Afghan man on trial for his life - his crime? Converting to Christianity of course! (
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html)
So what ever happened to us transforming the Middle East? We have a new Taliban in Afghanistan, an Islamic theocracy on the rise in Iraq, and okay we have a democracy in Palestine, but who did they vote for? Oh yeah, a terrorist organization. And let's not forget about that guy in Iran... what's his name...
My point? I don't think the Middle East is ready for democracy and nor do they deserve it. Because if we give them democracy, they vote for things like brutal Islamic theocracies. You get HAMAS running the Palestinian territories. You get governments where people can be executed for converting to a different religion!
I think this is a good case for why we can't leave Iraq for a while, and why we shouldn't have left Afghanistan for Iraq. If we leave Iraq too soon, who's to say they won't put in their own Taliban? Will the lives and limbs of Americans, as well as the trillions of dollars spent, have gone to allowing the rise of Islamic theocracy in Iraq as in Afghanistan? :(
I hope you're joking about the liberation of the Middle East...
Reality check just in case:
Oil. Even though we could get as much of it as we'd ever need from Alaska, and Canada has a ton of it as well, Bush and his puppeteers friends only deal with the Arabs.
I hope you're joking about the liberation of the Middle East...
Naturally.
Naturally.
At least I got a chance to see my new signature on the forums then :xp:
So what ever happened to us transforming the Middle East?
I've heard about this, and I think it's horrible...but if you think that anyone could transform the Middle East this fast, you've got another thing coming.
This is what disgusts me above all else about people today: an utter lack of patience. Transforming the Middle East is going to take time. It's not as easy as invade, put in a new government, and BAMO!! everyone has changed. Most of the debate I've heard about transformation in the Middle East isn't about "why hasn't it happened yet," it's about "will it be accomplished during my lifetime." The Middle East needs a heck of a lot of work before it's anywhere near being transformed - most notably in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, just for starters.
And as for "getting governments where people can be executed for converting to a different religion," those governments exist all over the world, not just in the Middle East. There are many nations in Africa and Southeast Asia where that takes place, as well. But as far as the Middle East goes, the persecution of Christians is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Top 50 nations that persecute Christians (
http://www.opendoorsusa.org/Display.asp?Page=WWL2006)
Stories of persecuted Christians across the world (more at bottom of page) (
http://www.persecution.com/basic/feature.cfm)
And as far as "leaving Iraq too soon," President Bush has already pretty much said that the troops will be there at least until he leaves office (in his press conference earlier this week, he responded to a question about when the troops would be withdrawn by saying that decision will be up to the next President.
And jmac, it'd be an extremely easy thing to get oil from Alaska if the environmentalist wacko lobby would let up on the issue...but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
Okay, maybe I'm impatient. But the problem is, these countries have already written their constitutions, and it seems that there's no real way to say "hey Middle East, um... can we get do-overs on those constitutions? We don't like the whole Islamic law part!"
Look, if we are going to lose thousands of lives and thousands more limbs, and not to mention our trillions of tax dollars, we sure as hell better get the puppet governments we fought for. We better set up the countries we liberate how [i]we want them, not how they want them. They've already established that they want Islamic law! Meaning that in the country we supposedly liberated, people are still living under the Taliban... just an American-backed Taliban.
It's even funnier since we helped these new guys get into power in Afghanistan.
They helped us fight off the Taliban and remaining enemies while we packed up and shipped most of our guys off to Iraq.
We better set up the countries we liberate how we want them, not how they want them
Uh, **** that. Their country, their choice.
What we need to do is actually do our job in getting rid of the bad guys. Even if they may be our half-ally at the time. Hell, that's exactly what we did wrong last time, and look where we are now.
PS: Told you guys we'd be there for at least Five years, but "nooooooo, we're America, we just gotta bomb em and they'll surrender". So much for that.
Uh, **** that. Their country, their choice.
I know that it should be their choice, but if it was truely their choice, they would be liberating themselves. Then afterwards they could set up the kind of government that suits them.
I know that it should be their choice, but if it was truely their choice, they would be liberating themselves. Then afterwards they could set up the kind of government that suits them.Eh, like the Palestinians? They chose what sort of government 'suits' them. It doesn't exactly suit you though, does it?
Their mindset is completely different over there; they take percieved insults to their God as a personal affront, as if any all powerful god couldn't deal with such a laughable insult herself if she felt like it. I think their clerics just like the control they hold over the people. Nonconformity is dangerous for people in power, and I think that's the problem here, not religion per se.
Eh, like the Palestinians? They chose what sort of government 'suits' them. It doesn't exactly suit you though, does it?
No, HAMAS doesn't suit me either just as Islamic law doesn't. But the Palestinians have the right to vote in HAMAS if they want to. I don't approve of their choice, but that's their vote and only their vote. We spent all of our resources on Iraq short of a draft, and I don't think that thousands of Americans lost their lives and limbs so that Iraq could become an Islamic theocracy, and we didn't kick out the Taliban only to put in another one.
Actually, I think Hamas being elected might be a good thing. It will force them to turn to other ways of dealing with their problems than terrorism if they want to be considered legitimate.
I agree with you, the Afghans shouldn't be doing this. I tend to think we expect a lot from them though - they don't have any sort of tradition of government by the people, they don't have the largest literacy rate (36%); they're just plain susceptible to influence by the 'elite', which probably includes all of the clerics involved in this. Many also don't have any great love of America due to Iraq, and democracy is connected with America in many people's minds.
Here's another article (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4841334.stm) from the BBC.
What really needs to happen is that the UN be given permanent troops and an actual ability to use them without being vetoed by the permanent security council members, US included. They'd be able to deal with sort of human rights violation. Of course, that's never going to happen, but it'd be nice.
...and I don't think that thousands of Americans lost their lives and limbs so that Iraq could become an Islamic theocracy, and we didn't kick out the Taliban only to put in another one.
Well i don't want to say i told you so, but almost anyone who knew anything about the region said BEFORE the US invaded iraq that the most likely outcome would be an islamic theocracy.
And since the taliban were basically supported by the population of afganistan its not that surprising that the population would revert to an islamic theocracy mentality there either.
IF the USA's aim was some form of crusade to spread its vision of western democracy then it was a very bad idea from the start, and they picked totally the wrong targets.
And as i assume you are writing fromt he US, a county that still exectues mentaly ill people (something that not even afganistan thinks is acceptable) you probably should be careful about trying to tell other people which of their laws are right or wrong.
And as i assume you are writing fromt he US, a county that still exectues mentaly ill people (something that not even afganistan thinks is acceptable) you probably should be careful about trying to tell other people which of their laws are right or wrong.
I think we all can agree that it's wrong to execute people who change religions.
From your point of view. From theirs it isn't. How come your point of view is right and theirs is wrong?
If you go to another country you are expected to abide by its laws and customs.
From your point of view. From theirs it isn't. How come your point of view is right and theirs is wrong?
They also believe it's right to kill a woman who is the victim of rape.
So just because it's their point of view it's okay?? :confused:
They also believe it's right to kill a woman who is the victim of rape.
So just because it's their point of view it's okay?? :confused:
Well, i don't think its right. But who is to say that I am right and they are wrong?
Unfortunately there is no universal view on what is right or wrong. Different cultures and religions have radically different views on what is good and evil... heck, even within cultures there are radical disagreements about what is good or bad (check the abortion threads for an example).
Our personal views on morality are lagely down to our environment, I'm sure that if we had been born and raised in the middle east we might have totally opposite views on some things to the views we hold now. Who is to say which is the right viewpoint? Maybe there isn't one.
A society's laws are usually based on the consensus of it's citizen's moral views... which is why in the west we used to hold exactly the same views about blasphemy and rape victims as the muslim world holds now. Back then the vast majority of western citizens were devout christians and the laws of society reflected the moral consensus that came from that.
(The bible after all does say that rape victims should be executed and blashpemers punished)
But as the west has become more pragmatic and secular we have moved away from that moral position and now hold a different one.. one which I am sure we would claim to be better... but then I am sure if we were on the other side we would claim the exact same thing.
It should be pretty clear by now that you can't just impose a new belief system on a culture.. if they want to change then they have to change from within.
If we go and start invading countries to impose our values on them then it will be a disaster like the end of the british empire (which was created with the best of intentions) and it won't be sustainable or real.
The only guy to sucessfully throw out the influence of the religions in that area was Saddam, and he had to use extreme tactics to manage it. We can't do that. And it was clear from the start to everyone that an oppressed people who'd had their religion denied to them were likely to embrace it all the more strongly once they were given the freedom of choice to do so. And in afganistan the taliban, now vilified, were a popularly supported faction that rose up to liberate the country... so did anyone expect that once they were overthrown the people would opt for something totally different?
I think one major lesson we can take from this is that we are very lucky to have a seperation of state and religion in the west... but we can't start imposing that on others simply by claiming that our views are superior and its for their own good....
If we go and start invading countries to impose our values on them then it will be a disaster like the end of the british empire (which was created with the best of intentions) and it won't be sustainable or real.
Then we never should have invaded Afghanistan. Because what we did was impose our values of democracy and tolerance of Western civilization on their government, unlike what the values of the Taliban were.
Even though it seems we've failed, what with this situation with the Christian man...
Even though it seems we've failed, what with this situation with the Christian man...
Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.
Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.
But we allowed the constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq to establish Islamic law. This means that in order for the countries to become moderate, their constitutions would have to undergo major changes.
We never should have allowed Sharia law to work its way into the constitutions that we approved of. Because there's no way that the countries would accept Western values such as not becoming terrorists, not flying planes into buildings, and not sending out letters with anthrax in them, as long as they're ruled by Sharia law.
Just look at Saudi Arabia: supposedly the Saudis are our allies, and yet their Sharia-ruled government encourages the extremism that leads to its citizens becoming terrorists.
I think the point here is that if you're going to invade a country to impose your values upon them, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, then impose them. Supposedly we established a democracy in Afghanistan, and yet it's pretty hard to have democracy when you can't even choose your own damn religion without getting beheaded.
Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.
Indeed. It definately didn't happen in the west overnight. Infact it still hasn't happened that much in some parts of the west after hundreds of years.
But whether we should be on some crusade to spread our superior values to the poor savages is another matter. A majority of the problems in the region can be attributed to the well meaning british empire building that was intended to bring enlightenment and the benefits of "modern" life to all the poor people in india, africa and the middle east. In many ways those regions still haven't recovered from all that help.
We never should have allowed Sharia law to work its way into the constitutions that we approved of. Because there's no way that the countries would accept Western values such as not becoming terrorists, not flying planes into buildings, and not sending out letters with anthrax in them, as long as they're ruled by Sharia law.
Yeah, cos those brought up under western values would never become terrorists (IRA, Tim McVey, ETA, Tokyo Subway Gassers, etc..) or send anthrax through the post (have any muslims ever done that or just westerners?).
Unless the populations become more secular and less devout in their religions then any cosmetic changes we make to governments or constitutions will have no real affect at all.
There are many countries with "progressive" governments who have outlawed traditional practices - but the local population simply continues to practice life as they belive it should be practiced, no matter what the central government tries to do.
I'm thinking of places like india where despite laws outlawing child marriages, female circumcision, stoning of raped women, etc.. the remote areas of the country still happily go about life exactly as they always have, ignoring these strange foriegn ideas that the remote government keeps trying to impose on them.
You could give Iraq and Afganistan the most modern western constitutions known to man, and it would still have very little effect on how people actually lived their lives (unless you enforced the rules like saddam). They need to decide that they want to make changes themselves - otherwise its all a pointless exercise.
PS/ Raped women seem to get a raw deal in all religions - god(s) must be pretty vindictive.
Indeed. It definately didn't happen in the west overnight. Infact it still hasn't happened that much in some parts of the west after hundreds of years.
But whether we should be on some crusade to spread our superior values to the poor savages is another matter. A majority of the problems in the region can be attributed to the well meaning british empire building that was intended to bring enlightenment and the benefits of "modern" life to all the poor people in india, africa and the middle east. In many ways those regions still haven't recovered from all that help.
Well, when those poor savages have the power to cripple more than half of the world's economies, it's probably a good thing to step in, at least until new technology can render the poor savages irrelevant.
So it IS all about oil?? ;)
I didn't think afganistan had much oil, just heroin, and the iraqi oil was probably more accessible under the oil for food programme (where we could control the price) than it will be now when the new iraqi regime joins opec.
-
After thinking about it for a bit - my personal opinion is that the international community SHOULD step in where slaughter, genocide and famine are occuring - but shouldn't step in for issues of attempting to cahnge people's views, governments or constitutions. They need to change those themselves or no change will matter.
My heart would feel happier if we did things that way, and my naieve optimism would hope that if we were seen to be more humanitarian and even-handed then maybe less people would want to blow us up. Its not like all this regime change is making less people try and blow us up.
So it IS all about oil?? ;)
I don't think it's all about oil...but oil is definitely a contributing factor.
After all, without oil, the Middle East would be irrelevant to global politics.
Afghanistan has some oil, they just didn't build up as powerful an oil empire as other Middle Eastern nations. They did have the Taliban & head Al-Qaida members, though.
I think the problem is that the administration is trying to fight the War on Terror with sensitivity toward Muslims, rather than doing it the right way (and John Kerry, during the presidential campaign, said that he wanted to fight a "more sensitive" War on Terror). After WWII, we didn't pussyfoot around the issue with Japan - we dethroned the Emperor and gave them a constitution. I think that's what we should be doing here...but we won't, because the Left would have a cow if we actually did war the way it was meant to be done.
we dethroned the Emperor and gave them a constitution.
Have you ever heard of the Great War? We did the same thing at the end. It was a great sequel maker, we got WORLD WAR II
I think the problem is that the administration is trying to fight the War on Terror with sensitivity toward Muslims, rather than doing it the right way (and John Kerry, during the presidential campaign, said that he wanted to fight a "more sensitive" War on Terror) ... because the Left would have a cow if we actually did war the way it was meant to be done.
Liberal baiting again, RC? ;)
Your statement seems a bit rich... I don't think you can realistically pin all (if any) of the blame for the failures for the way the "War on Terror" has been conducted on the Leftists. I thought this was an administration that took all the actions that needed to be taken for the protections of the American population, didn't care about anybody else's opinions, and doesn't need to ask permission from anybody to conduct it's foreign policies.
Exactly how much unchecked power are the American people expected to hand over to this Administration anyways?
If the Administration is being too sensitive towards the Muslim world for your tastes, then the only reason I can see for that is the fact that they might not want to ally the ENTIRE Islamic population of the world against us. We barely have the troops to conduct the limited conflicts we are in now... we certainly don't have the forces to engage in a world-spanning conflict of that magnitude... Not to mention offending several of our biggest trade partners in the mid-east who could easily cripple this country financially by cutting off the supply of oil and billions in investments.
But I'm amused at your idea that it's the only the bleeding-heart liberals that are holding the U.S. back from victory. That made me smile!
Things don't change over night, it's funny that people expect entire cultures to change in mere months. The Iraq campaign has lasted three years and people expect the place to look like San Francisco, I could take a piss for three years.
My point? I don't think the Middle East is ready for democracy and nor do they deserve it. Because if we give them democracy, they vote for things like brutal Islamic theocracies.
Democracy will help change their culture, only through the free expression of ideas will intolerant societies change.
Oh and everyone deserves a chance at freedom....
Liberal baiting again, RC? ;)
Your statement seems a bit rich... I don't think you can realistically pin all (if any) of the blame for the failures for the way the "War on Terror" has been conducted on the Leftists. I thought this was an administration that took all the actions that needed to be taken for the protections of the American population, didn't care about anybody else's opinions, and doesn't need to ask permission from anybody to conduct it's foreign policies.
Exactly how much unchecked power are the American people expected to hand over to this Administration anyways?
If the Administration is being too sensitive towards the Muslim world for your tastes, then the only reason I can see for that is the fact that they might not want to ally the ENTIRE Islamic population of the world against us. We barely have the troops to conduct the limited conflicts we are in now... we certainly don't have the forces to engage in a world-spanning conflict of that magnitude... Not to mention offending several of our biggest trade partners in the mid-east who could easily cripple this country financially by cutting off the supply of oil and billions in investments.
But I'm amused at your idea that it's the only the bleeding-heart liberals that are holding the U.S. back from victory. That made me smile!
No, it's not only the left-wing bleeding heart liberals...but leftist thinking in more right-wing politicians (don't forget the neo-cons) definitely plays a role. It's undeniable that leftist "bleeding heart" touchy-feely thinking has in many ways permeated our society (political correctness is one of the fruits of this). Oftentimes our leaders get so hung up on not offending anyone that nothing substantial gets done...and let's face it - if we're going to seriously execute a war on terror in an effective manner, then we have a heck of a lot more Islamic nations to piss off (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.). And yes, those same Islamic nations could cripple our economy by withholding oil...which is why we should be drilling in ANWR and expanding our refining capacity, measures that have been blocked by leftists within the US government (because we might offend some endangered species [/sarcasm]).
As far as our military being stretched to its limits, nothing could be further from the truth. The United States has only begun tapping the potential power within its grasp. One of the reasons we won World War II was because we were more occupied with winning the war than we were with how the Nazis felt about us attacking them...and we poured nearly all of our nation's resources into that war - manufacturing, manpower, etc. (I saw a chart a while back comparing spending vs. GDP in past wars, and the current war in Iraq was one of the lowest in comparison with past wars...I wish I could remember where I saw it). There has been no draft. There have been few or no restrictions on what the people of America can and cannot do/buy. In World War II, people were encouraged not to buy cars so that the steel could be used to make tanks and planes and ships. Clothing trends became more skimpy so that cloth could be used to make uniforms for soldiers. Millions of Americans were drafted or signed up to go and fight a foreign enemy on foreign soil for the betterment of the people of the world. But now our leaders are afraid to take such decisive measures to defeat our enemies because Vietnam taught too many people to be ashamed of America...and now we are reaping the benefits of that travesty known as the anti-war movement.
One of the great legacies of America is that in times of war, our presidents have used unprecedented powers in order to win the war...and then given up that power once the war was over. But since Vietnam, America has become so polarized and paranoid (and afflicted with political ADD) that we don't even have the political will to do what is necessary for our own security anymore.
Ah... but what is "security"? (At least on the national scale...)
It could be argued that "Those who live by the sword..." tend to suffer it's fate in the end. Develop an aggressive, militaristic stance towards the world, and you will make enemies. When you are the fastest gun in the west, every young kid with something to prove is going to show up to bring you down. And no matter how good you are, eventually one of them will.
The more global security you try to provide yourself, the even more you are ultimately are going to need.
I don't know too many analysts who believe anything other than the idea that most of the problems we face in the world today are really our own damn fault for decades of sociopolitical interference around the world. Our constant pulling the strings behind the scenes and propping up unpopular leaders in distant lands to meet our own questionable "interests" has caused misery around the planet, and now there is a backlash against us.
The more outwardly aggressive and nationalistic we get, the more people will line up against us. Then we need to develop an even more aggressive stance. Inspiring even more hate. It's a never ending spiral.
You don't hear of too many jihads against Sweden... :dozey:
A few decades of political neutrality and isolationism could clear up a lot of our problems. Pull all of our forces back to the homeland, shore up all the borders stronger than the DMZ, withdraw all financial support from everyone but our very closest allies, and say to the rest of the world: "So you don't like us or want our help? Fine! Take care of all your problems your damn selves!" Let's just see how long that lasts before our "interference" is begged for...
Of course that's unrealistic... but maybe a few baby steps in that direction would help. Us... if no one else.
I don't believe giving the Islamic world a brand-new Crusade for them all to rally against would, though. Besides... wouldn't that be giving Bin Laden exactly what he wants? I'd hate to think of us even giving him an intellectual victory by falling into the trap he set.
I believe the American people will get behind a a war, and even a draft for that war, if the cause and objective is clear and visceral. In WWII it was to stop Hitler, Imperial Japan, and the rest of the Axis.
In Vietnam (and the current conflict, for that matter...) the goals and the enemies are far less well defined. Who wants to go and die, or send their kids off to a distant meat-grinder, if you don't really understand all the reasons why we are there in the first place, or exactly who we are fighting, and what we are fighting for? It has to be a concept that gets you right in the gut if you want the American public to line up behind your cause. Intellectual concepts like "spreading democracy" and "stopping the spread of Communism" while both perhaps noble, worthy causes, don't have a strong, gut level reaction in most people.
It doesn't help that it seems like the people we are there to "liberate" don't seem to want us there anymore, or keep attacking us. At least the French appeared grateful after we rolled through.
Besides... there will never be a draft in America again,.. until all the Bush family kids are well beyond draft age, that is. :dozey:
Its not going well because it never could go well. These things don't.
It doesn't matter if there are liberal or conservative politics involved, or if the full might or just a small percentage is brought to bear. It doesn't even really matter in the end how competent or incompetent those in charge are.
Invading another country and changing their entire regime and culture is NEVER going to be smooth sailing.
WW1/2 is a strange comparison - because the war in iraq was over much faster and more efficiently than the war in europe. Its the peace that is the problem.
Germany after the war (either war) wasn't in much better of a state than iraq. Major infrastructure, government and economic problems... hugely unhappy population. The only real thing that stopped it sliding into an iraq style cluster**** was that it wasn't surrounded by lots of unstable countries.
Thats WW2, but after WW1 germany was in such a mess that the population turned to possibly the most evil guy ever... which is even worse than iraq is now.
Can anyone name a single war (excluding civil wars) that has lead to a happy population and a stable country? I can't think of one, but I certainly can't think of a time when its lead to happy, stable LOSERS.
Can anyone name a single war (excluding civil wars) that has lead to a happy population and a stable country? I can't think of one, but I certainly can't think of a time when its lead to happy, stable LOSERS.
Well it depends on your definition of happy and stable in the geopolitical sense. Generally speaking, I'd point to Japan. Though their infrastructure was destroyed, the population was pretty happy to be out of war and they didn't seem to mind that we were occupying their country.
This is a gigantic generality though I think your question was pretty general too.
In fact I don't think there was any real insurgency in Japan, in Germany there surely was and instead of treating them like POW's the Allied Forces rounded them up and shot them on the spot.
As deplorable as it sounds, warfare was conducted in congruence with Geneva convention. Fighters captured without a uniform and without papers are considered spies at best and are subject to the mercy of their captors.
That's why I find it amazing that people point to Gitmo like it's a Gulag. The prisoners live better there than most of the homeless in our country and frankly, they should be thankful they're alive when you look at their rights under the Geneva Convention.
They're also lucky they aren't in an Afgan jail, talk about human rights there...sheesh.... (Which is really what this thread is about)