Allegiances in the U.S. were to the state first back in the late 1700s as well. In fact, we were a confederacy of nations, not a single nation, and there was so much in-fighting, this country almost failed right out of the gate. Terrible economy, revolts, etc. We turned out pretty well, I like to think. The U.S. is different, but I don’t think that the presence of tribal rivalries necessarily means that democracy will fail in Iraq.
All in all, I’m still optimistic. These things take time.
Then you should appreciate George Bush, because he has explicitly repudiated the old cold-war mentality of ‘accomodation’. You’re making the same point that he’s made - in the past, the U.S. played Realpolitik in the region - propping up dictators or supporting democracies based on nothing more than a short-term ‘balance’ or strategic advantage. What did that get the U.S.? 9/11. Therefore, the old policies have to be changed. No longer can the U.S. support a dictator simply because he’s willing to take the U.S. side in an OPEC dispute or act as a buffer between a hostile regime and U.S. interests.
The bottom line is that as technology advances, increasingly powerful weapons are going to become increasingly easy to get. Therefore, the threat of terrorism grows year by year, even if the status quo is maintained. It is an unstable situation. Democracies don’t tend to breed a lot of terrorists, and certainly not global jihadists. When they do breed terrorists, they are usually small scale with local beefs.
Why don’t you tell that to the left, then? There the ones who keep saying that the Arab world ‘isn’t ready for democracy’. You’ve seen that attitude a hundred times on this board. You know the litany - they’re tribal, uneducated, etc. I don’t buy it, and I think it’s condescending. Give them a chance, and they’ll take it, if you can get the strongmen out of the way. And that’s why ‘the point of a gun’ is necessary. Because while I think the Iraqis are perfectly capable of becoming a democratic nation, there are powerful forces that don’t want that to happen, and they are perfectly happy using guns themselves. Saddam was one of them, and the current ‘insurgents’ are another. Brutal men trying to re-attach the chains to free Iraqis.
[quote
They already know this. But if your concern is genuine, then as they say, change begins with the man in the mirror. Don’t you think it’s beyond hypocritical to be buying gasoline when every penny goes to those same despotic regimes?
[/quote]
No, I don’t. Because oil is a fungible resource. If Americans and Canadians suddenly get religion and start riding mopeds to work, do you know what will happen? The price of oil will drop, and it will create a competitive advantage for the countries that are still using it - China, for instance. This will remove economic pressures on their part to conserve, and their oil consumption will go up. It won’t change a damned thing in the Middle East.
The notion that we should just stop using oil, just decide to become energy independent, is simply uneducated thinking. The world just doesn’t work that way. As long as oil is available, and as long as it’s a cheaper source of energy than the alternative, it WILL get burned. And short of a worldwide enforcement action, whether we in the west conserve or burn it like made will make no difference. All we can change is the way it’s distributed around the globe - not how much of it gets used.
Partly. The ‘domino effect’ doesn’t just work for Communist countries. Look at Asia - once capitalism and democracy became an obvious success, other nations in the region clamored on board. The same happened in South America. If Iraq becomes a democracy, you’re going to see all sorts of economic cooperation between Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, even Israel. Trade will flow. Standards of living will improve. Economic and social pressure will then be applied to other nations to join in or be left out of the action.
Well, Israel is a poor example, because of other factors. But yes, I believe the increase in freeedom in the smaller nations around the middle east IS having an effect.
You cannot stop terrorism with homeland defense, because you have to be right EVERY time, and have NO weaknesses, and all your enemy has to do is be right once or find one hole. In a free country, you simply cannot defend yourself against these kinds of attacks. This is why the U.S. has to go on the offensive.
You can, of course, prove this? You have quotes and cites at your fingertips, yes?
Well, I don’t know about ‘the left’ 'luce, but its certainly been a theme on this board. Do you REALLY want some cites of folks on this board saying the arab world isn’t ready for democracy?? Hell man…look no further than this thread alone.
Don’t know if the opinion on this board can be construed as representing the mainstream view (hehe) of ‘the left’ though. I’ll leave it to Sam to defend that statement if he cares too. I wouldn’t think it would be THAT hard to find though.
-XT
Its so fascinating to see how politics cause the inversion of ideology.
In this thread, and indeed this whole issue, it is those who would be more likely to embrace the label of “progressive” who are insisting that building a Democracy in the middle east is impossible, that people there aren’t capable of it and that this sort of thing hasn’t been done before. By any sane description, that is deeply conservative (small C) thinking.
The contrary view is that all people everywhere deserve freedom and are capable of self-government, that all governments have an obligation to promote and defend human rights and that first world nations have a moral duty to use their power to free oppressed peoples. By any sane description, that is a policy that seeks progress.
I tend to agree with those that see Japan as a useful precedent; but I’ll also allow that that’s only one case and doesn’t prove much. We won’t know if this war was a good idea or not until at least 2010. But the question I have is why “we’ve never done it before” is assumed to be such a compelling argument. We (in the US) never did without slavery until it was enforced at gunpoint in an invasion, and were never truly integrated until we did it (at least in some places) at gunpoint.
In each case, it was a revolutionary change in the culture, one without precedent and in which there were numerous voices saying “they aren’t ready for it” and “this hasn’t been done before.” Indeed, the whole idea of progress requires doing things differently than they have been done before, for the sole reason that we come to believe it is morally right to do so. To steal a line, human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It happens because people make it happen, ignoring the counsel of the status quo.
Which does not in itself amount to a defense of the Iraq war and the concomitant project of creating an Arab democracy; there are all sorts of other sound reasons one may object.
But I think it’s worth pointing out that the “we’ve never done it this way before” argument is a deeply conservative one; and that applying it in one instance while despising it in all others (gay marriage, frex) suggests a rhetoric grounded more in expedience than in principle.
So you could show me. It would be easy to show me. But you won’t because…? You’re away from your desk right now? Too obvious, can’t be bothered?
Sam Stone:
Oh, come on. Do you genuinely believe him? Or do you think he’s spouting platitudes that sell to the home crowd? If this were the case, his focus should have been on Saudi Arabia. That was the source of 9/11. Instead, he went out of his way to make sure that any references to Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 report were shielded so as to not make the royal family look bad. Realpolitik is still fully at work here. It’s just that some of the old guards needed to go. They don’t always listen so well (Hussein being the prime example).
I do agree with what Bush says. The old way of doing things is not working. But he hasn’t shown any real steps towards forging a new path.
Well, pardon my nitpick here, but terrorists don’t need any advanced technology to carry out their deeds. Fertilizer and diesel fuel are pretty low tech stuff. Yes, I agree that with the advent of some technologies (communications particularly) their work has been made easier. But I do not believe that they are capitalizing on technological advances to any meaningful extent. They still only need one severely pissed off idiot with a will to die to wreak havoc.
I’m not sure what to say to this one. I just don’t see a correlation between the various government types and the terrorists that come from them. If there weren’t any ETA terrorists attacking the U.S., perhaps it’s because they didn’t think the U.S. government had as much of an influential position in their plight. The same can not be said about jihadists.
Well, anyone who is saying that they are incapable period is wrong. But I haven’t seen such a sentiment coming from the left. I think the concern is that under the current situation, tribal allegiances and religious affiliations will trump any attempts at western democracies. At best, you’re going to wind up with an oligarchy, not a democracy. Please keep in mind that the fabulous democracies that exist in the west took 150 years or more to come to be as they are. In the beginning, you had to be a rich white land owner (or at the very least white). Perhaps the lefties that are coming across as naysayers are looking at the time tables being discussed (5 years, 10 years, etc.) and saying no freaking way. Not no freaking way as in ever.
I agree. But all too often, those powerful forces have been the west. The Iraqis were quite willing and able to throw that wretched piece of shit out back in '91. Talk about democracy in action! But the U.S. told Hussein he could stop them. No strongman can stand up to the will of the people if it’s strong enough. Iran is a good example of that.
I never said it would. It would, however, give much needed legitimacy to the notion that the U.S. is tired of dealing with the aftermath of the mess that is the Middle East. You can’t be expected to be taken seriously by the residents of the Middle East (whom you have to admit you need to make any democracy work) if you’re working with tyrants on one hand and denouncing them at the same time. That’s called speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
I agree. But it will go a long way in reducing the funding those that want to kill you. Incidentally, you should stop to consider why, if despotic regimes are so bad, does the U.S. (and west overall) have such a love affair with China. But I digress.
Well if this is the case, can you explain why this hasn’t happened so far? Israel is a democracy, no? So is Turkey to a lesser extent, right? How come things still seem so undemocratic? And I’m still not seeing how Iraq in particular can be a catalyst. How does Iraq specifically increase the speed of democratization in the Middle East?
Really? Where?
I couldn’t disagree more. You’re assuming it’s an “either/or” situation. The U.S. going on the offensive is never going to get rid of all terrorists, neither is democracy. The fact is, terrorism will always exist. But if the west truly want to protect itself, it must change its relationships, it’s alliances… and for god’s sake stop letting them in!
So do you approve of Bush’s new way of doing things? Do you support the invasion of another country based only on lies and deception? Do you support the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of whole cities filled with innocent civilians? American and other coalition soldiers dying for a lie?
Iraq didn’t attack the USA, remember - it didn’t even threaten it. What right has the USA or its president to decide who should live or die in other countries? Do you believe that, as Bush said, God told him to attack Iraq?
You do know they leave part of the casualty count out don’t you?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml
Even though those accidents would not have happened were the troops not there.
…
Iraq does not equal the “Arab world”. Its embarassing to have to point this out.
Sorry but, post 9/11, this type of moral relevance is complete horseshit. I don’t care how politically incorrect it is the fact is that arab society is barbarically oppressive, mercilessly faith-intolerent, stone-age era misogynistic, socially unenlightenable, economically stagnant, and brutally violent.
In other words, it is inferior in every way. They are not trying to impose anything resembling a ‘value system’ on the west. Sorry if that makes some choke on their liberal guilt but that’s the way it is and everybody knows it.
Flawed and badly imposed as it may have been there is a big difference between the Christian idea of wanting to save the souls of the savages, and the Islamic idea of wanting to subjegate the world in the name of Allah. One is a genuine (if overly presumptious) wish to educate and enlighten, the other nothing more than a quest for power and unwaveringly devoted subjects thru brutal military conquest, thinly veneered in religion.
But I don’t want to sound too altruistic. In the end, we’re doing this because their ‘values’ finally spilled over on us in a big way (i.e. Sept 11[sup]th[/sup]).
Then why aren’t you doing it in Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
So what are you saying then? That the left, or at least people in this thread, believe that democracy is attainable in Arab countries except Iraq? Your city has to process the sewage from your house twice, doesn’t it?
So, how do you say “Dachau” in Arabic?
Your post, sir, is drivel. Worse, it is poisonous drivel. Were it not for Arabic/Islamic culture, we of the enlightened west might never have heard of Pythagoras. Mathematics and astronomy have their origin in Islamic culture. Some (not all) Islamic caliphates were models of religious tolerance. Such men as Salladin and Suleiman have been justly admired through the ages. The gentle mysticism of some Sufi poetry is a fair rival to the best Zen poems of Basho.
When you deny another people their humanity, you deny your own. Beware.
(This for Hail Ants.)
On this, allow me to try to reach across the aisle and extend a hand during the brief period I’m not using it to applaud.
We (we being the United States, Western Europe, indeed the world’s powerful for hudreds of years) have used the Arab people as a resource, as a flash point, as a problem. They deserve freedom and self-determination and the fact that they didn’t get it during the 20th century, Democracy’s century, is a direct result of western (again, including American) policy.
I understand that the left isn’t happy with how the Bush administration chose to try to give democracy a chance in Iraq. I really do. But we’re in it. They’re in it. elucidator, I believe that you, personally, believe that democracy has a chance in Iraq and in the Arab world generally. Please admit that the contrary view is much-expressed on the left, just as it used to be on the right before Bush shut them up about it (except among extremists who can be safely ignored). It would move the dialogue further in terms of where to go from here.
Is it the apparent weakness of your argument that induces you to replace argument with insult, or do you lack the capacity to do otherwise?
At bottom, I’m saying that this accusation that the “left” has no faith in the capacity of Arabic society to attain democracy is an attempt to divert blame in advance of failure, a failure that becomes more apparent with every passing day. Its Viet Nam deja voodoo all over again. “Well, we could have done, but the wimpy liberals made us fight with one hand tied, they didn’t support our troops.” It is a steaming load.
The grand adventure in Iraq is a disaster, we can only hope to avert catastrophe. As every rationale for this quamire collapses under its own weight, a new! improved! nugget of horseshit is manufactured to replace it, each more brown and steamy than the previous. Now we are to believe that is was all a rescue mission, our heart wrung with compassion for our benighted and oppressed Iraqi brethren, we flung ourselves headlong into a mission of enlightened mercy.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to make the rest of us repeat it. May the sweet Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind.
Actually I’m busy playing WoW tonight…I CAN’T be bothered, not for something I think is a faux cite request for anyone who is on this board as much as you are 'luci.
-XT
Manny:
No fair! No fair being all reasonable and stuff just when I tell you to step off!
OK, lets take it back a step or two. You didn’t say that, I didn’t say the other thing. I’m gonna pretend we’re pals. If it kills me. So long as you don’t actually insult me again, it will stay that way.
Deal?
OK, now look… Just as I said, I think this meme about how the “left” doesn’t believe in Arab attainment of democracy is a scam, its an attempt to divert blame. Over the months when I railed against this insanity, never once did I suggest that it was folly because the Arabic world couldn’t achieve democracy. I have all kinds of reasons why this is a galactically stupid enterprise, but that doesn’t make the list.
We went to war because the Bushiviks got you to believe that Saddam was comin’ to get yo mamma! With nuclear anthrax intercontinental drones of mass destruction. It was a crock. It was proven to be a crock! After the fact, they want to pretend it was all about bringing democracy to Iraq. Which is bad enough, they think we’re that stupid. But to add insult to injury, now they want to claim that our criticism of this batshit crazy adventure was based on a racist prejudice against Arabs! NO! No! We were against it because it was stupid!
You are stuck with twisting remarks and statements to fit your needs. Of course building a democracy in the ME is near to impossible, but its not because they are Arabs, its because we have turned the whole damn thing upside down! Its like trying to build a house of cards by setting the deck of cards on fire and throwing into the air!
Don’t know what that is. Is that for guys who can’t handle Civ III?