| Author | Message | ||
     Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 228 Registered: 8-2003 |
Is spreading freedom like spreading butter? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5099 Registered: 4-1998  |
Butter is part of it. http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail238.html | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 229 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave, after reading the review of Barnett's book, the question is who gave America the "moral responsibility" to spread butter, oops, I mean "freedom" around the world? Does military might equal to higher morality? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5100 Registered: 4-1998 |
Here's your moral choice: 50,000 kids dying every year in Iraq under sanctions since the early '90s or the 1/20th of that number today? You have five minutes. Please use a #2 pencil. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 230 Registered: 8-2003 |
Did the sanctions work? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5102 Registered: 4-1998 |
I thought you were asking a question about morality. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 231 Registered: 8-2003 |
That's Hobson's choice. My #2 pencil refuses to work. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4416 Registered: 10-2001  |
Apologies to all with the delay in getting this column out. As I've promised, I will try and do so as much as possible. Iraq War/ Vietnam Once again liberals got it wrong in Iraq. It's been very popular for Libs to compare Iraq to Vietnam. For the most part Liberals seem obsessed even today with that war. Of course, it's easy enough to call Iraq a quagmire, so they do so. However, once again liberals have it wrong. The Viet Cong were fighting for communism. At the time of their battle (long before Reagan) Communism/Socialism seemed to be a model that worked or could work in modern times. As a result, their fight had some plausibility. They were fighting for a society based on modern political thought. Today in Iraq we have 2 major groups of Insurgents. First off we have the old Saddam loyalists who want to re-establish a bloody dictatorship that awards the few. On the other hand we have the Radical Muslim element who want Iraq to be a society with no modern thought. A society that in essence makes women nothing more then slaves, and non-believers non-existent (and dead). Both thoughts cannot work today since neither have any type of political dynamic that can work (without bloody oppression). So, next time a liberal uses the word quagmire, understand they're simply trying to compare The Viet Cong to the Insurgents. As we now see, it's a comparison you simply can't make. UPCOMING TOPICS: Are American liberals suffering from a form of brain damage? | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7427 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, Radical Islam is the communism of the 21st Century. If the new Iraqi government proves to have credibility and their army and police are willing to fight and die for them Iraq will not be a quagmire. If this isn't the case our troops will be there for at least ten years and it will become one. Pretty simple. About the only effective unit in the Iraqi army is Battalion (sometimes called Commando) 36. It is made up of Shia and Kurd militiamen who were "loaned" to the central government. Will this be the model for the new defense forces? | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4417 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Straw, Radical Islam is the communism of the 21st Century." Bobk, this is simply not correct. Communism came with a series of ideas including economic growth and stability. Obviously Communism wasn't able to live up to its billing, but nevertheless, it was something the world assumed could thrive. If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter. Islamic radicalism is not based on any type of economic thought process. It's simply racism. A better comparison would be Nazi Germany. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7429 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, Islam is a religion, not an economic system. However, it appeals to "the downtrodden masses" in much the same way communism did. The major difference is that it promises joy and prosperity in the next life, not the current one, which is the case with communism. National socialism is like communism an economic system. Both are based on planned economies, the difference being who owns the sources of production. To underestimate the appeal of radical Islam is a mistake. It is growing like wildfire, whether we like it or not. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 676 Registered: 2-2004 |
it was something the world assumed could thrive. Only pinheads and communist sympathisers assumed it could work. Anyone with half a brain who's actually examined the internal debates that went on within communist and socialist circles recognized that the system couldn't work. So which are you a pinhead or a communist sympathiser? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4289 Registered: 10-1999  |
I'd give the advantage to Bobk on this one. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4418 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bobk, In Iraq the masses don't want it. That's what made what we saw in Iraq that much more incredible. Not only were the Iraqis voting, they were making a statement. And that statement clearly rebuffs your claim that radical Islam is growing leaps and bounds. It can if free nations around the world turn its back on the Middle East. However, as we have clearly seen, Radical Islam is not appreciated by the majority. And this is very very important as we continue the war on terror. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4419 Registered: 10-2001 |
I actually agree with your point Joe. That's why I used Carter as my example as someone who believed communism could thrive, if not survive. Carter afterall was as you say a pinhead. I think you missed my point. Please re-read what I wrote. After doing so you will see that my point had more to do with the Viet Cong and those who supported it feeling they were fighting for a just cause. A fight that had more to do with just simply killing other human beings. Radical Islam on the other hand is about killing all non-believers. Huge difference. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7430 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, thanks to the Baathists Iraq has some tradition of secularism. The same is true of Syria for the same reasons. However, look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, some of the Gulf States and even Egypt and you see a much different picture. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 677 Registered: 2-2004 |
I don't know. VC and Islamofascists often give the locals a choice, adopt our fanaticism or die. The only real difference that you point to is that communism was an attempt at driving to a more modern vision while the Islamofascists want to go back to a simpler, more repressive time (a lot like the religious right in this country). Just because Islamofascism is a step back in history doesn't mean it couldn't work. Maybe if the Amish got themselves a charismatic leader and a bang up ad campaign could get themselves a couple of billion converts and the world might very well be a better place for it. I think if you asked one of these jihadists whether or not they thought they were fighting a just cause, they'd tell you they were. In their eyes what could be more of a just cause than fighting off the "Great Satan" in the land of Allah? The fact that we're seen as invaders only adds fuel to their fanaticism. I'm not saying they're right, but you need to realize that they think they are. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4420 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bobk, From what you're saying the Iraqi people should be embracing radical Islam, since it's as you say so popular elsewhere in the region. From what we just saw the people are ready to embrace democracy instead. And freedom can spread. And with freedom comes democracy and capitalism and opportunity. Changing a culture is never easy obviously, but its the only possible way to battle terrorism. As a matter of fact, to this day we have yet to hear one Democrat who opposes Iraq offer one solution to combat as you say the spread of radical Islam and terrorism. Not KERRY, KENNEDY, MOORE, REID etc. And one more thing, liberals have cried the war has led to a mass increase in radical islam, but your point above refutes that claim. In other words, you've just given more reasons as to why Iraq was the right place to launch (along w/ Afghanistan) the war on terror, since the people there haven't embraced radical islam to the degree they have in other countries. In other words, Iraq was the correct nation to re-build in hopes of seeing it become a strong ally. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7432 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, what I am saying is that there is a better chance to avoid radicalism in Iraq because they have a secular tradition. The elections went very well. However, remember that they were voting along religious lines for the most part and Sistani will be the defacto ruler of the country. If he calls for Jihad (which I don't think he will do in the near future) every Shite will dig their AK-47 up from the garden and start killing Coalition troops and Sunnis. Don't underestimate the power of religion in these peoples minds. They also have a long memory. To at least some, our invasion of Iraq is just a continuation of the Crusades. Heck, OBL even calls us "Crusaders". | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4291 Registered: 10-1999 |
Some people happily vote for radical Islam. See, for example, Algeria (where the military overturned the election), Turkey (where the secular military keeps a tight rein on things) and even elections in Iran (although the civil government is subject to the control of a religious council, a portion of the electorate has supported the radical elements). |
