[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Syria should be more alarmed by the exportation of democracy. Whether the US likes it or not, the Turks are exercising their democracy. The Iranian Democracy movement should benefit from having a less threatening democracry next door. It should rattle the Saudi's more than a little too!
[/QUOTE]
So no more WMDs excuses to invade?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
So no more WMDs excuses to invade?
[/QUOTE]
Don't worry for Iran and Syria they will find new excuses. One which always works is: "Al Qaida" ;)
Re: Syria is next
.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Pakistan, on the other hand, only has nuclear WMDs. US troops carry absolutely nothing that can protect themselves from these.
[/QUOTE]
Pakistan also has Biochem weapons...
Re: Re: Syria is next
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
WOW I can't wait, I want all the Arab and Muslim worlds to be next! I mean why must only ONE nation suffer,why must only ONE country hurt, I mean why must only ONE leader go through this? I want ALL Arab and Muslim nations to be next.
[/QUOTE]
They are 2nd. You forgot Afghanistan so soon?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rehaan: *
Pakistan also has Biochem weapons...
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there are so many pharmaceutical and pesticide companies, I wonder what they are doing under the hood.
Re: Re: Re: Syria is next
.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Syria is next
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
.....
I wonder if Medina or Mecca ever come under attack will Muslims still be alseep? I guess I already know the answer to that one.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen you. There is a saying: "agar shakal achhee nahi to baat hee achhee kar liya karo".
I vote for The Peoples Republic of California to be next.
^
Hear hear! LOL.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Syria should be more alarmed by the exportation of democracy. Whether the US likes it or not, the Turks are exercising their democracy. The Iranian Democracy movement should benefit from having a less threatening democracry next door. It should rattle the Saudi's more than a little too!
[/QUOTE]
Ohioguy, you of all people having worked in the Gov. and all that should realise that democracy in "Muslim" countries works against the western powers. :) But hey, it isn't about Da-mock-racy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
Ohioguy, you of all people having worked in the Gov. and all that should realise that democracy in "Muslim" countries works against the western powers. :) But hey, it isn't about Da-mock-racy.
[/QUOTE]
Do you remember "democracy" in Algiers (Algezire may be?)?
Rhia,
Funny thing, the Eastern European States are not an illogical comparison. They were subjected to decades of corrupt regimes, and suffered at the whim of the Soviets. Today they are free, and are among the most supportive of the American postion, becuase the memory of their repression is so severe. Yet if you had interviewed them when they were under the thumb of repressive regimes you would have feared that they would have been the worst of enemies even with the coming of Democracy.
The US has working relationships with Hindu countries, Bhuddist, semi goddless countries like China, we are able to work with many different cultures, there is no inevitability to the conflict with Muslims. Democracy is messy, but the degree of conflict with "free" countries is much less than that with totalitarian countries.
Just entertain for a minute the POSSIBILITY that the US legitimately wants to export democracy. That has to be a huge threat to Saudi, Syria, Iran, and other repressive regimes. There are young people, people like Guppies here who WANT the US to make a stand for the people and not the corrupt regimes. Iraq is a great place to start. But frankly Iraq is a wreck. It has no workable legislature, judiciary system, civil service system, even their arts are dominated by the cottage industry of producing Saddam relics.....There is a massive rebuilding project here because none of the precursors for liberty are present.
Self-perpetuating freedom will take a long time....
And in the end, I think this was MUCH more about democracy than about WMD.
Ohioguy thanx for the reply. What I meant about democracy was nothing to do with eastern europe or anything else. I don't think that is a valid comparison. I'll try to get back to you with a coherent reply. In the meanwhile, have a word with myvoice about democracy ;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
...
And in the end, I think this was MUCH more about democracy than about WMD.
[/QUOTE]
hmmmm, so Bush was liar when he was saying that it was about WMDs?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Wada Saien: *
[btw ... our mush boy practiced that art a few times in the recent history]
[/QUOTE]
ouuuch
"hmmmm, so Bush was liar when he was saying that it was about WMDs?"
No, it was certainly a factor. But lot's of countries have WMD. If you listen to Bush, it was the nexus of WMD, gross human rights violations, an aggressive history of invading neighbors, and a defiance that promised that as soon as the UN was gone that he would begin assembling his military at a frightening pace.
He could have been another Assad, or Qaddafi, horrible but non-threatening. If that had been the case, I do not think that war would have come.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
...
No, it was certainly a factor. But lot's of countries have WMD. If you listen to Bush, it was the nexus of WMD, gross human rights violations, an aggressive history of invading neighbors, and a defiance that promised that as soon as the UN was gone that he would begin assembling his military at a frightening pace.
[/quote]
Ever considered human rights violations by Israel? I guess its in bed with US, so all violations are ignored.
[quote]
He could have been another Assad, or Qaddafi, horrible but non-threatening. If that had been the case, I do not think that war would have come.
[/QUOTE]
May be Ariel Sharon?
Ohioguy, I think in order to understand my initial comment of "democracy in muslim world works against western powers/interests" in context, lets take the example of Iran, the others Saudi and Syria are basically very totalitarian regimes. In 1979 the Islamic revolution in Iran was a popular one meaning it was endorsed and supported by the Public. This popular revolution led to the downfall of the Shah and his dictatorial rule, who incidentally was backed by the US. No amount of screaming fundamentalist and extremist by the media and world leaders would ever disguise the fact that this was what the people wanted. The people had spoken loud and clear. Whether it was for the better or the worse in my or your view is of no consequence because the majority had decided for themselves and in that end that is what democracy is about. Believe it or not, Iran is a democratic country. Its parliamentary constitution or the constitution of Majlis is moulded on the US’. The only unelected body but still answerable committee is akin to House of Lords in the UK. The very fact there is open debate and there are active opposition parties in the country and people feel able to criticise and influence the governing bodies (one recent example would be the overturning of the academic’s sentence) proves beyond doubt its democratic nature. But why is this not palatable for the US? Why the differences and animosity between the two countries? Surely it can’t be because the leaders of that country have a different dress code! Why doesn’t the US accept and respect the choice of the people at face value?
The biggest lie being perpetrated today is that Israel is the only democracy in the Mid-East. Another example of democracy although limited is in Lebanon. Limited because of colonial hangovers in their constitution, similar to that in Bahrain in which is representation is divided on the basis of religious sect with Christian priority, followed by Sunni and then Shia or something like that. Yet despite these parliamentary limitations, in 1996 elections Hizbollah (yes, that supposed “terrorist” group) achieved a land-slide victory and remains one of the most influential political parties with an active social development programme that goes beyond ethnicity and sectarian divides. A Coptic Christian or Druze will just as likely tell you how proud he is of Hizbollah as will a Lebanese Shia. For the Lebanese the party is somewhat a national treasure. Again, the US endorses and accepts the leadership of an indicted war criminal, Sharon because he is the “choice of the people” but doesn’t extend the same courtesy to Hizbollah? Why not?
With respect to Saudi Arabia, I believe had Mr Bin Laden the chance of democracy of some sort he would be making full use of it and I am sure you would agree if given the chance in SA, with full free transparent election according to will of the public the results would be shocking for the US. Again although not in the Mid-East, another example with a very limited style and notion of Democracy and democratic ideal is Pakistan, a country riddled with dictatorship for most of its just over 50 years of existence. Yet elections produced a huge victory for religious parties. Again, for better for worse, the people’s choice and you have to respect that if nothing else.
As Huntingdon would say, the Muslim world especially in the ME seeks modernity but without Westernisation. So no, self-perpetuating freedom does not take a long time. It does not take any time in fact except in US deciding whether this freedom is within our interest or against our interests. In the end, nothing matters, neither the little facts of freedom nor the will of the people when it comes to “you’re either with US or against US”. That’s when we end up with a little more than a clash of interest.
Oh I totally forgot about the example changez-like gave about Algeria. Yes the whole repression by France because they couldn't bear to see "Islamist" in leadership.
Pathetic.