1 of 2
1
Islam and the Future of Liberalism
Posted: 16 March 2012 08:43 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-02-02

Does the United States need to become actively involved in every revolution and skirmish that takes place in the Middle East? Are we in some way obligated to police the entire world? There has been no peace in the Middle East for hundreds of years. The British were never able to successfully hold down Afghanistan and neither were the Soviets. What ever made us think that we could? To me that is the height of arrogance and pride and we have made ourselves look very foolish.

Likewise our relationship with Israel is questionable. If you go back and study the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was the first document intending to provide a homeland for refugee Jews, even prior to WWII, it was never the intent of the author for the Jews to control the area and to disenfranchise the 85% Muslim and 10% Christian population of indigenous peoples. Here is a quote from that document:

“His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Zionism violated that document by importing millions of foreign Jews, not refugees, and evicting Palestinians from their land to provide housing for those same foreign Jews, and Israel continues to do so. The Zionists made sure that they became, numbers wise, the political majority and have marginalized and excluded the Palestinians ever since. And then they wonder why they are hated by their neighbors.

There will never be peace between two peoples who believe in “an eye for an eye’”.
It is absolutely pointless for us to be involved in the never ending hatred between “Isaac and Ishmael”. And if we remember our religious history, even then it was Ishmael, Abraham’s Firstborn son and his mother, Hagar, who were evicted and driven into the dessert to die, while Isaac was the favored son. Nice guy, Abraham.

Personally, I can think of nothing more advantageous to mankind than that two of the world’s most primitive and repressive religions should exterminate one another. Leave them to their fate. It’s THEIR problem, not ours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

I think our foreign policy really needs to be based on our best self interest and we should support any oppressed people who strive for freedom.  Human beings are a species of animal and we all have the exact same objective biological and psychological requirements.  There is no subspecies that was meant to be a slave.  The middle east is in a mess but it’s a hopeful mess.  For the first time in centuries, they are questioning their culture (including religion!) and thirsting for freedom.

I also don’t believe in the ‘right’s of indigenous people other than treating them humane if they are non-violent.  That implies ‘sacred ground’ or God-given land.

Sam’s article and his Joe Rogan podcast are masterful.  This is what Sam does best!

[ Edited: 16 March 2012 09:29 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2012-03-16

From the previous article I just read, I believe he wants a world ethics police force.

I mean if you want to liberate women in Afghanistan in the name of ethics, it is still liberation.

I may be no Muslim, but I do know that sticking our nose in other people’s business will just set them off.

Hitchens supported Orwell and I sort of do also when it comes to a world ethics police force. bad idea, just bad idea all around

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Wasn’t the U.N. supposed to be the world’s police force?  The U.N. actually empowers and extends the reign of the few remaining brutal dictators.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2012-03-16

No, the UN is a joke, look at the conflict in Darfur

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 01:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-02-02
YaysusHowlySpirut - 16 March 2012 12:10 PM

No, the UN is a joke, look at the conflict in Darfur

I agree, totally. Where was the UN and also the United States, for that matter,. when the Dalai Lama pleaded with them to save his country, Tibet, from brutal conquest by Communist China??? Now here was a group of united people being invaded by a foreign aggressor and begging for our help and we didn’t do a thing. It’s not like Iraq and Afghanistan who are all divided and fighting against one another and clearly never wanted us there. The Tibetans wanted help and never got it, WHY?  Where are the embargoes and sanctions against Communist China for what they did to a Sovereign Nation?

I guess if you don’t have oil, no one is concerned about your plight. And if it would mean endangering the US trade agreements with Red China, I guess you can go whistle somewhere else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 02:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Yes, it’s better when the whole world can stand up these brutal regimes but we should only interfere as a loner nation when it is in our direct interest.  We shouldn’t carelessly sacrifice U.S. soldiers just to save other individuals.  Nothing is gained.  Lives are lost and we strain our fragile economy.  There are also ways to help rebels without direct involvement when the U.N. fails to do its job (which is sadly most of the time).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2012-03-16

As a liberal—and a woman—I take Sam’s point. Really. But he’s so very over-the-top bellicose, so one-dimensional. He just wants to “disappear” militant Muslims. In a way, he’s on their level, as destruction (of some sort) seems to him the only way out. It’s puerile, simplistic. I want to say, Please, Sam, find some inspiration somewhere. Are religionists the only source of that estimable state of mind? Where are your ideas for amelioration of tensions? Where?

In my view, Sam thinks with his male hormones.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

As a human being (NOT as a liberal/conservative or male/female)I understand and appreciate what Sam is saying.  I don’t think there is a way to reform or rehabilitate the extremist mind.  It’s centuries in the making.  They don’t value the real world and human life.  Everything is for the afterlife.  I almost feel zero compassion for that fossilized brain where reason has no affect.  It’s anti-human, anti-life and anti-earth.  Without their oil economy they would not have adapted and survived into our modern age.  The fact that Islam is growing worldwide (Oliver Stone’s son just converted) is chilling.  I’m troubled by the rise of any religion but Islam especially.  I totally understand and respect Sam’s view and I respect him for not being politically correct and trying to be delicate.  Just a few nights ago, CNN does another story about the Islam, the religion of peace.”  It’s horrible that Americans have to die for mystical reasons in 2012.  It feels morally and ethically more reasonable to fight for oil and resources but over invisible make believe concepts.  We are facing a stone age threat.  It’s almost as if a tribe of neanderthals suddenly came out of a cave and started slaughtering us.

[ Edited: 16 March 2012 04:09 PM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2012 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

We learned after WWII that we can’t afford to just ignore what happens in the rest of the world. That was the conservative position before WWII- ignore it, we can deal with Hitler.  Well, they were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

 


The more WMD spreads and the ability to make them spreads the more the world has to move towards a unification of international law and order, however little some people may like that fact.

 


Basically the fewer the number of people it takes to inflict lethal damage on a large number of people, the less “freedom” individuals will have in certain basic areas. That’s not a plot against individual freedom, that’s what happens when you start to realize the theoretical limit of a single person deciding that everyone else has to die and technology being such that they can actually follow through with it.

 

Technology is what’s driving the unification of governments and unification of what is permitted and what is not. We have to subdue the abuses dictators and others mete out to their people because those abuses are a source of extremism. Current and near future technology bestows on anyone who can learn to use it, unbelievable power to inflict damage and one thing we can’t have in a world like that is open sewers - like the corrupt governments dictatorships in the Middle East - continuing to breed the kind of thing we have going on in Northern Pakistan.


That’s just how it is; no one planned for it, wanted it or likes it but there it is.

 


The UN is ineffective because the countries who could make it a real force for good don’t want to relinquish their control over their individual military. As long as those same countries are willing to do what needs to be done then it’s a moot point but in Sudan and Syria you see a lack of will to take needed action.

 

We ought to bomb the Syrian military and government , yesterday and arm the rebels. We ought to be bringing more leverage to the situation in Sudan. We should tell China and Russia to either help us or get out of the way. 

 

For 80 years we’ve been actively on the wrong side of morality in the ME in the name of fighting Communism and this is our chance in history to make it right and win the good will of those people and also to drain the swamps. This is the current thinking of the US military; rest assured we are up to our armpits in the Arab Spring however little the US government is interested in admitting to it. 

 

It’s a messy business with no certain outcome except one- that setting in motion a process which could result in things being better for people in the ME is better than doing nothing.


I think we’ve done as much as we can in Iraq for now. I think history will show that we set in motion a new way for the ME in Iraq and yes Afghanistan also.

 

It’s not about conquering people, it’s about tipping the scales in favor of freedom and then helping people drain their swamps to the extent they are able. That’s all we can do, that’s all anyone can do and we have to do it.  I don’t believe Afghanistan will go back to being the Taliban infested shit pit that it was. They’re still there but progressive forces have been loosed there that won’t be cowed also. 

 


The basic driving force of all this is this-  the future is bringing unimaginable power via technology to mere individuals and very small groups. When that future arrives, we need to have in place a way to secure ourselves against that power. That begins with setting in motion as best we can the toppling of regressive and hereditary regimes which breed psycho scum like Bin Laden.

 


It also has to include rolling back the power of religion and the fanaticism it breeds. It also has to include spreading wealth and health and opportunity much more equitably in all societies including our own. We can’t just give people some vanishingly small opportunity to “make it’ and say “there, you have your chance, now it’s up to you”. We need to ensure that the outcome is fairly equitable under all circumstances through concentrating resources and effort on everything from alleviating crushing poverty to finding out why some seemingly advantaged people just aren’t interested in engaging in life and by a dressing every issue in between those two extremes. This is the purview of science. In a time when we are the greatest threat to ourselves, this becomes an imperative for science.

 

Finally it has to also include the deliberate engineering of human DNA so that humankind is less greedy, less selfish and self-centered, less bellicose and more interested in the welfare of their society as a whole. I think this final step is the most important and will prove decisive in whether or not we survive as a species or perish.

 

We are only what evolution shit out it’s ass over a few million years of trying and nothing more. There is nothing to say that we’re a species whose ability to create weapons does not exceed it’s ability to manage those weapons.


Since we’re not going to stop the advance of technology, that leaves changing ourselves in fundamental ways so that we become a thing which can live with its technology.

 

Needless to say people aren’t going to like this idea much. But if you look at what happened after 9/11 you’ll see that people will make concessions to safety when they see they have no other choice. Just like after WWII, the West decided it needed to be involved and not isolationist, and just like after 9/11 the West decided that it needed to get into the ME and change the dynamics there, so also the West will decide that the unreconstructed human characters is fundamentally flawed and needs to be addressed dynamically and directly.

 

What might force that change in thinking is just too horrifying to think about . The one chance we have of avoiding that horror is to face the unpleasant fundamental truths about ourselves and our characters and inclinations , which are all based in our shared genetic heritage and the unique path we took as a species over evolutionary time,  and act to fix them at the level of DNA before we’re forced to do it anyway by the behaviour of some small subset of humanity.

 

 

 

 

[ Edited: 17 March 2012 04:34 PM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2012 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

I just now read Sam’s blog entry this week and I have to say I agree exactly with everything he says.

 

I never see the points he makes rebutted when I make effectively the same ones online and this thread too has dropped dead suddenly. I really want to challenge my fellow liberals here (assuming conservatives don’t come by much) to offer up their very best rebuttal to anything he said in his blog or the points I made here. I challenge them not only to do that but to confine themselves to the minimal accepted rules of having a real debate as outlined by the Theitard Debate Flow Chart available here:

 

http://larianlequella.blogspot.com/2011/01/theitard-debate-flow-chart.html

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-02-02

Softwarevisualization says:

“The more WMD spreads and the ability to make them spreads the more the world has to move towards a unification of international law and order, however little some people may like that fact….That’s just how it is; no one planned for it, wanted it or likes it but there it is.

YES, BUT WE MADE IT THAT WAY. BOTH THE US AND THE SOVIET UNION HAVE BEEN SELLING WMD’S AND ARMING ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS AND ALLIES EVER SINCE THE 1950’S AND NOW THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT SO MANY NATIONS HAVE WMD’S; WELL ISN’T THAT A HOOT?  SO NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE NEED ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD; AND YOU SAY ” NO ONE PLANNED FOR IT”?  OF COURSE THEY DID AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Softwarevisualization also says:

“I think we’ve done as much as we can in Iraq for now. I think history will show that we set in motion a new way for the ME in Iraq and yes Afghanistan also. It’s not about conquering people, it’s about tipping the scales in favor of freedom and then helping people drain their swamps to the extent they are able. That’s all we can do, that’s all anyone can do and we have to do it. I don’t believe Afghanistan will go back to being the Taliban infested shit pit that it was.

YES, I THINK WE HAVE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO IN IRAQ. WE FREED THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A DICTATOR, ALTHOUGH ONE WITH A SECULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH GRANTED RIGHTS TO WOMEN AND WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE PEACE ALBEIT BY VIOLENCE. AND NOW IRAQ HAS A CORRUPT AND VIOLENT GOVERNMENT RUN BY A MAJORITY SECT OF MUSLIMS WHO HATE ALL OTHER SECTS.  THERE WILL NEVER BE DEMOCRACY AND THE COUNTRY IS GEARING TOWARD CIVIL WAR AND ANNARCHY. YOU CALL THAT AN IMPROVEMENT?  LIKEWISE WE HAVE MADE FOOLS OF OURSELVES IN AFGHANISTAN BURNING KORANS, URINATING ON THE DEAD AND FLIPPING OUT AND USING CIVILIANS FOR TARGET PRACTICE. THE PUPPET GOVERNMENT THAT WE SET UP WILL NEVER BE RESPECTED AND THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA ARE POURING IN FROM ALL OVER.

Softwarevisualization also says:

Finally it has to also include the deliberate engineering of human DNA so that humankind is less greedy, less selfish and self-centered, less bellicose and more interested in the welfare of their society as a whole. I think this final step is the most important and will prove decisive in whether or not we survive as a species or perish. …..Needless to say people aren’t going to like this idea much. But if you look at what happened after 9/11 you’ll see that people will make concessions to safety when they see they have no other choice.

YES, AND WHO, EXACTLY, DO YOU THINK WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THIS DNA ENGINEERING PROGRAM BUT THE GREEDIEST OF MANKIND, NAMELY THE LEADERS, POLITICIANS, BANKERS, MULTI-CORPORATE LEADERS, ETC. OR THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY RAPED AND PILLAGED THE EARTH ; THE AUTHORS OF WAR AND THOSE WHO HAVE GOTTEN FAT OFF THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS OF TROOPS WORLD-WIDE, LIKE HALLIBURTON AND OTHERS. THEY WILL DO IT TO MAKE US EVEN MORE STUPID AND DOCILE THAN WE ARE ALREADY SO THAT THEY CAN EXPLOIT THE LABORERS OF THE WORLD EVEN MORE AND PAY THEM EVEN LESS, TURNING THEM INTO VIRTUAL SLAVES. YES, PEOPLE DO MAKE CONCESSIONS WHEN THEY SEE THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE, BUT THEY ARE FOOLISH IN DOING SO.

REMEMBER THE WORDS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: ” THOSE WHO WOULD SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY,
DESERVE NEITHER.”

 

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2012 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

YES, BUT WE MADE IT THAT WAY. BOTH THE US AND THE SOVIET UNION HAVE BEEN SELLING WMD’S AND ARMING ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS AND ALLIES EVER SINCE THE 1950’S AND NOW THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT SO MANY NATIONS HAVE WMD’S; WELL ISN’T THAT A HOOT?  SO NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE NEED ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD; AND YOU SAY ” NO ONE PLANNED FOR IT”?  OF COURSE THEY DID AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

I only have a very few moments today; more tomorrow.


The above is nothing more than a conspiracy theory offered without evidence . Making grand assertions without evidence violates point 3 in the flowchart. Therefore i ask you to provide supporting evidence for your assertion. 

 

First the kind of WMD that we need to be worried about is nothing we gave to anyone since for the most part, the bomb being the notable exception, it doesn’t exist. It’s hard to make biological agents as of today and hard to disperse chemical agents to large populations. However, in the near future this will change because advancing technology has the side effect of making it easier to achieve things which were previously beyond the capacity of individuals and small groups to achieve.

 

Secondly as I said, there is zero evidence that the forward march of technology is somehow a conspiracy or is being used by conspirators. Consider that technology is always moving forward not because of a secret conspiracy but because that forward motion is seen as a good thing by society.

 

Certain subcultures disagree, the Mennonites and the Shakers come to mind, but they’re distinguished in the world by just these unusual views of technology .

 

Technology is always values neutral. That fact alone is enough to account for the distressing spread of WMD since there is nothing about the advancement of scientific knowledge and technology that provides for only good and peaceful applications .


Therefore no conspiracy theory is necessary to account for bad actors using technology in bad ways.

 

Even more strongly, we can say that no conspiracy is possible just as it’s not possible to have a conspiracy to make the sun rise tomorrow.

 

If you want to assert that some group of people hastened the development or released some technology to bad actors on purpose in order to force a unification of government power then please present evidence and by evidence I mean evidence of a conspiracy, not statements about the world generally which a paranoid can take as a conspiracy.

 

In fact what we see is an enormous effort on the part of the US law enforcement and its foreign counterparts to contain all kinds of WMD . This is a Sisyphean task and will eventually fail. The fact that people are willing to take on this Sisyphean task however is the only thing that is buying us time we desperately need to develop solid countermeasures since without these people doing their jobs, we would have had many more dreadful events like 9-11 only much much worse. IT may be an effort doomed to failure, but when that failure happens and in what state it finds us counts for everything.


So as an aside, thanks to anyone reading who is currently engaged in this effort.

 

 

 

[ Edited: 19 March 2012 07:39 PM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2012 02:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

YES, I THINK WE HAVE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO IN IRAQ. WE FREED THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A DICTATOR, ALTHOUGH ONE WITH A SECULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH GRANTED RIGHTS TO WOMEN AND WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE PEACE ALBEIT BY VIOLENCE. AND NOW IRAQ HAS A CORRUPT AND VIOLENT GOVERNMENT RUN BY A MAJORITY SECT OF MUSLIMS WHO HATE ALL OTHER SECTS. 


THERE WILL NEVER BE DEMOCRACY AND THE COUNTRY IS GEARING TOWARD CIVIL WAR AND ANNARCHY. YOU CALL THAT AN IMPROVEMENT?

OK in my view this represents the thinking of the past 80 years. In a nutshell it goes like this: “If governments in the ME are dictators that suppress their own people then as long as there’s peace and a nominal and superficial nod towards modernism that’s good enough for them because all they do is fight over there anyway and they’ll never have any real democracy.”


What that gets us is what we have now- a swamp that breeds extremism. But that swamp is exactly what we can’t have going forward. So this kind of thinking “they’ll never have representational government”  is a proven mistake. What is democracy but   a form of political egalitarianism whereby people are given an equal say in the affairs of their government and are backstopped against being systematically denied political power because of hereditary considerations, creed or wealth ? 

 

This is an idea that the majority of people everywhere agree with- with large exceptions noted. Representational government as described above is the hallmark of modern political life and every other form- kings, tribalism, repressive theocracies, dictatorships- are understood to be defective not just by those outside these systems but also by the majority inside these systems.


Representational government is the printing press of the 21st century. Everyone wants it because everyone immediately understands its utility. It’s an idea whose time has come not just to the West but also is coming to China and the Middle East.

 

No small part of this is because people can share the ultrafine details of their realities much more easily today and people can see how other people live not just materially but politically and socially. There are fewer and fewer backwaters and that’s bad for dictators because controlling the perception of reality is essential to dictators.

 

That status quo which is what your position represents is a proven failure. Democracy and free enterprise combined with a strong social-welfare state capable of ensuring that acceptable minimum standards of work, freedom and living aren’t breached is a smashing success wherever it goes.


  LIKEWISE WE HAVE MADE FOOLS OF OURSELVES IN AFGHANISTAN BURNING KORANS, URINATING ON THE DEAD AND FLIPPING OUT AND USING CIVILIANS FOR TARGET PRACTICE. THE PUPPET GOVERNMENT THAT WE SET UP WILL NEVER BE RESPECTED AND THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA ARE POURING IN FROM ALL OVER.


We have done more for the Afghanistani people than anyone has in centuries and the progress we made will not be rolled back so easily. We’re not good at nation building partly because it’s such a complex problem but partly because of the disdain conservatives and other isolationists have for learning how to do it. But whether they like it or not, nation building is the better part of the future of warfare and we will learn how to do just like we learned how to build better weapons and fight hot wars.


The incidents you site are just that- incidents. They aren’t fundamentally changing what we’re doing there now or in the future.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2012 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2012-02-02

Softwarevisualization says:
So this kind of thinking “they’ll never have representational government” is a proven mistake.

REPLY:
But it’s true. Oh they may have some form of representational government, but it will represent only the more populous Muslim sects to the detriment of all of the others and it will be a theocracy and not a secular government which insists on brutal Sharia Law and the enslavement of women and children

Softwarevisualization says:
What is democracy but a form of political egalitarianism whereby people are given an equal say in the affairs of their government and are backstopped against being systematically denied political power because of hereditary considerations, creed or wealth?

REPLY:
“Democracy” is merely rule by the majority rather than rule by a dictator, king, prince, council, etc. It does not guarantee equal rights or representation to ALL; it only guarantees that what the MAJORITY wants will be considered the Will of the People. Supposedly, Israel is the only Democratic nation in the Middle East and yet anyone other than Zionists is routinely marginalized and does NOT have equal rights.  So if the majority votes for a Theocracy; that’s what they’ll have. If the majority votes for enslavement of women; that’s what they’ll have. And I promise you that the Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq WILL BE DENIED POLITICAL POWER BECAUSE OF CREED and will never have a fair shake. Consequently, they will continue to riot and kill until the new government, which WE established there is forced to use the same brutal tactics that Saddam Hussein used to quell the riots and ensure stability. In fact, as we speak, they are already doing so. So what was gained?

Softwarevisualization says:
This is an idea that the majority of people everywhere agree with- with large exceptions noted. Representational government as described above is the hallmark of modern political life and every other form- kings, tribalism, repressive theocracies, dictatorships- are understood to be defective not just by those outside these systems but also by the majority inside these systems.

REPLY:
No, no, no. Don’t you see what you are doing?  You’re doing a Madeline Not-Too-Bright. You’re doing what British and US supposed Middle Eastern experts have done for over one hundred years. You have no conception of THEIR culture and are imposing OUR belief systems on the people of the Middle East. THEY DON’T WANT TO BE LIKE US. They consider us corrupt and immoral. They WANT their tribes and their Theocracies and they WANT to live in the Fourteenth Century.  The only ones who don’t, and the ones who are instigating revolutions are the handfuls of materialistic Muslims who have been educated in the West and have returned home and now want IPODS and SUV’s more than they want Allah.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2012 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

To all of what you said, which is just a re-assertion of your belief that ME people don’t want democracy: not only aren’t you offering evidence, just opinion, but your antiquated world view has sprung a new hole you have to attend to- the Arab Spring.

Tunisia wasn’t other thrown by ipod lusting twenty somethings. It was overthrown by everyone in Tunisia. It was started by Mohamed Bouazizi the street merchant. 

 


Sorry to say but all anyone can want is what they’ve known. We were founded on the principle that there was no “divine right” of Kings to impose their interpretation of God’s laws on the public. Do you think conservatives would have conceived of any part of the US without first being born into this country?

 


No, ask Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or Focus on the family or the Heritage Foundation or just anyone in Kansas if they want a theocracy and they’ll tell you that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. This is historically completely untrue. So they wouldn’t have chosen any part of the way this nation is structured, but having been born into it, they think it’s a fine thing indeed. 

 

People in the ME have to work out what their democracy is going to look like and that’s just the starting point.


As far as the def of democracy, sorry but leaving out the rights of minority   as your definition entails is not democracy- it’s mob rule. No democracy and certainly no modern democracy is majority rule, not since Athens.


Your whole premise is “it’s always been this way and therefore it will always will be this way. ” Nothing could misdescribe every conceivable aspect of reality. In fact everything changes and the future goes to whoever can best peer ahead in time and understand where things are going.

 

Where things are going is towards democracy , representational government, a unification of international law and a reduction of certain kinds of personal liberties or more specifically privacy while at the same time we have an increase in transparency between government and the people. It’s going to happen that way because it has to happen that way, there is no other choice.


 

 

 

[ Edited: 20 March 2012 09:22 AM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Free Will      Sam Vs. Dan ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed