Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94655)	4/18/2003 4:58:45 PM
From: XBrit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yep. If the Iraqis want an Islamic fundamentalist regime, or even if they freely choose another non-democratic secular regime, the USA has no business getting in their way. Imposing American-style democracy without allowing a choice of other systems would be naked colonialism. Further, if the Iraqis want to break their country up into 3 new ones, that also should be allowed. The USA has no business telling them they can't do these things.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94655)	4/18/2003 6:05:04 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you believe in democracy, or don't you? Are we going to set up a democracy in Iraq, or not Well, you seem to think we are. I'm merely pointing out an irony, and a complexity. The Shiites are rallying for a regime repressive of females. Just how repressive they didn't say. They only cheered for controlling their clothing. Maybe it was a fashion statement. What restrictions on the rights of Iraqi females, and while we're at it, since I'm in a pessimistic mood, on everyone's right, for example, to freedom of expression, would convince you that the regime that was carrying them out was not "democratic"? I'm not here proposing "changing their ways," or anything else. I'm proposing only calling things by their rightful names. Don't call it a democracy, Islamic or any other kind, if women end up being deprived of the full rights of citizenship. It makes me cranky when you do that. you shouldn't oppose the Iraqis running their own country as they* see fit* [my bolding] Who's the "they" to which you refer? According to this link, more than 65% of the Iraqi population is women. clk.about.com It's complicated, and the thought-juxtaposition of what's likely to happen there with lines like "Do you believe in democracy, or don't you? Are we going to set up a democracy in Iraq, or not?" is darkly funny in a SNL in Hell sort of way. Is all I'm saying. Please don't come on and declare that I'm proposing that it's our job to force Islam to change, because I am not doing that.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94655)	4/18/2003 7:47:08 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I f your answer is yes, then you shouldn't oppose the Iraqis running their own country as they see fit, even if it's not at all the way you or I want to live. Right? Wrong. As I discussed the other day, Zakaria's new book carefully explains why a liberal democracy is the important goal. A liberal democracy is one which stresses individual liberty. The most obvious deficit we find in your example is that 1/2/ of the population has no liberty -- the women. No, this is not what I want...is it what you want? --fl

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94655)	4/18/2003 8:32:00 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you believe in democracy, or don't you? Are we going to set up a democracy in Iraq, or not ? You are implying that this group represents all of Iraq ? How about thinking a bit of that country just across the border, we have all amply seen just how universal the mollahs representation of what "everyone" in Iran wants is. The Taliban in Afghanistan are an excellent example of what paradise awaits any country that turns itself over to religious nutcases with delusions of grandeur. While in a certain sense, maybe it would be best for the population of any country that allows these people come to power (one man, one vote, one time) to taste the glories of life under a backward theocracy in a rapidly evolving world. But how long would it take, how many generations, for any country which makes that choice to be in measure to retract it ? Iran is again a good example of how long it will take in fairly good circumstances. Eventually, the mollahs in Iran will fall, but it's still going to take a long time, a hell of a lot longer than the next economic cycle not to mention the next American presidential administration. And they'll hold back progress the whole way. We're seeing a lot of understandable attempts at power grabs in Iraq. I don't think we have an accurate view at all of the whole story in current events in the country. If the country weren't strategically important we wouldn't even be there, and the country would probably be like so many sub Saharan African states. But the country is strategically important and we have to be very careful about distinguishing between the latest opportunistic power grab, and what's needed to let the country get back on its feet economically and socially. The behavior of these museum looters is only one glaring example of the kind of grabbing that will go on unless some order is maintained. So many people assume a laissez-faire approach, simply canceling the sanctions and letting the highest bidder buy all the oil Saddam wanted to sell would have been so much more moral and humane. This is really debatable when we see the behavior of his regime in the years it's been in power. In other posts you've yourself claimed repeatedly that Africans are incapable of managing their own affairs. Am I to believe that Iraq in the country's present state is really capable of managing it's own reconstruction without Western guidance ? That it would be so much better to swiftly pull out now that the ants nest has been thoroughly overturned, and let the UN, Europe, Russian, and every other Tom Dick and Harry who want's a piece of the action to divvy up the contracts ? We've seen time and again how brilliantly well that succeeds in sub Saharan Africa, need I remind you of Angola ? In wartime, mafia organizations thrive like at no other time. The US owes it to the Iraqi population to do the best we can to make up for the disorder we (and Europe, Russia, the list is long) have allowed to take hold. I could care less at this point if some of Shrub's cronies make a profit, even if I don't totally like the idea of post conflict profits being at the backs of the minds of some of those people, but I really do care if we screw up now that we've taken a military victory. In short, we're not "imposing beliefs" if we maintain order in the country at this stage.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94655)	4/18/2003 10:58:59 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We have to oppose violent Islamism, but not oppose Islamism. Hmmmm... Part of me wants to agree with this, but my gut tells me that whatever we do, we must attempt to influence the constitutional process to the extent that the only recognized political parties permitted to exist in Iraq are those who pay allegiance to the constitution and democratic system, not merely use the system to create their own non-democratic government. Thus, I'm not sure that a Islamic party, however moderate and non-violent, is going to be willing to tolerate opposition which is secular. The idea system, IMO, is one where all religions are tolerated and non-political. Religion battles for men's (and women's) souls should not be a political issue, but spiritual. Government should not be permitted to advance one form of religion over another. Hawk