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 (94779)	4/19/2003 3:33:19 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

So, you want to tell them what they can and can't have in their constitution, and what kind of political parties they can and can't have. If you don't allow non-violent legal Islamic parties, what you'll get is violent illegal Islamic parties. And you call this democracy? Indeed, a critical difficulty at this juncture... "Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom is a learned, tough minded, and intellectually courageous warning that easy bromides about democracy, if taken as a literal guide to policy, could make the world a more dangerous and less pleasant place. At a moment when Washington is full of hopeful talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East, Zakaria's book should start a sorely needed discussion about how to balance the hope of bringing more freedom to the region with the risk of further empowering radical Islam." - Nicholas Lemann fareedzakaria.com ========================= And for those of you who may not know: "In 1992, at the age of 28, Zakaria became managing editor of Foreign Affairs, the leading journal of international politics and economics?a position he held through 2000." The position is now held by Gideon Rose. Fareed's Bio is at: fareedzakaria.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94779)	4/19/2003 3:44:28 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 281500

In the last two Reconstructions, did any political parties/political ideologies in Germany and Japan become outlawed? How well did those reconstructions work? "So, you want to tell them what they can and can't have in their constitution, and what kind of political parties they can and can't have."

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94779)	4/19/2003 8:54:48 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> And you call this democracy? What's the hang-up about democracy ? Democracy is not an end. It is a means of protecting the real values of life and liberty. When there is a basic consensus in society, it is the best way. But the protection of basic rights is a higher value than immediate democracy. First the institutions that guard citizen and minority rights have to be built, and only after that should elections be held. And yes, it is irrelevant to me if the majority of any place want to be able to stone women to death, or cut off someone's hand, or burn a widow on a pier. If it takes brutal force to suppress such practices, that is the right thing to do.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (94779)	4/19/2003 9:25:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But you just can't stand not to meddle. Jacob... just for once.. try and be realistic and view the ENTIRE picture, not just that which pertains to the actions of the US. EVERYONE IS MEDDLING IN IRAQ!! The Iranians Ayatollahs are meddling by threatening to permit that 10,000 man "army" of Iraqi shias back into Iraq. They WANT a shia theocracy in Iraq because it would reinforce their own tentative hold on Iranian society and infuse a renewed force into their power structure (controlling the Shia holy sites). The French and Russians are meddling by threatening to withhold the lifting of UN sanctions unless they get their "piece of the action" in post-Baathist Iraq... The relief agencies are sitting on their butts in Kuwait claiming that its "too dangerous" to travel in Iraq with relief goods. This, despite the lack of relief goods makes the people even more desperate and lawless.... Everyone is going to meddle and play politics... What's important is the objective and goal of such meddling. Is it meddling for the US to take such actions that neutralize the meddling of Iran to set the stage for non-democratic theocracy in Iraq? Or is it the responsibility of the US, as a liberating force, to GUIDE the Iraqis to some form of sustainable government which will provide representation and participation for ALL Iraqis, not just some of the more powerful non-democratic factions? If that's meddling, we'd better be prepared to do some more. As well as being prepared to do some more meddling in Iran and Syria, if necessary, so they're forced to pay more attention to their "own" problems, than trying to create instability in Iraq. It's a very fine line we're drawing here between meddling, dictating, and guiding... Hawk