Ce sujet est fermé
Grog415 wrote...
The way that the Iraqis put the hurt on the USA, I wouldn't advize taking on some real fanatics with better weaponws. just some friendly advice.
You are thinking in wasted lives alone, now expand your thoughts to Global influence, economically, Nuclear Iran, and bankrupt USA.....Jalem001 wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
The way that the Iraqis put the hurt on the USA, I wouldn't advize taking on some real fanatics with better weaponws. just some friendly advice.
Yeah because some 4,000 Americans killed is somehow hurting to the around 100,000 we've killed both during and after the invasion.
Grog415 wrote...
You are thinking in wasted lives alone, now expand your thoughts to Global influence, economically, Nuclear Iran, and bankrupt USA.....Jalem001 wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
The way that the Iraqis put the hurt on the USA, I wouldn't advize taking on some real fanatics with better weaponws. just some friendly advice.
Yeah because some 4,000 Americans killed is somehow hurting to the around 100,000 we've killed both during and after the invasion.
Do you really think that 2 years after the US pulls out, that Iraq will not be a dictatorship, that is the muslim way.
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Bann Duncan wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are all examples.
Don't presume to know Islamic legal structures; keep in mind that most of the repressive regimes of the Middle East came into power often by purposefully disenfranchising the religious establishment.
Jalem001 wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are all examples.
Don't presume to know Islamic legal structures; keep in mind that most of the repressive regimes of the Middle East came into power often by purposefully disenfranchising the religious establishment.
Those are poor examples. Almost as bad as calling Iran democratic.
Iraq is at its keypoint at this very moment. The opposition won the elections, narrowly, and the current Prime Minister is calling foul. Its Secular Shiites and Sunnis vs Religious Shiites. If Iraq can see a peaceful change of power, then their democracy will survive. If not, then it calls into question if Arab culture is ready for democracy (too much emphasis on winning and having power at all costs).
Bann Duncan wrote...
Jalem001 wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are all examples.
Don't presume to know Islamic legal structures; keep in mind that most of the repressive regimes of the Middle East came into power often by purposefully disenfranchising the religious establishment.
Those are poor examples. Almost as bad as calling Iran democratic.
Iraq is at its keypoint at this very moment. The opposition won the elections, narrowly, and the current Prime Minister is calling foul. Its Secular Shiites and Sunnis vs Religious Shiites. If Iraq can see a peaceful change of power, then their democracy will survive. If not, then it calls into question if Arab culture is ready for democracy (too much emphasis on winning and having power at all costs).
I know those are poor examples, but it is a myth that Muslim countries are by and large acting in accordance with the Islamic example. There's a quite clear Islamic and Arab precedent for democracy (if you read the history, you'll find that this is why the Shi'a broke away from the Islamic mainstream - they would not accept an elected ruler)
It has to be taken into account that most countries in the Middle East were provinces of the Ottoman Empire, wherein the administrative structures were located in Istanbul. Due to Woodrow Wilson's idiotic commitment to nation states, a variety of small countries with no history of running their own affairs were formed out of the ashes of the Austrio-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires - the legacy of this breakup can be linked to most of the world's problems today. There is no precedent for, say, an independent Iraq, because it was always part of a greater whole.
Modifié par Borschtbeet, 28 mars 2010 - 09:23 .
<=== Ahem. Malaysian, btw. If you want to ask specific details on any subject, fire away. But in the meanwhile...Grog415 wrote...
Maylasia, let's see, despot charges rival with sodamy and imprisons him on trumped up charges. Indonesia, Suharto-Sukarno..... yes I read history. The followers of the poedophile prophet are not big on electing leaders.
Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 28 mars 2010 - 09:43 .
What the hell are you talking about? Indonesia is an excellent example of a democracy.Jalem001 wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are all examples.
Don't presume to know Islamic legal structures; keep in mind that most of the repressive regimes of the Middle East came into power often by purposefully disenfranchising the religious establishment.
Those are poor examples. Almost as bad as calling Iran democratic.
Iraq is at its keypoint at this very moment. The opposition won the elections, narrowly, and the current Prime Minister is calling foul. Its Secular Shiites and Sunnis vs Religious Shiites. If Iraq can see a peaceful change of power, then their democracy will survive. If not, then it calls into question if Arab culture is ready for democracy (too much emphasis on winning and having power at all costs).
bobobo878 wrote...
For it to be WWIII wouldn't someone have to come to NK's aid?
Borschtbeet wrote...
bobobo878 wrote...
For it to be WWIII wouldn't someone have to come to NK's aid?
Yes, and that is why North Korea is not going to start a World War. They are a nation of about 22 million people and they are the most isolated nation in the world by far.
The only nation that is even somewhat friendly to them is China, but that would change instantly if North Korea were to pre-emptively strike at a nation.
Godak wrote...
Borschtbeet wrote...
bobobo878 wrote...
For it to be WWIII wouldn't someone have to come to NK's aid?
Yes, and that is why North Korea is not going to start a World War. They are a nation of about 22 million people and they are the most isolated nation in the world by far.
The only nation that is even somewhat friendly to them is China, but that would change instantly if North Korea were to pre-emptively strike at a nation.
Yes, let's face facts. If NK were to strike at SK, then SK would roll right over them. The South Korean army is one of the most modern military forces in the world, and SK has a population of about 50 million. NK is using outdated equipment, and they have trouble feeding their 22 million people as is.
bobobo878 wrote...
North Korea has one of the world's largest armies, but many of their troops are already starving. They probably wouldn't survive the march to Seoul.
bobobo878 wrote...
What the hell are you talking about? Indonesia is an excellent example of a democracy.Jalem001 wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
Grog415 wrote...
name a muslim true democracy, or even an elected, representative government that is muslim. The only exception maybe Turkey, and that is because they desperately want into the EU.
Besides the Chinese masters will not let you attack their neighbour.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are all examples.
Don't presume to know Islamic legal structures; keep in mind that most of the repressive regimes of the Middle East came into power often by purposefully disenfranchising the religious establishment.
Those are poor examples. Almost as bad as calling Iran democratic.
Iraq is at its keypoint at this very moment. The opposition won the elections, narrowly, and the current Prime Minister is calling foul. Its Secular Shiites and Sunnis vs Religious Shiites. If Iraq can see a peaceful change of power, then their democracy will survive. If not, then it calls into question if Arab culture is ready for democracy (too much emphasis on winning and having power at all costs).
I'd rather live in Turkey than live in the Christo-fascist paradise the republicans wish to turn the USA into.
Modifié par Jalem001, 28 mars 2010 - 09:50 .
Modifié par Borschtbeet, 28 mars 2010 - 09:51 .
Borschtbeet wrote...
So you're discounting Turkey because it's secular? So you want us to give an example of a non-secular, western style democracy that is majority Islamic? That isn't possible. Secularism is an essential tenet of any democratic nation as you can't have religious freedom in a nation that gives special preference to one religion over all the others. Right wingers don't understand this which is why they want the USA to be a Christian theocracy.
Turkey's success is proof that the Islamic people can embrace democracy and your refusal to acknowledge it's success is proof that you just want to vilify all Muslims. You're just as bad as the Muslim extremists. No doubt if you could have your way we'd be nuking every nation on the planet just because they have Muslims in it.
Modifié par Jalem001, 28 mars 2010 - 10:01 .
Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...
<=== Ahem. Malaysian, btw. If you want to ask specific details on any subject, fire away. But in the meanwhile...Grog415 wrote...
Maylasia, let's see, despot charges rival with sodamy and imprisons him on trumped up charges. Indonesia, Suharto-Sukarno..... yes I read history. The followers of the poedophile prophet are not big on electing leaders.
I think you might want to differentiate between religious politics and authoritarian / totalitarian / dictatorial politics (which can happen anytime and anywhere, and may or or may not depend on a specific ideology). Take, for example, Singapore which is pretty much a First World city-state, very economically successful, secular and 'democratic' for all intents and purposes - yet there are obviously limited political freedoms and the leaders manipulate judiciary and the law to stay in power. No religion there; instead, the primary reasoning is that "economic development would be disrupted by too much democracy". Or consider Marcos who rose to dictatorial status in the Philippines, a country where Roman Catholicism is the main religion, and where the US historically has had a significant presence and influence. I would hardly use that example to demonstrate how "followers of Christianity are not big on electing leaders", hm?
(By the way, religious politics is not all that characterizes Malaysia. Racial, cultural, and historically institutional - to some extent neofeudalist - politics play a huge part in the rise, fall and sustenance of figures like Mahathir, but unless you want a full history lesson I won't go into that. Again, religious identity is not all that defines a state, its institutions and its people.)
Furthermore, things change with the times. Malaysia came to full independence in 1963, established a government and (while flawed) more or less secular constitution based on the British parliamentary system, and it was only during the 1980s when the Islamic revivalist wave came about that religious politics began to influence folks more and more. Also, it may interest you to know that democracy in Indonesia is said to be improving these days (certainly it's still far from perfect, but on some levels they've even overtaken the Philippines). Honestly, governments and culture and religion are hardly static; it all depends on individual context and circumstance, and what people decide consciously or unconsciously to do with their lives.
On your highly generalized statement that the "followers of the poedophile prophet are not big on electing leaders", consider how democracy may flourish or wane in various contexts (and not just religious). Maybe people can't choose to elect their leaders because they're oppressed in some way. Maybe for them democracy is less important than trying to survive on a daily basis. Maybe awareness of and desire to pursue political freedoms is low due to a lack of certain aspects vital for a thriving democracy (i.e. lack of a culture of public debate or intellectual exchange, lack of activist culture and organizations, institutional oppression, fear of government retribution, etc). I hope you reconsider your argument.
Jalem001 wrote...
Borschtbeet wrote...
So you're discounting Turkey because it's secular? So you want us to give an example of a non-secular, western style democracy that is majority Islamic? That isn't possible. Secularism is an essential tenet of any democratic nation as you can't have religious freedom in a nation that gives special preference to one religion over all the others. Right wingers don't understand this which is why they want the USA to be a Christian theocracy.
Turkey's success is proof that the Islamic people can embrace democracy and your refusal to acknowledge it's success is proof that you just want to vilify all Muslims. You're just as bad as the Muslim extremists. No doubt if you could have your way we'd be nuking every nation on the planet just because they have Muslims in it.
No, Turkey is discounted because of its long history of secularism because NO OTHER ISLAMIC NATION HAS THAT SAME HISTORY. Its the exception, not the rule.
Other nations have transitioned from religiously oppressive states to successful Democracies at the drop of a hat. Japan and the US are great examples (Most, if not all, of the US Colonies had state religions and were vehmently anti-Catholic).
You can try to twist this however you want, and rant all you want. I am a firm believer that Iraq will prove that an Islamic nation can be a successful democracy, but I'm not about to lie to myself and pretend that Islam has a good example of freedom and democracy.
Also since I'm a neocon who believes in spreading Democracy wouldn't nuking be decisively against my ideology? Keep talking though, it makes you look more unhinged.
Borschtbeet wrote...
Jalem001 wrote...
Borschtbeet wrote...
So you're discounting Turkey because it's secular? So you want us to give an example of a non-secular, western style democracy that is majority Islamic? That isn't possible. Secularism is an essential tenet of any democratic nation as you can't have religious freedom in a nation that gives special preference to one religion over all the others. Right wingers don't understand this which is why they want the USA to be a Christian theocracy.
Turkey's success is proof that the Islamic people can embrace democracy and your refusal to acknowledge it's success is proof that you just want to vilify all Muslims. You're just as bad as the Muslim extremists. No doubt if you could have your way we'd be nuking every nation on the planet just because they have Muslims in it.
No, Turkey is discounted because of its long history of secularism because NO OTHER ISLAMIC NATION HAS THAT SAME HISTORY. Its the exception, not the rule.
Other nations have transitioned from religiously oppressive states to successful Democracies at the drop of a hat. Japan and the US are great examples (Most, if not all, of the US Colonies had state religions and were vehmently anti-Catholic).
You can try to twist this however you want, and rant all you want. I am a firm believer that Iraq will prove that an Islamic nation can be a successful democracy, but I'm not about to lie to myself and pretend that Islam has a good example of freedom and democracy.
Also since I'm a neocon who believes in spreading Democracy wouldn't nuking be decisively against my ideology? Keep talking though, it makes you look more unhinged.
So your argument is that Islam does not have a good relation with democracy. Well no ****, but since when does any religion have a good relation with democracy? Religion has nothing to do with democracy which is why the most successful democracies in the world such as ours and Turkey's have secular constitutions.
You're making it out as if the middle east's problem with democracy is an Islamic problem when in reality it is due to a lack of secularism.
The reason why nations with Christian populations still have secular governments is because nobody in the developed world takes religion that seriously. Only exception are the bat**** insane republicans who want to put prayer in public schools and outlaw the teachings of evolution. The middle east should serve as an example of why we should not want to empower such people.
As for your last question, a neocon doesn't necessarily believe in spreading democracy. They believe in using our military might to assure global dominance. You wouldn't be the first neocon to advocate the use of nuclear weapons against people who dissagree with US policy. Not by a long shot.
Retour en haut
