Very little of these incidents had anything to do with “world wide communism.” They were nearly all simply extensions of The Great Game from the 19th century extended into the 20th, with the Russians (and allies) wearing the cloak of “communists” while the Brits (and allies) wore the mantle of “democracies.” The number of actual Marxist revolutions, springing up in the manner described by Marx were pitifully few while the majority of such actions were nothing more than the games the Soviets played to nibble away at the power ot the U.K. and U.S. Once Stalin exiled Trotsky, “world wide communism” was a dead letter. Everything after that point was a power play by Stalin (and, later, Kruschev and his successors), that had nothing to do with actual communist theory. There were a few Marxist efforts that lasted beyond the 1930s–China, for example–but again, one does not see China actually attempting to support revolutions that would actually follow Marxist doctrine. Instead, we see Soviet puppet states waving the banner of “Socialism” and Western puppet states waving the banner of “democracy” while the actual people involved simply suffer under whichever puppet the world power with the best game in the region was able to establish. Iran was never going to become a Marxist utopia before we installed the Shah. Ho Chi Min actually disbanded his communist party before he discovered that the French were not going to grant independence to his country while the U.S. was going to put no pressure on France to grant independence at the same time that the “communist” Russians were willing to support his efforts–so he called his party back together and went forward. Italy and France each elected legislatures with huge numbers of “communists,” yet even when they had something resembling power in those countries, they never came close to pushing for a Marxist revolution.
The Soviet/Russian threat was real, (if often overblown), but it was of the ancient model of empires clashing rather than of the “world domination” claims of the people who irrationally feared “communism,” and the various “communist” movements were rarely more than simply the current effort by the Soviets to destabilize U.S./U.K. allies while our “democratic” movements were pretty nearly always efforts to destabilize their allies.
This might have some vague sembnlance of reality if there was even one occasion when a judge in the U.S. had ordered Sharia to be implemented on any level, but there really is not*. (And, had such a decision been rendered, it would still need to make it past the various layers of state and Fedral appellate courts, which, again, is simply silly.)
It is nothing more than silly, hyperbolic scaremongering that has no basis in fact.
There actually is an organization, the Center for Security Policy think tank, that claims to have found a number of such “Sharia” deicisions, but as this is the same group that proposed, in 2007, making G W Bush “president for life” because democracy was inherently unstable and as no other legal analysis group has been found to agree with them, I am willing to dismiss such claims as more paranoia.
I agree that the thought that American courts might adopt sharia law is absurd, but IIRC the start of it was some SCOTUS decisions (or concurrences) that looked at how other countries such as England or France looked at certain things that we had in common. I can’t recall the exact case, so I’m making this up as I go, but lets say that our constitution had a “right to eat ice cream” and France’s constitution had the same thing.
Since we both have the same thing based on the same ideals for implementing it some Justices looked at what France ruled on the right to eat ice cream to form the basis of how our right to eat ice cream should be formed.
Well, when this case came out, conservatives were enraged that the US Supreme Court would look to other countries for guidance on how to implement our law. They argued that SCOTUS should look only to our constitution and our history in ruling on laws. Some of the articles speculated that since we are looking at foreign countries’ laws, what would stop them from looking at Iran and implementing sharia law in the next case?
I thought it was a reasonable, if not way too slippery slope argument that had little merit. Although I agreed with the sentiment that we should not look at anything other countries are doing to determine our own law, the nexus with sharia law was suspect because nothing in our law is common with that, and there would be no need to look at it. It seems like a rhetorical device against using foreign law in our courts.
Then I went into a cave for a few years and emerged to see states debating outlawing sharia law like it was a looming menace.
I won’t bother with your thesis: I’ll just add a qualification. You might have said, “Outside of the OECD (i.e. advanced countries), there was little difference…” Objectively, Europe and Japan benefited a lot from the US’s military umbrella, peacenik anti-nuclear protests (which I supported) notwithstanding.
Not really, except maybe Japan. Once they had nukes the USSR was never going to attack them, and America has done quite a bit of economic and social damage to them. The most important difference is that they were stronger, so America was able to do less damage to them than to some African country. And that isn’t a moral difference, just a matter of power.
Western Europe also benefited economically from lower military spending than they would have had without NATO. As did Canada. I seriously doubt whether those countries would have simply trusted their nukes - and remember that only France, UK and Canada even had those WMDs anyway.
I’m not sure about Australia and New Zealand, but they weren’t exactly under the US’s heal during the era.
The rest of the world was a mixed bag. Guatemala was a nightmare while Mexico escaped mostly unscathed for example. India kept both powers at bay.
Oh and yes, it does help to be stronger: weak states are often client states. See my examples. Though Panama did pretty well for itself in many ways, notwithstanding the dictatorships and US invasion.
That’s like saying demonizing Nazism is an easy way to demonize Germans. There’s no need to demonize Sharia because it is inherently bullshit stupidity. And while it may in some interpretations be merely rather bad, it certainly can with other interpretations be naked evil.
There are variations of Sharia, occurring in various culturally determined contexts, that are harsh or that deprive certain members of society, (notably women), of rights and protections. But Sharia is not some monolithic entity that is universally evil. There are numerous variations of Sharia that have developed in many different places and they have different strengths and weaknesses. Many are also under constant review and development, just as jurisprudence in Western societies is, so that areas of injustice are slowly being eliminated, just as in Western societies, backsliding such as has occurred in Iran, notwithstanding.
Looking at the versions of Sharia that fail to protect people and declaring Sharia evil is like looking at the constitutions of various Cold War era Iron Curtain countries and declaring that constitutional republics are evil.
Broad brush condemnation is fun and makes for convenient demonization of others, but it is rarely accurate or useful, (except for stirring up hatred).
They could simply have created a version of NATO without the US. And the economic damage done by the US to the world easily overshadows any savings from a smaller military.
Mexico was being screwed over by the US before, during and after the Cold War.
:rolleyes: That’s like saying that a woman is "doing quite well, except for the rapes and beatings.
Well it could happen:D . What’s wrong with getting out front of an issue?
I’m satisfied having pointed out that “legislated and implemented any moment” is not what would drive whatever is bothering the OP.
If liberals and liberal judges aren’t in favor of heading in that direction then great … but why would you be worried about legislation that wouldn’t allow you to?
This sounds like a rationalization to me. My sense is that “liberals/progressives” pay a lot of attention if some policy is implemented in a small town which policy offends them. For example, if a bunch of Tea Parties were able to push through a policy requiring a racially segregated prom at the local high school you can imagine the kerfuffle which would ensue.
Realistically, Jim Crow laws are about as likely to be legislated and implemented at any moment in the West as are Sharia laws.
So the next time Pamela Geller gets upset about Christian Missionaries being harassed and arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, imagine how you would feel if a couple gay activists were harassed and arrested for holding hands while walking down the main street in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
Did you even read what I wrote (“some interpretations,“ “rather bad“ to “naked evil”) or merely jump to the conclusion you wished for? There are variations of Sharia, some are merely rather bad, some are naked evil. All are bullshit. None should be implemented in Western society. We need religious based jurisprudence and priests and imams to play judges like we need another hole in the head. That is my personal opinion. If you think more religious law would be super great, you are free to have another opinion. And I shall attempt not to label you as a fascist for having a divergent opinion.
I have to ask–why is this a bad thing? Are we presuming that other countries cannot ever have something meaningful to say about jurisprudence in the abstract, in the absence of specific guiding principles from our own precedents and constitution?
Yes, pretty much. The idea is that there is no abstract jurisprudence, and only specific jurisprudence based on pre-existing principles. The idea is that, by even looking at what another country did, you bias yourself towards implementing their solution, and thus make it impossible to come to an unbiased conclusion for yourself.
It’s not entirely wrong, either, but the relevance is overblown. Smart people can overcome biases, and can see what principles two different countries work under and make sure they don’t conflict.
Or to relate it back to this thread–there’s no way shariah law will become the norm as long as we realize that there is a different principle of how women are allowed to be treated.