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: cnyndwllr who wrote (132712)	5/12/2004 1:26:56 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, the argument you adduce is full of holes. People who are interested in demeaning Islam do not treat either Imams or sacred sites with respect. Saddam Hussein suppressed some Shi'ite pilgrimages and festivals, we do not. We have, in fact, behaved consistently with our belief in freedom of religion. Innocent Iraqis are not being killed, except in cases of collateral damage. In fact, we went to a lot of trouble to avoid civilian casualties in the latest confrontation. Certainly, we have been very conservative even with the lives of men under arms, allowing them to flee before attacks in the initial phase of the war. The fact is, with a free press, a Constitution mandating Congressional oversight, and the norms expected of our armed forces, it was inevitable that abuses would be exposed and that those responsible would be brought to account. There is nothing like the systematic butchery in which Saddam engaged, which was endemic to the system, and had no mechanisms to correct it. Imagine any of the strong men of the Arab states engaging in the kind of public displays of chagrin that Bush and various of his people have, over a handful of prisoners who were humiliated, not even beaten, as far as one can see. Actually, we are not assuming that the Muslims, not even the Shi'ites, are "evil incarnate", which is why we are promoting democracy. We do not even assume that all Ba'athist are equally implicated in oppression. There is no broad brush demonization. There is the acknowledgement that there are those, terrorists and rogue states alike, who would destroy us if they could, and that we need to deal with them. I cannot fathom the hostility shown to the idea of spreading democracy. Yes, Jihadist fanatics object to moderation, and want to impose a strict theocracy, but why should anyone else deride the idea that non- oppressive regimes which allow civil liberties and a degree of civic participation by the people are preferable to any alternative?