I was talking to my friend who is in Iraq right now, and he was telling me how things are not really good there right now.
It made me think a few things:
1. When will it get better?
2. Could it be possible that these people can not form a civilized society? Maybe because of their religion and community, they are not able to live like the rest of the world...I don't know if that is true, but it seems to be like pulling teeth to get things to calm down and become civilized...
I know, the liberals who only think about feelings and emotion will think: "wow, that is racist" I am just throwing out another possibility...There isn't one arab country that has a working democracy as far as I know...
What do you think?
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Not a good thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I've also been wondering if the Paleo-conservatives were right about Iraq.
Religion is a static process demanding unquestioning submission, while politics is a process offering participation, discussion, and lawmaking founded in consent.
Christian civilization got around this contradiction with the separation of Church and State. Christianity grew up alongside the Roman government. Jesus taught that one should "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Augustine developed this idea in the City of God, and St. Gregory implemented the Pastoral Rule in the 5th century, imposing the duty of civil obedience upon the clergy. The idea persisted in medieval times with the distinction between regnum and sacerdotium.
Islam doesn't have this tradition. Sovereignty for them rests with Allah and his Prophet (pigs be upon him), and legal order for them is founded in divine command. Unlike the West, there is no entity called "the Mosque." Like the Leninists, Islam seeks to control the state without being a subject to the state.
The left, though, looks at things in a more nuanced fashion. Like in Chomsky-world, they see world as divided in a simple manner between evil individuals acting rationally out of an instinct for greed, and others acting rationally out of an instinct for freedom. The key point is that everything is rational -- there are no political movements based on paranoid conspiracy theories, obsessive hatreds, a longing for a precapitalist medieval past, and a taste for murder and death. If we butt out, rationality will prevail in the last chapter as those with an instinct for freedom assert themselves. Like the Rhmer Rouge.
Good post Jason. Not that I agree with everything, but it is a well-thought and well-presented post.
So how can YOU be so rational on one post and so blatantly hateful and irrational on the next? I asked you before if you were bi-polar. It was a joke, but sometimes I wonder.
Let's see:
1) Indonesia
2) Azerbaijan
3) Bangladesh
4) Chad
5) Egypt
6) Khazakstan
7) Kyrgyzstan
8) Mali
9) Pakistan
10) Tajikistan
11) Tunisia
12) Turkey
There, a full dozen stable republics..all of them predominately Muslim. Notice that it includes the 3 strongest, Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia.
Jason H. Bowden wrote:
"If we butt out, rationality will prevail in the last chapter as those with an instinct for freedom assert themselves. Like the Rhmer Rouge."
(Khmer Rouge: The Khmer Rouge regime was removed from power in 1979 as a result of an invasion by Vietnam. They remained a guerrilla party...receiving military aid fromm China. The US refused to recognize Cambodia nor negiotate with Pol Pot. who died in 1998)They were able to liberate the Cambodian people with the help of the UN....which included US peacekeeping forces
sometimes you just have to step in on the school yard bully. Especially the ones incharge of the crematoriums and torture dungeons.
p.s. Jason...dude.... rethink 'Bartok' on your music list.. that guy is hard on the ears.
Lets not forget though, json. Our civilization battled for over a thousand years for some sort of supremecy of either regnum or sacerdotium. As the State became clearly ascendent, a compromise was reached. It only took how long for Ceasars to be Ceasars and Gods to become Gods. Christians have a 600 year head start.
As to your original post Game,
1) Probably not for a very long time.
2) Interesting thought because this is exactly what Bush regards (as he said in his press conference Friday) as the position of "the elites" who think that maybe some societies can't be free or exist within a democratic state.
I don't believe that's true, and actually I think that Bush's statement presents a false straw man because I don't really think there are those who think or say that.
What they do say is that you can't just go to a society and say "Presto, you are a democracy" without a tradition and respect for liberal (in the classical sense) institutions like the rule of law and basic human rights. These things take time and according to Fareed Zacharia's "The Future of Freedom", it takes a certain level of per capita income in order for members of the society to have a stake in a free and stable country.
I think its sad that the professional and armchair pundits are so black and white and really don't know the full circumstances of what it is all about. Can anybody tell me precisely what Hezbollah or the people fighting in Iraq or Hamas are fighting for? Don't just say world domination either. That's the black and white I'm talking about. That's what the other side says is our goal. We know that the average american wants nothing of the sort. Before this will ever be solved we need to know just what both sides are after. What would make them quit fighting. What comprimises could be made so citizens wouldn't have to die. Methinks there is so much here that we are not privy to and that is propagandized..on both sides..that the people that are actually living and dying can't exert proper influence on the leaders to solve the problem. That's what it's going to take to get a solution. The worlds people coming to an agreement and not just the political leaders..The pols are leading the people, again on both sides, where they would rather not go.
Good post jason,rhyno and everybody.
Sorry, ron. I think the terrorists like Hezbollah are fighting to atleast get rid of the west from the middle east...I know atleast some of them would like world domination...but their first objective is to get rid of any western influence, then to get rid of Israel...then for some, Radical Islam all over the world...
and I am very glad that we can have rational talk here...even if we don't agree I don't have to hear the word lie or neo con or Faux news...well done...
To clarify...are you saying, Ron, that you want to understand what Hezbollah wants?
If that is true...I think you don't understand terorist, as do most liberals...Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel..plain and simple
First Game, do you realize that the other side is saying that America wants world domination? Do you think that is true? Now if they read what you and Jason say they may also believe that Americans want to destroy Islam and all moslems. Don't you think that would make them want to fight for survival just as you think we need to?
Not only do I want us to understand what Hezbollah..not necessarily wants but would be acceptable for cessation of hostilities long term. I also want them to know about what we and Israel want and would be willing accept for cessation of hostilities long term. The street needs to go both ways.
Yes, there are a number on both sides that are guilty. Some would like to destroy israel and destroy america. There are those on this side (apparently from your comments like you and Jason) who would like to destroy moslems and islam. I think the mass number on both sides have no desire to destroy each other. It is the leaders that are leading the people where they don't want to go or propagandizing to talk them into it. If we better knew what was required for peace the people could insist on it. Basically I am saying that people that are for peace..the majority on both sides need to in unison force their leaders to adopt their position and accomadate each other. I know it is a pipe dream....but I'm not the only one.
By the way you gave the answer I told you not to give..I knew that would be the only response you could come up with.
ok, let me clarify a little. I suddenly realized who I'm talking to here. If they want western influence out of the mideast that is fine with me. We don't want Islamic culture here either. That is perfectly understandable to me.Hell, a lot of the fundies don't care much for our culture and they live here!
We do have a sticky wicket in Israel because of the religous angle. I think we could come up with some kind of accomodation there. Again there are some radicals that want more,domination of the world etc. on both sides, but if we on both sides made them pariahs then they would be minimized out of existance. This seems like a far more acceptable answer to our problems than unending hate and death and escalating unending war.
I also want Hezbollah(not necessarly hezbollah but the people that they "control") to understand us. We are not what they make us out to be. And we are controled by a cabal that tells us that same thing Hezbollah tells their people. That doesnt mean that you and I should die for their insanity. I can't buy your idea that they want to do nothing but destroy israel but saying that is the case. Why do they want to do it? Just because they are crazy bad people? I assume that is what you think and that is really narrow minded thinking. That is robot talk that you would despise if it was coming from the other side yet you do it yourself. In the most literal of terms. If it makes you happy, Yes, those that only want to kill should be killed. I can't even fathom that there are really that many of those people on the planet. Yes there are some. Hitler was the head of a country in the 1930s,easier to fight a traditional war. You are talking about a new and different kind of threat and battle. If you think you can fight it in the same way then you are missing the march of time. It's the 21st century game. The future is more yours than mine. Although Maybe not if we blow up the world cuz each side thinks the other side won't be happy until they do. You are talking like a crazy person game. I don't consider this ww 3. You are full of fear game. You are acting like this because you are scared. Stand up and be brave. Don't let them scare you into ww 3. Get a grip and think rationally. We will destroy the world if you of the future don't save it. War IS destruction and if you think you are going to scare these people, ya just to the same extent you are scared, but into submission just think about the idea of them doing that to you..not gonna happen huh?
Game, why don't you actually do a little research about Hezbollah. Don't just read NewsMax.
Google Hezbollah and read a few different articles.
They are bad-ass people. They use terror tactics. They support the destruction of Israel.
But guess what? There's a whole lot more to Hezbollah, their goals, and their role in Lebanon and the middle east than "they are terrorists". Read about it from a number of different sources and see how silly you sound when you say we can somehow solve the Israel-Lebanon problem by wiping out Hezbollah.
If you spew when you don't know what you're talking about, it ends up being a rant and not a debate.
jason, they dont have to be liberal democracies. They just need to be stable, Muslim and a republic. If everybody was the same, the world would suck.
Jim, thank you. I have given up asking him to read and consider different sides before he posts
Jason and Game, I have tried to be tactful about this but I am left with laying it out in stark terms....I have a very hard time finding any difference in your tactics and goals and the terrorist tactics and goals.
Wow Jim, you don't have a clue do you...this is a hezbollah-Israel problem...and you end the problem by destroying one side...
You really think Lebannon has any control over any of this...keep reading whatever great sites and links give you the great world perspective
rhyno--
Muslim groups like the Hezb'Allah (the Party of God) want to make everyone the same. They hate what they call "man made law" and want sharia law. Everywhere.
Look at how Muslims in Indonesia feel, supposedly a progressive case.
From LGF:
------------------
The survey [of indonesian Muslims], conducted from 2001 to March 2006, found 43.5 percent of respondents were ready to wage war on threatening non-Muslim groups, 40 percent would use violence against those blaspheming Islam and 14.7 percent would tear down churches without official permits.
He noted that between 30 percent and 58 percent approved of amputation of the left hand for thieves and the stoning to death of rapists, as well as other tenets of sharia law, and opposed the election of non-Muslims for president.
Interesting we are having this conversation
From Glenn Greenwalds Unclaimed Territory today:
In two short posts at National Review, warmonger Mark Levin captures the essence of neoconservatism. First is his response to the news that Iran has rejected the proposal for an agreement whereby it would cease uranium enrichment:
Ok, let’s all say it together, shall we? Diplomacy doesn’t work with terrorists. Terrorists only understand fear. They don’t fear us yet because we have not punished them enough.
All of the bad countries in the Middle East (and elsewhere) are "terrorists" and we must treat them as such. Only weaklings and appeasers would try to negotiate with or contain "terrorists." The only thing one can do with "terrorists" is kill them all so that we can rule the world (or at least the Middle East) by fear. That's why incidents like the killing of 50 Lebanese civilians in Qana is something to be cheered, rather than either condemned as deliberate or reckless, or at least lamented as a tragic accident. To neoconservatives like Levin, we need more of these incidents, because it shows the "terrorists" that there are consequences -- bad, ugly, scary, brutal consequences -- for confronting us.
That really is the essence of neoconservativsm. It's nothing more noble or complex than a base belief that we have to wage as many wars as possible and kill as many people as possible until people are sufficiently fearful of the U.S. that they will comply with our mandates. It is psychopathic and deranged, and the fact that it is typically cheered on by the likes of Mark Levin -- people who plainly lack feelings of physical power themselves -- is not insignificant. The contrived chest-beating and transparent desire to feel like a feared warrior, with none of the risk, is manifest, and it is what has shaped our foreign policy for the last five years and, by all appearances, continues to do so.
Levin's second post spews contempt at this Op-Ed by Bush 41 National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft commits the grave neoconservative sin of advocating the ultimate evil -- a peace plan for the Middle East. Levin's response demonstrates just how radical neoconservatives are:
Thank goodness Brent Scowcroft is no longer influencing U.S. foreign policy. He helped bring the Middle East to its current point, and should be dismissed as another failed diplomat. Scowcroft, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton — all failures ... which means the Big Media will continue to seek out their views.
To neconservatives, everything that made the U.S. a respected superpower over the last six decades is all obsolete and worthless. To them, foreign policy experts from both political parties are responsible for 9/11 and the rise of Islamic extremism because they believe too much in diplomacy and restraint. They didn't wage enough wars and the wars they did wage weren't ferocious enough. There weren't enough Qanas, and as a result, we aren't sufficiently feared. People around the world need to know that they either comply with our instructins or fire and brimstone will rain upon their heads.
I still consider Jonah Goldberg's explanation for why he favored the invasion of Iraq to be the Gold Standard for illustrating the impulses which lay at the heart of the neoconservative syndrome:
Q: If you're a kid and you've had enough of the school bullies pants-ing you in the cafeteria, what's one of the smartest things you can do?
A: Punch one of them in the nose as hard as you can and then stand your ground.
That is why we hear that the "people who are fighting this war" include Michael Ledeen, Cliff May, and Mark Steyn. It's why we hear someone like Jonah Goldberg -- who still has to move his nepotistic umbilical cord so that it doesn't get in the way when he types -- warn us in his best tough-guy, no-nonsense voice that we are becoming "A Nation of Wimps" because "Parents are going to ludicrous lengths to take the bumps out of life for their children." This is all about a personal craving for feelings of power and superior strength, to be fulfilled through endless war waged on those who have not been placed in sufficient fear of our warrior greatness.
All of this is why George Will recently called neoconservatism a "spectacularly misnamed radicalism." It is opposed to every guiding principle of American foreign policy under both political parties, and seeks to transform the U.S. into a rogue state which operates with no moral limits or ethical constraints, and for which unrestrained war is always the preferred option. All failures can be and are explained away by the fact that we just haven't killed enough people yet. It is homicidal madness, real derangement, masquerading as some sort of serious philosophy, and it is a true indictment of our political life that its advocates are taken seriously at all, let alone often listened to at the highest levels of our government.
Ron:
If you think this opinion of the right today is some wacky left wing fringe think again..you guys and your philosophy is just as bad as any terrorist and most people in the US and the world see that. YOU are the radical fringe You can think of nothing but kill to get your way. How narrow minded. You guys lack any desire to actually think. You are pushing the world toward destruction...are you guys secretly these rapture people or what?
ron--
You need to take a more nuanced and complex view of neoconservatism. It is not about homicidal madness or perpetual war. I'll explain what adults think neoconservatism is, along with my own misgivings over the doctrine.
Neoconservatism loosely advances four ideas:
1) The internal character of a regime predicts its external behavior; liberal democracies are benign
2) Military power can be used for moral purposes.
3) International institutions are not to be trusted, since they are easily corrupted by illiberal regimes.
4) We aren't gods; social engineering is to be avoided.
Now, a contradiction arises when we put #1, #2, and #4 together. Propositions #1 and #2 imply that we should promote liberal democracy, even if it means overthrowing a dictatorship by force. Proposition #4 seems to imply nation-building will inevitably go wrong, like a government program like social security or medicare. I'm not certain how the contradiction is to be resolved without drastically changing the doctrine.
Perhaps the best way to handle Iraq would have been this. Identify the suspected NBC sites and destroy them unilaterally with airstrikes. End of story. No going to the UN, no invasion, no occupation.
The neo-COMs want to give the UN a veto of American foreign policy. They think theological insanos have the "right" to nuclear weapons, and that terrorists have the "right" to make phonecalls into the United States without the government knowing about it. And they think terrorist groups like al queda and the Hezb'Allah can be negotiated with.
That's not exactly the way Clinton dealt with thugs like Hussein (1998) and Milosevic (1999) -- the Democrats have moved way, WAY to the left.
Jason said:
"The neo-COMs want to give the UN a veto of American foreign policy. They think theological insanos have the "right" to nuclear weapons, and that terrorists have the "right" to make phonecalls into the United States without the government knowing about it. And they think terrorist groups like al queda and the Hezb'Allah can be negotiated with."
I'm not sure who you are talking about with neo-coms but if you mean any sizable slice of the left or democrats you are making up your cartoon liberal again.
I will speak for my self as a proud to be a liberal....Not veto over US foreign policy but unity in actions that necessarly call for it if we are to maintain the alliances and friends we need to be a force in the world that can actually get positive results.
They don't have the "right" to nukes but it should be understandable to all but the most shallow of people why they would want them if we, the most heavily armed nation in the world, continually threaten them and kill their people "preemptively". A big part of getting them to stop their drive for nukes is to quit killing all of them!!!!!
I want to track terrorism in the US. I don't want the President or anybody else to have carte blanche to do whatever they want with no oversite or outside of the laws of the United States of America and the Constitution for which it stands with Liberty and Justice for all.
I want to eliminate all people who would have the goal of destroying America and it's people. I don't want to kill people that don't have that agenda because it just makes more of the former. I want to negotiate a settlement with anyone and everyone who is willing to talk and comprimise and stop killing.
Post a Comment