Machinesworking wrote:hey rob, instead of doing the quote thing.... just a reply to you points.
Saudi Arabia, we could if we wanted to change that country. From what I understand the king there is so hated locally and in neighboring countries that the common belief in the middle east is that the only reason he's in power at all, is that it's considered a fact that we would come to his rescue if a coup was to happen.
Suadi Arabia are heavily invested in the US and also heavily in debt to the US. This is where Michael Moore is spinning completely in Fahrenheit 911, his assertion that Saudi Arabia is actually in control of the relationship because of huge investments in US business. The fact is they are in billions to trillions of dollars in debt to the US, and we have them by the short hairs.
We could force the king to step down from power there, move them towards the situation you see with England, where the queen is a powerful figurehead rather than a political despot. It wouldn't be easy, but it would establish the US as a country that means what it says.
the only real problem with this, besides us doing even more of what we are currently being accused of with military/forceable action to another country, is that the current rulers of Saudi Arabia are actually more moderate towards us than the people are. Which means that if you free the people to go towards what they will, they will immediately be swallowed up by wahabists who are clearly part of the problem (i.e. the very radical strain that breeds hatred towards jews and america in general).
So, until they begin to change their internal standards over a period of time, it does us no good by removing the very thing that is keeping their society in check and not spiraling into an active jihadist state with direct and active sponsorhip.
i could be wrong about saudi arabia, but this is what I understand. If anyone knows that country's situation more clearly than I, please pop in and let us know.
Machinesworking wrote:
China is moving, very very slowly, towards democracy and a free market. It's why I believe they will succeed. I don;t blame them for that, russia proved that jumping in just gives power to the mob, and can splinter your country.
yes, this is more ideal. China, I hope, will be a friend and ally at some point in the future. But they tend to think in terms of generations, so it will be a long time before (if ever) they become like the U.K. or Australia is to us. A case in point: Taiwan.
This will be forever a point of consternation between us and them as it immediately reveals the differences between us and them (w/ regard to what we consider important). This will take time and hopefully, if all goes well, it will be a model of how a society transforms itself without a bloody revolution.
Machinesworking wrote:
Doing these sort of things does in fact stop fundamentalists from having power. If people are happy they don't fall for it. As an example here in the states Pat Robertson declares that we should execute Hugo Chavez on public television. He's our version of the Taliban, but because we are prosperous and mostly well fed, we laugh and react in astonishment when he says things that are sickeningly fascistic.
Sure his supporters are all about him being right etc. but they aren't boarding planes and heading to Venezuela to carry out his plans. Mainly because they don't feel that threatened by Chavez. they are comfortable.
I don't agree with the happy part and how that will stop terrorism. Being happy is immaterial to whether you think things are running the way you think they should. This is where ideology comes into play and why relatively well to do people succumb to radical ideologies - they are attached to ideas, not wealth. And when religion is put into the mix (and being saved, sent to virginal heaven or whatnot) it is even more potent.
This is evidenced in the U.K. and Germany and even places like Japan (subway terrorist attacks). Its about political aims and ideology, not if you have food on your plate and have a nice TV. Those things are secondary to an Islamist radical (who is easily swayed, under the rhertoric and belief system, to die for their cause).
Increasingly, the excuse of radicalized islamists for U.S. Non-intervention in the middle east, the removal of Isreal, and our subsequent reaction to 9/11 by invasion is nothing more than
additional fuel to their argument that democracy, liberalism, western culture is wrong and should be
eradicated.
this is the true goal of radicalized islamists (who are sometimes correctly discribed as fascists): they wish the elimination of democracy and in its place, sharia law and all the totalitarianism that goes along with that.
these are ideas, not ways to get wealth or be happy with materialism, this is about principles of what one thinks about how people should rule and under what mandate (a people powered constitution vs. law handed down by prophet on behalf of god).
Machinesworking wrote:
You cannot install democracy by force, and sadly, in heavily ethnically divided countries like Iraq, it will not work. Do you think that the Sunnis are going to be treated nicely by the Shiites once we leave?
Saddamn believes we will not execute him because he has dealt with the ethnic strife in his country for years. It's insanity on his part to a degree, but the reasoning is solid.
Japan and Germany were different in the simple fact that they had a national identity, the middle eastern people have many ethnic loyalties. Also, the events were distinct, we were attacked by countries then, not rebel terrorist cells.
You are absolutely right. I don't disagree with the idea that civil war could erupt in Iraq based on the ideas you wrote above. A national identity is important.
BUT, and this is a big ol' butt, we don't have a choice at this point. The first priority was to remove Saddam with the second priority (after removing him) was putting in place a representative government. The reasoning behind that, of course, was that it was more of a risk to leave him in power rather than the risk of a destablized Iraq.
But we haven't left yet, we are still trying, and more importantly, large masses of Iraqi's are trying and do see the benefits of a putting in a modern, representative government. Right now, it is a test of wills and I am glad to hear Bush say we aren't leaving. We have a moral obligation to see this through on their behalf.
Bigger problems would be on the horizon for them if we left prematurely. I suspect the next president of the U.S. will do exactly as Bush is doing in this area despite their political party affiliation.
Machinesworking wrote:
Terrorist cells feed on people believing that their way of life is threatened to the point that they have to do something about it. You can't decide that fascists or fundamentalists don't have a right to exist and try to force that, it just makes them stronger. There is very little terrorist activity in the USA, only the racists, and while they are a problem, they don;t have a huge following.
Point is we can in fact win a war on terrorism by giving them nothing to complain about. they don't hate us because of our "freedom", they hate us because we don't care about their freedom, yet claim to.
I disagree with this. Go watch and read the interviews with their leadership (hamas, al q., hezb, president of iran, etc. read the teachings of thier imams and mullahs and you will see a much more deviant picture of how they view the west and what the goals are with islamism. This isn't about getting us to care about their freedom, this is about them having the freedom to spread their version of sharia, caliphate, and radicalized islam throughout the world. We are far beyond the claims of reperation - and in fact, we are not the cause of their lacking freedom per se. If anything they could as easily point the finger towards their own fascist governments, but this has not occured because the rulers of these countries not only sold out their own people but were savvy enough to lay the blame (partly correctly) back on the west and the U.S. and Isreal. Demonization of the west is the best way to blame your issues on an outide "devil" like the U.S. without taking responsibility.
hence my point on the region being world class poor and yet so much money is generated by the world's number one resource. Not strange how that happened...
Machinesworking wrote:
We get rid of the king of Suadi Arabia, let them establish a government, and defend their right to exist with as much zeal as we do Israel, and you would see a change in terrorist activity.
We hand over Iraq to the UN and NATO, back down from taking control of their oil reserves. We commit to working with democratically elected leaders despite our dislike of them personally, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we show the middle east we are willing, then we will see change. Until then, I doubt anything will change, except that simple fact, in fifty years nuclear power will be available to any despot, and our actions now can make us a target.
totally disagree with this based on my points above. I wish it were so easy. For instance, take this example:
isreal pulls out of lebannon. Hezb. was formed as a reaction to the occupation. More than a decade later, Hebollah has no right to claim fighting an occupation, but still insists that its mission is to push Isreal into the ocean. Why?
Because it isn't about land or identity, its about the ideology of what Isreal represents and its relationship to the west (in particular, the U.S.). Why can't they leave it alone? Not in the agenda according to Nasrallah and his overlord, President of Iran...
Machinesworking wrote:
I have to get back to music, so I might not get back to you today or tomorrow, but it's definitely an interesting conversation. You really aren't as much of an apologist as some have made you out to be? Can't figure that one out? and I'm pretty much a person who believes in a democratic system with a socialist government, and gently restrained free market economy. (Microsoft should have lost that government lawsuit, and Enron shouldn't have been allowed near anything as important to the people as electricity!)
word. Good discussion. If it could only have gone half as well with koo koo and the like. Mutual respect is good, even if we disagree. Its wrong to push a brotha into the corner with unrelated personal attacks, IMO.
rob.
