in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ... - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-14-2007, 05:38 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but is Islam incompatible with democracy?
It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:40 PM   #212
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:32 AM
If you are talking about a situation where God is the highest power in the land and the law is all in the form of revealed truth that cannot be altered then yes it is incompatiable with democratic principles. If you are talking about a situation where Muslims elect their own leaders and follow a rule of law not from a holy book then it isn't (Indonesia and Turkey would be two examples of the latter).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:45 PM   #213
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

The point is that if a democratically elected leader turns the country into a dictatorship after he takes office, it is no longer a democracy but a dictatorship.
Who says it's a dictatorship?

What if it's an Islamic theocracy based on the will of the people? And while not necessarily engaging in attacks on the US, still isn't friendly to you or your interests?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:49 PM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.
It's a secularised state with a majority of its population being Muslims, just like western countries are secularized states with a Christian majority.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 05:54 PM   #215
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
A quick history lesson: America is no Rome

The tired analogy of imperial decline and fall

Gerard Baker
From The London Times September 14, 2007



The ethnic origins of General David Petraeus are apparently Dutch, which is a shame because there’s something sonorously classical about the family name of the commander of the US forces in Iraq. When you discover that his father was christened Sixtus, the fantasy really takes flight. Somewhere in the recesses of the brain, where memory mingles hazily with imagination, I fancy I can recall toiling through a schoolboy Latin textbook that documented the progress of one Petraeus Sixtus as he triumphantly extended the imperium romanum across some dusty plain in Asia Minor.

The fantasy is not wholly inapt, of course. General Petraeus was the star turn in Washington this week, testifying before Congress about the progress of the surge by US forces in Iraq. Some evidently see America’s wearying detention in the quagmire of Mesopotamia as a classic example of imperial overreach of the kind that is thought to have doomed Rome. Who knows? Perhaps 1,500 years ago one of the forebears of General Petraeus was hauled before the Senate to explain the progress of some surge of Roman forces to defeat the insurgents in Germania.

The US is indeed in the middle of another gloomy ride around the “America as Rome” theme park of half-understood history lessons. The pessimists, equipped with their Fodor’s guidebooks, their summer school diplomas, and their DVD collection of Cecil B. DeMille movies, are convinced it’s all up for the people who march today under the standard of the eagle, just as it was for their predecessors. They see military defeat abroad and political decay at home; they watch as far-flung peoples chafe at the dictates of imperial rule and as the plebs at home grow metaphorically hungry from misgovernment. The only real uncertainty in their minds is who will play the Vandals and lay waste to Washington?

It’s a familiar and very tired analogy, of course. From the moment that America became top nation in the middle of the last century, people have been racing to be contemporary Gibbons, chronicling the decline and fall even as it was supposedly happening. Not the least of the objections to their efforts is that Rome’s domination of the known world lasted about 500 years, and survived more than the odd thrashing or two at the hands of barbarian tribes. In modern America, it’s always the same. Every lost battle or turbulent day on the foreign exchanges and the obituary writers are sharpening their pencils.

The bigger objection is that America is not much of an empire after all. No one pays tribute, no one declares allegiance to Caesar, and what kind of empire is it that owes its foreign subjects a couple of trillion dollars? Still, as Gibbon himself noted in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify the evils, of the present times.” Which brings us back neatly to General Petraeus and the Iraq war.

The antiwar crowd’s efforts to depreciate America’s efforts in the Middle East hit a new low on the first day of the long-awaited congressional testimony, when MoveOn.org, the self-appointed leftwing base of the Democratic Party, took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that called the commander “General Betray Us” and accused him of lying about the progress of the surge. As stunts go, it was as startlingly offensive as it was politically self-defeating.

Not many Americans – not even those who oppose the war – like the idea of calling their generals traitors. They have a vaguely disconcerting sense that they know where that leads – and it’s not Rome but a rather shorter-lived empire of the 20th century that springs to mind. And so it had the signal effect this week of forcing Democrats to distance themselves from the antiwar movement. Most of them – especially those who harbour presidential ambitions – had to go out of their way during the hearings to emphasise their admiration for the general and his soldiers.

This is good. You can argue about the surge. The evidence is encouraging that the increased US military effort, together with a change in tactics, has reduced the violence in Iraq. On the other hand there are legitimate questions about the long-term viability of the strategy. But if America is to emerge from Iraq with a renewed sense of its global role, you shouldn’t really debase the motives of those who lead US forces there. Because in the end what they are doing is deeply honourable – fighting to destroy an enemy that delights in killing women and children; rebuilding a nation ruined by rapine and savagery; trying to bridge sectarian divides that have caused more misery in the world than the US could manage if it lasted a thousand years.

It is helpful to think about Iraq this way. Imagine if the US had never been there; and that this sectarian strife had broken out in any case – as, one day it surely would, given the hatreds engendered by a thousand years of Muslim history and the efforts of Saddam Hussein.

What would we in the West think about it? What would we think of as our responsibilities? There would be some who would want to wash their hands of it. There would be others who would think that UN resolutions and diplomatic initiatives would be enough to salve our consciences if not to stop the slaughter.

But many of us surely would think we should do something about it – as we did in the Balkans more than a decade ago – and as, infamously, we failed to do in Africa at the same time. And we would know that, for all our high ideals and our soaring rhetoric, there would be only one country with the historical commitment to make massive sacrifices in the defence of the lives and liberty of others, the leadership to mobilise efforts to relieve the suffering and, above all, the economic and military wherewithal to make it happen.

That’s the only really workable analogy between the US and Rome. When Rome fell, the world went dark for the best part of a millennium. America may not be an empire. But whatever it is, for the sake of humanity, pray it lasts at least as long as Rome.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:38 PM   #216
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,286
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.
It is a secular state. It's been a secular state for over 8 decades. There are power-seekers there who would wish to make it otherwise, but so far, they have not succeeded. There are even some already in power who are attempting to gradually force some aspects of the religion on the state...there is talk of making headscarves mandatory for women...but trust me...MANY people there will not easily give in to that kind of thing.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:41 PM   #217
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)
And that's probably one of the few cases. It would definately be the exception rather than the rule.

How do you reconcile your hawkish beliefs with your religious beliefs?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:43 PM   #218
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
States sponser terrorists all the time; USA in Latin America, Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon. Saddam Hussein had no problem keeping Abu Nidal in Iraq (of course having him killed when he could prove a liability).
Yes but Saddam Hussein did not harbor al-Qaeda. As I said before Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden didn't care about each other.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:46 PM   #219
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Are you saying you would support the invasion of these countries?
Absolutely not, but I'm trying to say how ridiculous your idea is of invading every country that isn't a democracy. So you would support an invasion of that list that I made wouldn't you?

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:51 PM   #220
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)
Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. Comparing WWII to Iraq is stupid. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, France and the Netherlands in WWII. He started a war, and so we attacked Germany. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, we went after them, and there was nothing wrong with that war. But who did Iraq invade in 2003? And don't you dare say that it was okay to go into Iraq in 2003 because Iraq went into Kuwait in 1991 and we needed stop Iraq before they invade Kuwait again. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had virtually no Navy, and I don't remember but there were a lot of restrictions placed on Iraq. This is why we were able to defeat Iraq in three days. They weren't powerful at all.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:52 PM   #221
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:32 PM
I think weak logic is his strong point.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:54 PM   #222
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, but the argument that Iraq was invaded exclusively on the basis of WMD is demonstrably false.
Well without the WMD lie, the 9/11 connection lie, the threat to the U.S. lie, the harboring of al-Qaeda lie, it would have been next to impossible for Bush to convince Congress or the American people to go to war.

And that is why they needed all these lies.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:55 PM   #223
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. Comparing WWII to Iraq is stupid. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, France and the Netherlands in WWII. He started a war, and so we attacked Germany. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, we went after them, and there was nothing wrong with that war. But who did Iraq invade in 2003? And don't you dare say that it was okay to go into Iraq in 2003 because Iraq went into Kuwait in 1991 and we needed stop Iraq before they invade Kuwait again. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had virtually no Navy, and I don't remember but there were a lot of restrictions placed on Iraq. This is why we were able to defeat Iraq in three days. They weren't powerful at all.
Do you think that sanctions were okay? Do you think that it was okay to continue to use sanctions as a way to bring Iraq to submission?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 06:59 PM   #224
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Do you think that sanctions were okay? Do you think that it was okay to continue to use sanctions as a way to bring Iraq to submission?
The sanctions were working fine. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 09-14-2007, 07:00 PM   #225
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


The best question of the night. And I admit - other than resources, and I can't think of a good reason. (with the exception of China - which is showing progress)
Wow, I can even hear Bush laughing at this statement.

__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com