tried it in Iran, and we saw what happened. The majority appears to like it "the way they've always done it" for thousands of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 (edited) Dru: I guess that's what i've been trying to say, it is not their tradition to be ruled this way. They are used to religious law, and WD is something they are not familiar with, adn they may be afraid of it. Regarding teh Arabs that emmigrated to teh US and other WD states, tehy obviously knew what they were getting into and wanted to go. They clearly had their motives for embracing WD. BTW, I never said, "Arabs cannot handle western democracy." I said, "It is not in the Arab mindset to accept western democracy." These are two entirely different concepts. The first implies that they are unable to deal with it, while the second notion implies that they are unwilling to deal with it. And that is entirely their choice. I am not in the habit of disparaging any race or peoples on the basis of their beliefs, customs, or religions. But I believe that the vast majority of those left in Iraq that would be governed (the Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) have religious rule on their minds, and not WD. Those that would prefer WD will probably begin immgrating to Europe and North America soon, now that the borders are more open. Edited April 10, 2003 by sobo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 sobo said: Let's look at it this way... Western democracy is big on separation of church and state. Traditional Arabian governance is based on religious law (in the terms of Islam, its called sharia). Sure, they have kings and sheiks, but there is always a religious component/leader present. Does anybody see the disconnect between the two forms of government here? I just can't see western democracy working in Iraq, or the Arabian theatre for that matter, without it being forcefully imposed on the populace. We tried it in Iran, and we saw what happened. The majority appears to like it "the way they've always done it" for thousands of years. If "the majority likes it that way" isnt that then democratic expression??? Lets not forget Algeria voted in fundamentalists. Military said no and imposed martial law with backing of French and Americans. Leading to current civil war and massacres. Or military coup in Pakistan... How come democracy works in India but not Africa? Its more like " We western powers cannot let Arabic nations have democracy, because every time they get it, they vote in Islamic rule (...or Benazir Bhutto), which is not in our interest". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.