If you read close, he does not insinuate that this has happened...Quote:
Originally Posted by Riordan
It is a hypothetical situation to explain one's mindset. Surely the well read posters here could identify such.
Printable View
If you read close, he does not insinuate that this has happened...Quote:
Originally Posted by Riordan
It is a hypothetical situation to explain one's mindset. Surely the well read posters here could identify such.
Indeed, which is why I called it impressionistic. It is still 40% of the population though and consequently hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Edit: although there is nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole now and then. :whistling
Given the following: The USA is establishing democracy in the middle east to rid of the Muslim extremists and make a more functioning world.
Good ol' imperialism.
Now, depending on what you believe, here are the paths that the world can go down.
The USA and Co. 'destroy' the Middle East and establish a 'working' democracy with many casualties, innocent and not. (Obviously supra-simplified)
You do nothing, perhaps pander to Muslim extremism, and it grows like a fire and they get nuclear weapons. WWIII, hundred million die.
You do nothing, Muslim extremism doesn't grow, and it stays exactly like it is as a stone age Flintstone land.
You 'talk' it over with them, and they agree to become noble civilized functioning societies.
-- Here's my conclusion. Talking never works with extremists, a good example of this is most of the people on the board. Have you ever seen anyone with far left or right views ever completely switch over to the other side? I haven't, not even close to it. Add in the personality trait 'they want to kill you' and it becomes less likely.
Pandering to extremists gives you Hitler, not a good situation. Many more people die then they need to and EVERYONE is forced into war.
Them not growing and not pursuing their ideals is almost fictional. I think statistically (looking at it from a past point of view) it's an astronomical improbability, considering their extremist views.
The first option isn't nice either, but IMO it's the best route. Not that it's good or anything, but you really have to pick the less of the evils. Of course people are going to die, but trying to stop the first option is really just pushing the problem forward then backward.
Anyone else have scenarios? Feel free to add or edit.
I'm always seeing people fighting about what's happening, instead of giving alternate routes and possibilities.
If you cant change an extremists view how can you force democracy on them?:(
It really depends on what you are talking about.
The Taliban were an example of Year One Pol Pot style radicalism. They were, however, unique in the ME which is why Bin Laden called it the one true Islamic State.
However, to describe all the Middle East countries as back to the stone age is wildly far from the mark. The Middle East culture is different, but they are not artless savages. Cities like Riyadh and Dubai are as modern and as wealthy as any in the world. By and large these are not poor countries although like everywhere there are poor people in them.
The culture of the Middle East is traditional Monarchy. The radicals would like to depose the Monarchs and institute Islamic Republics with Governments that are elected but with limitations on the kind of politicians that can stand. Iran is an example of this with The Shah deposed back in the 1970s.
The Ba'athists and similar were opposed to the Monarchs and radical Islam and in places like Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Libya, and Egypt set up left wing secular governments with the support of Russia. During the Cold War much was done to undermine these counties because they were in the wrong camp. Bin Laden was trained and funded by Britain and the US because he opposed the Russian support of the Afghan communist government.
In short, the Middle East - which was for centuries relatively peaceful - was stirred up through a mixture of the Palestinian issue and support for a radicalism that unsettled those that were on the other side of the Cold War divide. That these people have turned on everyone is not surprising - they are zealots.
My view is that this cannot be resolved by quick fixes or down the barrel of a gun. The ME needs stability not turmoil. It will be the radicals who have most to gain from turmoil. In my view parts of the ME would, if not constantly trying to put out fires, have developed into some form of Constitutional Monarchy whilst others would have started with Islamic Republics which would have softened their stance as time passed and international trade developed. Iran might not be as Liberal as California but it is a lot freer than it was under the Aytollahs 20 years ago. One cannot impose Californian style freedoms overnight on an ancient and conservative culture.
Much is being invested in the hope that Iraq will show a beacon of light in the region after it has elections. However, the S. American experience has shown that it often takes several starts with the odd spasms of dictatorship before anything substantial develops in a country forged out of nothing. We cannot be there with a gun every time the wheels fall off.
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and I suspect Iran does too. The stalemate between India and Pakistan shows that they understand MAD as well as anyone and I see nothing to suggest that a similar stalemate will not occur between Israel and Iran. Indeed, such a stalemate might restore a bit of peace and dignity in the area and allow space for more meaningful negotiations.
In short, I think we need to take careful and measured steps assisting where we can and have the sense to know what the limits are. This is not a race.
Seems some people will always find a reason to excuse murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
This sounds so familiar..... Wasn't that what Kerry said about Vietnam (or words close)... he was branded a traitor and accused of insulting all the vets.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
So who shall die? a squad of marines or a terrorist? protecting one's self is not murder. I don't consider insurgents killing marines murder; it's warfare.
happy birthday, BTW, hope your having a ball :)
So..
when is Riordan planning on going into the Utah and the Bible Belt.. ?
The Churches tell em which way to vote there dun they? :whistling
http://www.anywhichway.net/images/sm...mnotworthy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles